# Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 15, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16510"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16510">Tweet</a></div>
We were told almost immediately after the announcement of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">EF 16-35 f/4L IS</a> that Canon is indeed working on an f/2.8 ultra wide angle zoom. The lens will be wider than 16mm, although the exact optical formula is not known. We have heard in the past that an EF 12-24 f/2.8L  or <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/" target="_blank">EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> was in the works to compete with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G, which some Canon shooters have converted to their EOS bodies.</p>
<p>It was stressed that the lens was “not close” to being announced, and would probably arrive within 6 months of a higher megapixel full frame prosumer camera body.</p>
<p>We’re also told that the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 17-40 f/4L</a> will remain a current product in the Canon lineup for the time being. Although with how close they are in price, which I’m still surprised about. I can’t see many people not savings a bit longer for the new lens. This may be a matter of depleting stock before discontinuation.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS $1199:</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=6AVWEQKBYJ7TXPHU" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></strong> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA16354.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## FunPhotons (May 15, 2014)

Choices, choices ... this is the year of the UWA zoom. 

Do you want IS, IQ and filters, or less range, slightly lower range, another stop and a big, bulbous nose?


----------



## YehiOrLightBe (May 15, 2014)

After reading for ages I took now the time to register and would like to ask:

Does [CR2] also apply to "a higher megapixel full frame prosumer camera body" - and what could that be?

This forum is so full of inspiration regarding photography - thank you all.

Thomas


----------



## DRR (May 15, 2014)

Isn't there generally a patent that surfaces a few months before a lens is announced and then ships?

Have there been any patents by Canon that correlate with this range/aperture?


----------



## Khalai (May 15, 2014)

DRR said:


> Isn't there generally a patent that surfaces a few months before a lens is announced and then ships?
> 
> Have there been any patents by Canon that correlate with this range/aperture?



Quite many actually AFAIK. I've seen many patents and rumors about either 14-24/2.8 or even 12-24/2.8 on this web past few months/years.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 15, 2014)

More options...Uhmmmmm, sounds good to me


----------



## Etienne (May 15, 2014)

A lot of people will want both the 16-35 f/4L IS and a 12-24 f/2.8 ....

...like me  

Time to start selling stuff


----------



## docsmith (May 15, 2014)

Love the idea of the updates. But I wonder if Canon's plan is to keep size and weight down with f/2.8 zooms (rumored 12/14-24 L and the 24-70 II) so they will not have IS and f/4 (16-35 f/4 IS; 24-70/105 f/4), requiring less glass, will have IS. 

If that is the case, my decision is simple, the 16-35 f/4 IS. Four stops of IS will be much more useful to me for landscapes than 1 stop of aperture. 

Glad I've held off on buying my UWA zoom lens.


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re also told that the Canon EF 17-40 f/4L will remain a current product in the Canon lineup for the time being. Although with how close they are in price, which I’m still surprised about. I can’t see many people not savings a bit longer for the new lens.



Not a surprise at all to me. the EF 17-40 is currently selling for $739 after rebate. Bring it down to $650 and it makes a nice alternative to the new 16-45 "L" for those who want an ultra-wide for occasional use, but don't need IS or razor sharp corners. The extra 5mm at the long end also makes it more versatile as a "walk around" lens. 

Canon has kept the 70-200mm f4 non-IS in the lineup at a similar price differential and IS is far more important on a telephoto than an ultra-wide.


----------



## Phenix205 (May 15, 2014)

For travel landscape shooting, the 16-35 4L IS is perfect. The IS makes hand held slow shutter speed and low ISO possible which is great. For serious landscape work, really should be looking at the TS-E or Zeiss lenses. For event and photojournalism, the new 2.8 would be the choice to stop the motion.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 15, 2014)

In the US the prices maybe close but in Europe they are not £ 1,199 for the 16-35mm f4L and £ 629 for the 17-40mm f4L thats a big difference. Interestingly the 16-35mm f2.8 II is £ 1,214 only £ 15.00 more ($ 25) 
Go figure European pricing!

Compare that to the B&H prices which are $ 1,699 for the 16-35mm f4L and $ 839 for the 17-40mm f4L


----------



## Dukinald (May 15, 2014)

Sounds like holding off on the 17-40 was the right decision :


----------



## ewg963 (May 15, 2014)

Ok ok now this is what I've been waiting for....


