# Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?



## Radiating (Feb 12, 2013)

I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!

Internal focusing, low vignette.

I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.

Anyone else feel the same way?


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Feb 12, 2013)

Absolutely agree. I started a forum topic on this very subject a few months ago asking who was using the Nikon 14-24 on Canon EOS. 

Waiting for Canon to develop, test, manufacture and deliver on a new product is a missed opportunity. I've got the 16-35 and 24TSE II and Zeiss 35mm for landscape, but I really need an ultra wide. 

I just returned the new Sigma 12-24 II for Canon. Big mistake on my part, the corners are still soft and un-usable in my opinion. The Samyang 14 is calling me but I need an adapter with a chip for focus confirmation.

What has your research found for UWA? ...besides 14-24?


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 12, 2013)

I'm afraid a 14-24 will be insanely expensive, let alone you'd take a 16-35 and put up an IS to that... 2000$ pew pew.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2013)

The mk II is pretty new, it can always be improved. If Canon thinks there is a profit in updating it, they will.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 13, 2013)

I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Feb 13, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> I'm afraid a 14-24 will be insanely expensive, let alone you'd take a 16-35 and put up an IS to that... 2000$ pew pew.



+1 and it probably won't be available until quite awhile after announcement. Hopefully the price of the 16-35 II gets affected so I can get that instead =P


----------



## infared (Feb 13, 2013)

I would like to see a really tight 14-24mm comparable to the Nikon. Sharp at 14mm AND 24mm. I could do without the 16-35mm. Apparently is is possible to make an incredible 14-24mm...we just need to see Canon do that, and end their mediocre, underperforming Wideangle Zooms.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 13, 2013)

Yes. As long as it is *tack sharp across the frame @ all focal lengths,* just like the Nikon 14-24.


----------



## dolina (Feb 13, 2013)

A friend who shoots Nikon has the 14-24 and 16-35. He sold the 14-24 because he found it too wide and not long enough for people shots.

I am more partial to the updated 135L and 400/5.6L


----------



## Ricku (Feb 13, 2013)

dolina said:


> A friend who shoots Nikon has the 14-24 and 16-35. He sold the 14-24 because he found it too wide and not long enough for people shots.


Well obviously. The 14-24 is a landscape lens. A landscapers wet dream. 

However, a 16-35mm can also be a landscapers wet dream, as long as it is.. _*drumm roll*_.. sharp across the frame. The current 16-35L is far from adequate.


----------



## hambergler (Feb 13, 2013)

I agree. I'd take a 16-24 or 16-28 as well. I don't really like the fact that a 14-24 can't take filters unless you are looking at 6x6's which are insanely expensive.


----------



## Meh (Feb 13, 2013)

dolina said:


> I am more partial to the updated 135L and 400/5.6L



And the sky is blue and water is wet. What does your desire for Canon to update those lenses have to do with this thread?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 13, 2013)

Radiating said:


> I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:
> 
> 16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.
> 
> ...



I'm with ya brother!

I love my 16-35
I would hope they kept it at 7 aperture blades the sparkles are awesome from this lens
if they added IS it would be sweet too (cue the seal clubbing for suggesting the herasy of IS on a wide lens)


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 13, 2013)

+1.....same sharpness or better than Nikon. 16-35 will be fine(still like 14-24 though)

I'm not a big fan carrying a tripod around, so "IS" would be HUGE benefit for night time landscape shooting.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 13, 2013)

For my needs, I am happy with the current 16-35 f/2.8 L II ... and I don't really care about IS on that lens as I always use it on a tripod.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 13, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd buy a 14-24 f2.8 with bulbous front element and no filter thread, and a 16-35 f2.8 MkIII. Nikon make both and both have a market, they also make a 14 prime. I don't see the 16-35 and 14-24 ish as mutually exclusive, I'd use the 14-24 fpr set piece work, architecture and interiors, and the 16-35 for travel, sports, fun etc.
> 
> Thinking about it Canon could make a good deal of money off me, I'd happily buy a 45 and 90 TS-E MkII as well, but I am starting to think with the ever increasing development of the cine line that photographic orientated lenses might have peaked in their development, so many are overdue upgrades and yet we get 24-28-35 f2/2.8 IS's and a slew of cine lenses, the lens department can only work on so many designs at the same time, where in god's name is the 35 L upgrade, the 200 upgrade, or the 400 f5.6 with IS, the 100-400 upgrade? How much longer are so many pros going to have to wait for the 200-400, an 800 that is better than the 600 and a TC oh the list just goes on and on.




The 200 f/2.8? That was an early late 90's lens ya?


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 13, 2013)

I _much_ prefer 16-35 to 14-24.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 13, 2013)

I _much_ prefer a 14-24 to a "third" version of the 16-35.


----------



## candyman (Feb 13, 2013)

The 14-24mm was on my wish list. But instead I bought the 16-35 II
I actually like the range 16-35. It suites me well as landscape / walkaround and indoor lens. The thing that could be improved though is the sharpness at 2.8 in 16 to 24 mm. There are other things like some vignetting at 16mm but those can be taken care of in post-processing.


----------



## BL (Feb 13, 2013)

sharpness is fine for me at 2.8 from 16-24 

35mm at 2.8 is a whole other story


----------



## John Thomas (Feb 13, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Yes. As long as it is *tack sharp across the frame @ all focal lengths,* just like the Nikon 14-24.



+1

AND if it has *lower distortions*, especially at the wide end. Till then, Tokina 16-28 rulez.


----------



## barracuda (Feb 13, 2013)

hambergler said:


> I agree. I'd take a 16-24 or 16-28 as well. I don't really like the fact that a 14-24 can't take filters unless you are looking at 6x6's which are insanely expensive.



+1

If the extra 2mm on the wide end means it can't take filters, I'd much rather have an improved 16-35 or a 16-xx over a 14-24.


----------



## Smurf1811 (Feb 13, 2013)

I'm going to buy a D800 just for the Nikkor 14-24mm.....O.k. and the CLS .


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 17, 2013)

Started to dig through some of the older 16-35II shots for a different thread and I have to say I am happy with its overall performance. Lens designs to increase UWA zoom performance is an uphill battle with diminishing paybacks for the amount of design tricks needed, not to mention the increase in price. 

I am ok for now.


----------



## infared (Mar 17, 2013)

Canon 14-24 said:


> I _much_ prefer a 14-24 to a "third" version of the 16-35.


I decided to jump ship...I am planning on selling my Canon 16-35mm II and buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 to compliment my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE...and I am saving to purchase a Zeiss 15mm...I also have the new 24-70mm II. So once I implement my plan I wii have most basis covered in the WA dept.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 17, 2013)

infared said:


> I decided to jump ship...I am planning on selling my Canon 16-35mm II and buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 to compliment my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE...and I am saving to purchase a Zeiss 15mm...I also have the new 24-70mm II. So once I implement my plan I wii have most basis covered in the WA dept.



I love some of the zeiss glass...but the manual focus is enough of a deal breaker. Will miss too many before I can do it well, and my eyes are simply not that good even given endless time to focus. I would like their 15mm though...leave it at hyperfocal range and keep shooting.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 18, 2013)

Canon 14-24 said:


> I _much_ prefer a 14-24 to a "third" version of the 16-35.


Even if it is better than the Nikon 14-24?


----------



## infared (Mar 18, 2013)

I love some of the zeiss glass...but the manual focus is enough of a deal breaker. Will miss too many before I can do it well, and my eyes are simply not that good even given endless time to focus. I would like their 15mm though...leave it at hyperfocal range and keep shooting.

My eyes are terrible too...I zone focus the 21mm! LOL! Actually I do a lot of set-up work with a tripod...so it does not matter that much...but I still have the 16-35mm II in case I need it at this point.... the thing is, once you shoot with the Zeiss you do not want to step down to the Canon wide.
I would prefer to see a new 16-35mm III ultra-sharp zoom, (compared to a 14-24)..but Canon has made this lens twice (with modest improvement the second time out), so I do not have a lot of confidence that they can get this really "right"...Perhaps since they are rumored to be making that big megapixel camera, the designers are really under a lot of pressure to make the lens we need this time...and if they do it will cost as much as the Zeiss 15mm, no doubt!...but I would prefer the 16-35mm range.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 18, 2013)

candyman said:


> The 14-24mm was on my wish list. But instead I bought the 16-35 II
> I actually like the range 16-35. It suites me well as landscape / walkaround and indoor lens. The thing that could be improved though is the sharpness at 2.8 in 16 to 24 mm. There are other things like some vignetting at 16mm but those can be taken care of in post-processing.