----------



## Random Orbits (May 15, 2014)

Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?


----------



## Etienne (May 15, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?



Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:

1. 12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L 
2. 16-35 f/4L IS (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3. 16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)

I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS. But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love). The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 15, 2014)

Khalai said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't there generally a patent that surfaces a few months before a lens is announced and then ships?
> ...



I've seen rumors, and the continual link of one patent which doesn't have a 14-24/2.8 embodiment at all with it.

so i'd be curious on these many patents.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 15, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?
> ...



I could see this more than i could see the 16-35/2.8 being dropped from the lens lineup - this is a very useful lens that accepts filters.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 15, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?
> ...



I think the 17-40L will stay, and so will the 16-35 II. The 12/4-24 and 16-35 will be additions.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 15, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



same.

with the 17-40 and the 24-105 sticking around, canon doesn't have to create any cheap consumer lenses for full frame for now.


----------



## C-mon (May 15, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> In the US the prices maybe close but in Europe they are not £ 1,199 for the 16-35mm f4L and £ 629 for the 17-40mm f4L thats a big difference. Interestingly the 16-35mm f2.8 II is £ 1,214 only £ 15.00 more ($ 25)
> Go figure European pricing!
> 
> Compare that to the B&H prices which are $ 1,699 for the 16-35mm f4L and $ 839 for the 17-40mm f4L



I have checked German prices and they are from 1249 EUR for 16-35 f2.8L II and 1019 EUR for 16-35 for f4.0L (preorder, I expect that the price will drop under 1000 EUR soon) with VAT.


----------



## Etienne (May 15, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



They won't disappear immediately, but I can't see either the 17-40 or the 24-105 sticking around too much longer. I have a 24-105, but if I was buying today, I'd get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the 24-105. The new lenses are much better, why not pay a few extra $


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2014)

Etienne said:


> They won't disappear immediately, but I can't see either the 17-40 or the 24-105 sticking around too much longer. I have a 24-105, but if I was buying today, I'd get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the 24-105. The new lenses are much better, why not pay a few extra $



Possibly because they are more versatile. For me, 24-70 is just too short for a decent walk all-around lens to keep on the camera most of the time. The 16-35 is pretty close to 17-40, so that may not be as much of an issue. But, still, 40mm can come a lot closer to serving as a "normal" lens than 35mm.

I agree with others who have said they like a little overlap on their lenses, so there isn't as much switching needed when you're out and about.

I guess it just depends on what your individual needs and preferences are, but Canon does seem to like to keep a lot of lenses in their lineup. I suspect that at this point the 24-105mm, 17-40mm, 70-200 f4 non-IS, 100-400, 300 f4, etc. etc. are cash cows that contribute to the bottom line well above their pay grade.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 15, 2014)

Etienne said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Think 70-200 non-IS vs IS. Many might not NEED the improved IQ or IS, and the price point is important. I do see the 17-40L getting a bit cheaper, btw.


----------



## Ruined (May 15, 2014)

I know there is a lot of interest in a revamp of the 16-35 f/2.8 II that has the same IQ as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I really don't think it is going to happen anytime remotely soon though, and here is why:

Time between 24-70 I and 24-70 II: 10 years
24-70 I designed in 2002.
24-70 II increased size of front element, and total number of elements
Difference? Massive.

Time between 16-35 I and 16-35 II: 6 years
16-35 I designed in 2001.
16-35 II increased size of front element, total number of groups and elements, new coatings, etc
Difference? Only somewhat better, nowhere near the improvement 24-70 made.
16-35 II is 7 years old.

Given that the 16-35 II is a fairly recent design, being released the same year as the jaw-dropping 85L II, and the fact that ver2 was not largely better than ver1 despite larger front element, more total elements, new coatings, etc - indicates to me that 16-35mm f/2.8 is extremely difficult to get super sharpness from the wide end without a bulbous element. Every example of a similar zoom range I've heard people trumpet as being super sharp had that bulbous element.

IMO, for reportage and event photography a bulbous element is undesirable. It sticks out and is not able to handle as much rough and tough action as a regular lens; you don't even have the option of attaching a protective. People/objects banging into your camera and all. And if you use them, no screw in ND filters or CPL with a bulbous either, instead requiring a contraption for ND filters.

So while a 16-35 f/2.8 with much better performance is likely possible, it likely would also require a bulbous front element. The minimal improvement despite the size increase and number of elements increased between v1 and v2 makes it look to me that that sort of design is getting near as good as it gets.

If anyone can point to a non-bulbous 16-35 f/2.8 that destroys the 16-35 II in image quality, I would be interested in seeing it. If not, that might be your answer right there.

A lineup that would make sense to me:

*
17-40 f/4 - Budget
16-35 f/4 IS - Landscape photography
16-35 f/2.8 II - Event photography/reportage
14-24 f/2.8 (or 12-24) w/ bulbous element - Extreme landscape photography*

If Canon came out with a 16-35 III, even if it looked as good as the Nikon 14-24 I'm sure some landscape photographers would be disappointed because it didn't go as wide... So I think that would be a bigger hit than a 16-35 III.


----------



## ME (May 15, 2014)

YehiOrLightBe said:


> After reading for ages I took now the time to register and would like to ask:
> 
> Does [CR2] also apply to "a higher megapixel full frame prosumer camera body" - and what could that be?
> 
> ...



I too am curious about the new camera portion of that statement. I am thinking that since the lens release is (supposedly) dependent on the release of the new camera, then the camera release is a CR2 also. But who knows. I am more interested in the new camera portion of that rumor than the new lens release. Like you, I dont know how seriously to take that statement. Welcome to CR


----------



## wickidwombat (May 15, 2014)

16-35 f2.8 IS

please put IS on some fast glass is that too much to ask?


----------



## Etienne (May 16, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I know there is a lot of interest in a revamp of the 16-35 f/2.8 II that has the same IQ as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
> 
> I really don't think it is going to happen anytime remotely soon though, and here is why:
> 
> ...


I don't know why an f/4 lens can get great mtf results without a bulbous lens, but an f/2.8 would need a bulbous front. At 16mm the angles are the same. .. but I don't design lenses, you might be right. Anyway is good to have choices, but the new 16-35mm looks like it will produce sharper more contrasty shots than either of the existing lenses


----------



## Ruined (May 16, 2014)

Etienne said:


> I don't know why an f/4 lens can get great mtf results without a bulbous lens, but an f/2.8 would need a bulbous front. At 16mm the angles are the same. .. but I don't design lenses, you might be right. Anyway is good to have choices, but the new 16-35mm looks like it will produce sharper more contrasty shots than either of the existing lenses



Just worth pointing out, Nikon has the same deal.

16-35 f/4 VR - sharp
17-35 f/2.8 (flat) - weak corners (actually worse than Canon's corners with more CA).
14-24 f/2.8 (bulbous) - sharp

Also other third party f/2.8 lenses I've heard people compare the 16-35 II to that are sharper with similar range have been bulbous.

I am not a lens designer either but a trend appears to have formed.


----------



## timcz (May 16, 2014)

Sounds like we will get something pretty similar to Nikons current lineup then. My guess will be the two new lenses, and the 16-35 II prob sticking around for the more event/PJ stuff (where the corners probably dont matter as much).

Im more interested in the "higher mp prosumer body"


----------



## sanj (May 16, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> For travel landscape shooting, the 16-35 4L IS is perfect. The IS makes hand held slow shutter speed and low ISO possible which is great. For serious landscape work, really should be looking at the TS-E or Zeiss lenses. For event and photojournalism, the new 2.8 would be the choice to stop the motion.



16-35 IS promises to be great for the most serious of the serious landscape work. At f8 I urge you to show me any difference between the Canon and any other lens.


----------



## sanj (May 16, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Same same


----------



## rrcphoto (May 16, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why an f/4 lens can get great mtf results without a bulbous lens, but an f/2.8 would need a bulbous front. At 16mm the angles are the same. .. but I don't design lenses, you might be right. Anyway is good to have choices, but the new 16-35mm looks like it will produce sharper more contrasty shots than either of the existing lenses
> ...


14 2.8 bulbous .. not that sharp at the corners. that has little bearing on the lens sharpness but more to do with FOV.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 16, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I know there is a lot of interest in a revamp of the 16-35 f/2.8 II that has the same IQ as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
> 
> I really don't think it is going to happen anytime remotely soon though, and here is why:
> 
> ...


canon added a bunch of super wide / ultra wide patients. they also changed alot of their lens R&D and development technology.

the fact of the matter is .. if canon can come up with a 14-24 then they can certainly improve on a 16-35 - and that certainly needs it more .. first.