I think there is room in the market for both, a 12/14-24 f2.8 and a 16-35III 2.8.
The first lens will certainly have a bulbous front element and therefore be a pain with filters, which make lanscape work a pain the back side. Polarisers and NDs are pretty much precluded unless the filter sizes become huge and therefore unmanagable in the field. 
The 16-35 is a compromise lens, it does a lot well but not spectacularly well. It's very wide, but these days there is wider. It's not too corrected but just enough so that post prod correction is effective. It's a useful range and quite sharp....but it could be sharper. Although it's sharp enough for most applications, there will always be some sharpess monkey out there who claims it's not sharp enough. It takes filters very very well and it's easily the most versatile wide lens. Unfortunatly it flares and ghosts quite a bit and could do with an improvement. It's weather sealed and it's easy to wipe water off the front element (or front filter), where as one rain drop on the front of a TS-e 17 is hard to remove and is massive on the final image. 
If the 16-35 front element gets damaged (and I've had mine replaced) then it's expensive...but not as expensive or vaulrable as a big front bulging element. 
For regular pro work, the 16-35IIL is currently the best choice. It's hardy, versatile and sharp enough. I think a 12/14-24 is more of a fan boy dream...usefull for shooting charts and not so usefull in the real pro use arena. Imagine taking a 12/14-24 to a war zone? Hell, even Cornwall UK on a windy rainy day would render this lens useless.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 18, 2013)

Radiating said:


> I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:
> 
> 16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.
> 
> http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06



That patent is by Nikon, I don't see Canon making a lens based on it.


Personally, I prefer a Canon EF 14-24mm as good as Nikon's. If Canon makes a 16-35mm with sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, image stabilization, and low vignette, I'll be happy to buy that one instead.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 18, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:
> ...



Well, most of the pro photographers I know who are on the Nikon format don't like using the 14-24mm lens. It's a bit too wide, doesn't do filters in a conveinient way, it's big and heavy and while it's wide open performance is astounding...stopped down (landscapes or DOF) it's no better than older the 17-35mm. There's quite a few for sale S/H and that tends to say a bit about it.

I personally belive that a single wide lens, regardless how good it is, will never enough to cover every eventuality. I have used my 16-35IIL and Siggi 12-24mm lens for a very long time and I've only just replaced the Siggi 12-24 for a TS-e 17L. But my main "goto" wide lens is my 16-35IIL


----------



## raptor3x (Mar 18, 2013)

Plamen said:


> I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).



This is exactly what I'm hoping Canon will release.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 18, 2013)

raptor3x said:


> Plamen said:
> 
> 
> > I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).
> ...



I fail to see any real world benefit in having an Image Stabiliser on a wide angle zoom lens. 
The current 17-40 f4 L is a widely regarded lens, but I can't see how added IS to it will make it any better?


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2013)

I'd take one right now! Sold my 17-40 today and am upgrading to the 16-35 II


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2013)

Sure, If it's at good as the nikkor 14-24mm Why not?


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

raptor3x said:


> Plamen said:
> 
> 
> > I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).
> ...



In typical landscape settings 16-35II requires very high shutter speeds even when stopped down...sometimes requiring ND ... what would an IS offer in real terms?

If you are into night time landscape, that is mostly done on tripods, and they generally suggest you turn off IS... so I dont' see the point. It is very much a fanboy dream.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

Going from version I to version II, Canon did make some progress...the fact it is not that stricking a progress is more telling of how hard it is to design UWA zooms than it is of Canon's unwillingness to make it better.

For the same reason, I feel Canon will only get even fewer paybacks with a version III should they ever attempt it. Where they did make progress is with corner and border sharpness and flare control...the original version I was worse. But these are only minimally noticable.

As someone said earlier, the 16-35 II is not super sharp or super perfect...but it is really a well balanced performer for its range for real world uses.