----------



## 278204 (May 16, 2014)

Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?


----------



## climber (May 16, 2014)

sposh said:


> Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?



For night sky, f/2.8 is nice to have.


----------



## Malm (May 16, 2014)

Concerning the bulbous front element:

At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.


----------



## 278204 (May 16, 2014)

(Veering a bit off-topic here, sorry) Only done night sky a couple of times and chose f8. What do you get at wider apertures? Is the idea to stop the stars streaking?


----------



## Ruined (May 16, 2014)

Malm said:


> Concerning the bulbous front element:
> 
> At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.



ok, yes a couple of things:
1) prime as you stated so totally different
2) not bulbous but requires 95mm filter - 16-35 II 82mm
3) no autofocus

I know for an event photographer likely all three of these compromises would be a deal killer. Canon's last improvement to the 16-35 included increasing the front element so that it required 82mm filters instead of 77mm. While further improvements could be made likely by going beyond 82mm, question is do people want this for event photography/reportage as some already complain the current 82mm is too big.

might make more sense to focus on landscape who would probably prefer wider than 16mm and wouldn't care about front element size/shape.


----------



## ewg963 (May 16, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Malm said:
> 
> 
> > Concerning the bulbous front element:
> ...


 +1


----------



## Sabaki (May 16, 2014)

Thing is this lens must happen and performance must not be compromised. 

I believe that if this lens delivers unparalleled performance, filters will happen.

I started my photographic journey three years back and from the reviews, the user feedback I read, there were three lenses that were considered necessary but were not loved. Canon 50mm f/1.4, 24-70 f/2.8 mki and the 16-35mm f/2.8 mkii. 

Hopefully the 50mm f/1.4 will have a story that unfurls like the 24-70's did. The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkii has changed sentiment across the photographic community. From comments like 'necessary workhorse' to 'I don't like the 24-70 but I need it for my work', the mkii has people raving! It's as good as the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii and has become as desired. 

Canon need to acknowledge that the 16-35 f/2.8ii needs similar treatment. They need to keep in the back of their minds that professional togs who spend big money on equipment sometimes buy Tamron or Sigma UWA because their flagship lens underperforms. 

I for one am extremely hopeful, judging by the new 16-35 f/4.0, I believe that Canon has a recipe for success. I've got my fingers crossed.


----------



## pedro (May 16, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16510"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16510">Tweet</a></div>
> We were told almost immediately after the announcement of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">EF 16-35 f/4L IS</a> that Canon is indeed working on an f/2.8 ultra wide angle zoom. The lens will be wider than 16mm, although the exact optical formula is not known. We have heard in the past that an EF 12-24 f/2.8L or <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/" target="_blank">EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> was in the works to compete with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G, which some Canon shooters have converted to their EOS bodies.</p>
> <p>It was stressed that the lens was “not close” to being announced, and would probably arrive within 6 months of a higher megapixel full frame prosumer camera body.</p>
> <p>We’re also told that the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 17-40 f/4L</a> will remain a current product in the Canon lineup for the time being. Although with how close they are in price, which I’m still surprised about. I can’t see many people not savings a bit longer for the new lens. This may be a matter of depleting stock before discontinuation.</p>
> ...



sounds fine. the 12-24 F/2.8 plus the 5DIV as a christmas announcement? but unfortunately this looks like a 6-6.5k $ package...or am I wrong. I guess Canon will ask at least 2k US$ for the new lens, or even more...?


----------



## stefsan (May 16, 2014)

sposh said:


> (Veering a bit off-topic here, sorry) Only done night sky a couple of times and chose f8. What do you get at wider apertures? Is the idea to stop the stars streaking?



Exactly. If you wish to get a nice shot where you can see the Milky Way above a nice bit of landscape you want to to have a fast ultra wide angle lens to minimize exposure times and lessen the need to use high ISOs. And in a perfect world this UWA lens would give you really good corner sharpness and no coma aberration (optical aberration distorting the stars in the corner to oblong splotches).
If the 16-36 f4 would deliver that kind of optical quality/sharpness across the whole frame (FF), I would be willing to give up f2.8 :


----------



## pierlux (May 16, 2014)

climber said:


> sposh said:
> 
> 
> > Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?
> ...



For moving subjects. IS does not help stopping motion blur when elements in the scene are moving, it only compensates for the camera/lens shake. Photojournalists may prefer a f/2.8 non-IS lens over a f/4 IS one; to them, distorsion is a minor issue compared to motion blur.


----------



## Cali_PH (May 16, 2014)

Ruined said:


> might make more sense to focus on landscape who would probably prefer wider than 16mm and wouldn't care about front element size/shape.



A bulbous front element could matter to many that use filters, common in landscape photography. It would most likely be incompatible with the few existing holders designed for bulbous elements, meaning a potentially long wait for someone to come up with one for the new lens. Even if it happens to work with one of the existing ones, they're expensive and require larger, very expensive filters.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 16, 2014)

The ultra wide fund has been accumulating since the release in 2007 with the Nikon 14-24...already pre-ordered the 16-35 f/4 IS and I'll pre-order the 14-24 or 12-24 as well! 

Who says you need to pick between them?! There are different purposes of both and I'll sure as hell use both! 

14-24 - astro/night/architecture (yes even still alongside the 17mm ts-e)/interiors(big difference between 14mm and 16mm!)/indoor events(2.8 faster for motion w/ or without flash)
16-35 - waterfalls (full ND filters)/landscape (longer zoom range for versatility on limited trails or dusty/sandy conditions with the extra protection need of a front filter)/walk around casual hand holding outdoor events


----------



## tron (May 16, 2014)

climber said:


> sposh said:
> 
> 
> > Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?
> ...


+1, plus it has to be coma free


----------



## rs (May 16, 2014)

sposh said:


> Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?


Opening up the aperture doesn't just reduce the depth of field - it also yields faster shutter speeds for the same ISO. So if we take the depth of field at ultrawide angles as being minimally reduced by shooting at f2.8 instead of f4, it's for anyone who wants a fast shutter speed, or keep the same shutter speed with a lower ISO. Which means any photographer shooting moving subjects who want to minimise noise. Events, weddings, sports, and stars all spring to mind.

As useful as IS is, at such short focal lengths camera shake only really has an effect with a very slow shutter - so this is purely of an advantage to photographs of completely stationary subjects, and of course videographers.

I photograph both still and moving subjects with an ultrawide, and due to the usability of long shutters without IS, I believe a brighter aperture is of more use than IS for me with this mixed usage. Therefore as I'm in no pressing need to hit the buy button right now, I'm going to sit this one out and wait to see what comes of an f2.8 ultrawide zoom. And I can rest assured that if nothing comes up before I need to jump, there'll be a damn good f4 IS option available as a backup plan.


----------



## Etienne (May 16, 2014)

Off Topic, but I can't resist:

I like extra light (fast lens) as much as the next guy. A lens I'd like to see is a 24 1.4L III , and make it deadly. I'd pay dear for that, and I may end up with another of the current v II. I returned my last one because I could not get it focus reliably with my 5D2 on anything beyond 5 or 6 feet away. Maybe the 5D3 would be better. The 24 1.4L II is soft in the corners wide open, but it can give great results anyway, so improve on it and I'd give up the flexibility of a zoom when the light disappears. Imagine a 5DIV at ISO 50,000 and a wide 1.4 lens!

Anyway one extra stop from 16-35 f/4 IS to 16-35 2.8 is ok, but I'd be happy with 16-35 f/4L IS for good light, and 24 1.4 + 35 f/2 IS for see in the dark work. When the light is gone now, I go out with the 35 f/2 IS, and it does a great job. When you really need light, get lots of it with a prime.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 16, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Off Topic, but I can't resist:
> 
> I like extra light (fast lens) as much as the next guy. A lens I'd like to see is a 24 1.4L III , and make it deadly. I'd pay dear for that, and I may end up with another of the current v II. I returned my last one because I could not get it focus reliably with my 5D2 on anything beyond 5 or 6 feet away. Maybe the 5D3 would be better. The 24 1.4L II is soft in the corners wide open, but it can give great results anyway, so improve on it and I'd give up the flexibility of a zoom when the light disappears. Imagine a 5DIV at ISO 50,000 and a wide 1.4 lens!
> 
> Anyway one extra stop from 16-35 f/4 IS to 16-35 2.8 is ok, but I'd be happy with 16-35 f/4L IS for good light, and 24 1.4 + 35 f/2 IS for see in the dark work. When the light is gone now, I go out with the 35 f/2 IS, and it does a great job. When you really need light, get lots of it with a prime.



Never had a problem with the 24L II on my 5DII when using the center point, even near MFD, but yes, it is awesome with the 5DIII, where so many other AF points can be used to get repeatable/accurate results.


----------



## Etienne (May 16, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Off Topic, but I can't resist:
> ...



It may have been my copy, or my camera, but that was years ago and I didn't want to switch around copies at the time. I have never forgot about that lens; I think it's one of the more interesting lenses around, and if they made it sharp from 1.4 it would be irresistible.


----------



## 278204 (May 16, 2014)

I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 16, 2014)

sposh said:


> I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)



Sports, yeah I agree with ya not much sports shooting at 16mm.

But for events and weddings...yeah, 16mm is quite handy, especially at a reception for the fun dancing shots. And yes, on occasion 16mm is useful for big landscape style portraits - though that kind of work isn't everyones cup of tea. Either way, think of it like this, epic background, one location, same pose - 1 series of shots at 16mm, another at 24, another at 50, then shift to the 70-200 and you have at least 4 shots from the same spot with the same poses but each one is unique...


----------



## Etienne (May 16, 2014)

sposh said:


> I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)



Lots of dramatic sports shots are taken with Wide and UW lenses. The first three olympic shots at telegraph here are ultrawide http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/picturegalleries/9461272/London-2012-Olympics-Photographers-tricks.html?frame=2302709
More on that http://magicvalley.com/blogs/between-the-frames/wide-angle-sports-shooting/article_d875ca72-43ed-11e2-8493-0019bb2963f4.html

Google will get you tons of examples wide shots. And a huge proportion of winning journalism shots are captured at wide - ultrawide.


----------



## 278204 (May 16, 2014)

Cool. You can get away with crowd photos at f4, but I can see the need for big apertures with those wide angle jumpers and basketball players. Striking photos.

I'm in the market for a wide angle but don't have any experience beyond 24mm (it shows) - these answers really help understand what I miss out on depending on the lens I buy.


----------



## 278204 (May 16, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> sposh said:
> 
> 
> > I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)
> ...



Cool, found out what quote does on the forum.

Don't normally use wide open for landscape, I guess maybe to stop leaves blurring in strong wind with low light. Normally want DOF and use tripod. But I definitely see your point for indoor events - I don't do weddings but I've had a few school parties where I could have done with more aperture and wider angle.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 17, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> sposh said:
> 
> 
> > I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)
> ...



If you consider skateboarding or snowboard/ski as a sport then yes ultra wide and even fish eye up close to the action are even used.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 17, 2014)

Canon 14-24 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > sposh said:
> ...



true...but...to be effective you have to be able to skate or snowboard....and, that's more video than still (lol, been a skater for over 2 decades, follow cam is hard!!!!) Yes you do still see wide still shots --- but --- again, 2 decades...you better damn well have insurance both on your gear and your face if your getting that tight to go fisheye!!!!

and snowbaording....hell, that's a whole different bag of worms...you may go fisheye for halfpipe ---but your also likely to need a deep zoom and the red bull helicopter...lol


----------



## 278204 (May 17, 2014)

I for one do consider them a sport  and a great candidate for wide angle, though I guess f2.8 would be overkill in most cases. Travelling round NZ at the moment and there seems to be a skateboarding park in every town. Yup, gotta choose the angle well or you could end up with broken glass. Rock climbing would also be good for wide angle treatment. Stop and think and all sorts of ideas pop up. Chess indeed!


----------



## Nirmala (May 17, 2014)

sposh said:


> I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)



Well I for one shoot surfing as a hobby, maybe that is not considered a sport? I personally think its one of the most demanding sports you can do. 16mm I think is only the start of going wide enough to shoot this sport. A lot of surf photographers who shoot from the water will shoot fisheye and thats what, anywhere between 8-17mm. I use a 35mm and thats no where near wide enough to get the barrel shots. These days with the improvements in POV cameras unless you are basically right next to the surfer, on top of, behind or any other weird angle that you are crazy enough to put yourself in you are not going to get much notice.


----------



## ecka (May 17, 2014)

> Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]



Nah. How about working on slower prime?
20mm f/4.0 STM pancake would be nice.


----------



## tron (May 17, 2014)

Etienne said:


> sposh said:
> 
> 
> > I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)
> ...


From the article: Tech Specs: Canon EOS 1D Mark II 1/400sec f/2.8 ISO 1250 @16mm

This means 16*1.3 = 20.8 ~ 21mm. OK very wide and out of 24-70 range but not that Ultra wide. In addition a 1DMkII at 1250 ISO must be equivalent or worse than a 1DX or a 5DMkIII at ISO 2500. So the f/4 lens would do. I acknowledge however that in cases like that a f/2.8 lens with worse corners is more useful than an f/4 with excellent corners.
Until Canon makes the ultimate UWA zoom, its horses for courses I guess...


----------



## e17paul (May 18, 2014)

ecka said:


> > Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1. I know this is a thread for all the fans of ultra wide zooms, but it would be really good to see a quality prime with depth of field scale wider than 24IS/24L, more practical and not so ultra wide as the 14L, and with less mixed reviews than the 20/2.8. At the moment the best options are the TS-E 17L the Zeiss 18/3.5. 

Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight. 

I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases. 

On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.


----------



## Ruined (May 18, 2014)

e17paul said:


> Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.
> 
> I read in (I think) the dpreview review of the 24-70/2.8 that Canon did not make an IS version of the 2.8 because the weight would increase. If Canon made an 18ish-35 2.8/IS, it would be excellent and versatile for low light interiors. I know that is far from the only use for ultra wide zooms, but it would be smart to cover all the bases.
> 
> On the other hand, a good prime at or just below 20mm, would be awesome, especially with reasonably sized filters. As a prime fan, I will cross my fingers, watch and wait. My credit card is safe for now.



Just to keep in mind, I believe the only example put out thus far of a f/2.8 16mm-ish lens without bulbous element sharper than the 16-35 II was the Zeiss 15mm, which has a 95mm filter thread. Could you imagine how large that would be if made into a zoom?

While I think we will see small improvements in quality similar to the 16-35 I to 16-35 II generation, I don't think we will see an improvement the 24-70 got unless the 16-35 is made significantly larger/heavier (arguably incompatible with its target market). Which is also why I think the 16-35 II will not be updated for a long time, with a wider bulbous zoom complementing it instead (i.e 12-24, 14-24, etc).


----------



## Etienne (May 19, 2014)

Non of this is urgent for me, but I always will welcome more options.
I'd like to see a top notch 20mm f/2.8 prime, and a 50 f/1.4 IS and a new 85 1.8 IS


----------



## ecka (May 19, 2014)

Ruined said:


> e17paul said:
> 
> 
> > Back to zooms, if Canon do release the mythical 14-24/2.8, that would leave a gap in the range for a better quality 18ish-35/2.8. That would allow better quality optics than the existing 2.8 without much extra weight.
> ...



Yes. The new 16-35/4L IS USM is almost as big and heavy as the 16-35/2.8L II USM. IS is nice for videos, but if it's not much better than the 17-40/4L, then it may end up on the same shelf with 70-300 DO, 200/2.8II and 28-300L.


----------



## Ruined (May 21, 2014)

ecka said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > e17paul said:
> ...



well, I think the 16-35 f/4 *will* be significantly better than the 17-40 and based on the mtf sharper than the 16-35 II. But, while it replaces the 17-40 it does not replace the 16-35 II as it is a full stop slower. In low light for event photographers/journalists that will likely be a deal breaker regardless of the sharpness. The market is there for both though as landscape photographers won't use f/2.8 much and would rather have the sharpness.


----------



## ecka (May 21, 2014)

Ruined said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



I hope it *will* be significantly better than 17-40L, which has very soft corners at 17mm. However, it may be considered sharper than 16-35L'II, because that one has a bit blurry corners as well . I know many "landscapers" who prefer Sigma 12-24mm or even adapting Nikkor 14-24mm over Canon L UWA zooms, because of the bad corners. If Sigma releases a cheaper and perfectly sharp 12-24mm ART, then it could hurt Canon sales very much. That could explain why did they put the IS in it - to add one more reason for choosing Canon over the competition.


----------