Here is a shot at 16mm straight into the setting sun at f/11 when I was looking for flare. No filters or anything. I am including the top border crop as well...not sure what CR uploading does but it is sharp in the originals.


----------



## RGF (Mar 19, 2013)

Radiating said:


> I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:
> 
> 16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.
> 
> ...



If they can make a great 16-35 I would be very pleased. The 14 prime is a great lens, and an overlap with the 24-70 would mean I could avoid changes lens occasionally.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Mar 19, 2013)

I'd actually really prefer the 16-35 being improved. I wouldn't really like such a bulbous front element that would be on a 14-24, and I'd rather an 82mm filter thread staying on a newer 16-35 so I can just share filters with my 24-70 II


----------



## tron (Jun 14, 2013)

I would prefer a superb 16-35 f/2.8L III. In that case I would sell my version 1 16-35 2.8L


----------



## RGF (Jun 14, 2013)

In addition to the 16-35 I use the Canon 14 when I need to go wider. At times I want wider, so the 14-24 would fit the bill.


In the ideal world there would be a small overlap among each of the trinity lens. Perhaps 14-30, 24-80 and 70-200.


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Jun 14, 2013)

Plamen said:


> I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).



+1


----------



## killswitch (Jun 14, 2013)

Definitely would like a 16-35 MKIII over 14-24 for few reasons

1) Non bulbous front element, so that we can use screw in filters.
2) the focal range 16-35 is just so much versatile and can be used in/for so many applications/purposes.
3) 82mm is the new 77mm (for those who also own 24-70 MKII).

Can't remember if there was any rumour regarding an update for this lens, was there?


----------



## Brendon (Jun 14, 2013)

+1 for the updated 16-35. Give me something close to the 35 1.4 color, contrast, sharpness and distortion at the narrow end. Let the distortion go at 16mm since everything normally looks distorted because of the perspective anyway. 

I've started using the 16-35 regularly at weddings for dance floor photos during the reception. I like the fact that I can get the 35 mm if I want to move in and just get a couple dancing...I wouldn't be able to do this well at 24mm. My only real gripe is that it just doesn't have the color and contrast of the 35 prime. I can forgive some corner softness (there is a lot of it now) but the "pop" just isn't there.


----------



## tron (Jun 14, 2013)

killswitch said:


> Definitely would like a 16-35 MKIII over 14-24 for few reasons
> 
> 1) Non bulbous front element, so that we can use screw in filters.
> 2) the focal range 16-35 is just so much versatile and can be used in/for so many applications/purposes.
> ...


I do not think there is one. Not that would matter much though. 
For some reason I prefer the real products from just rumors... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## pwp (Jun 15, 2013)

A 14-24 f/2.8 would be a very cool lens, negatives include the inevitable stratospheric price and the inevitable bulbous, vulnerable front element that couldn't take filters. For my priorities, use and needs, such a lens would come a fairly close second to an upgraded 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII. Currently my very occasional _ultra_-wide needs are handled by a very good copy of the Sigma 12-24. These are OK lenses for occasional careful use, but YMMV.

The current 16-35 f/2.8II is a usefully competent lens, but not one that anybody could describe as consistently stellar. Used carefully, it does the job pretty well. The new 24-70 f/2.8II has given us a taste of what Canon is capable of, but given the usual life spans of Canon glass, I doubt there will be a 16-35 f/2.8III for quite some time.

-PW


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 21, 2013)

It's a pity Canon haven't looked to the Sigma 12-24mm lens as their basis for this new UWL. I think the the extra 2mm difference between the 14-24mm and 16-35mm isn't really worth the added complications of Filter worries, bubous element etc. 
I think the Sigma offers some intersting features which are still lacking in every other UWL. Firstly, it's bonkers wide...I mean REALLY wide. Those extra 4mm make a BIG difference. It's a full frame lens, which unfortuantly needs really stopping down to f16. On some rouge copies the corners never really sharpen up. It's a fully corrected rectilinear lens, which means that it's the exact opposite of a fish eye. Straight lines stay straight and circles become egg shaped (fisheyes: lines become egg shaped and circles stay true). I mean exceptionally low distortion. Most UWL compromise a little barrel distortion with recilinear distortion to make them more versatile (16-35IIL / 17-40L come to mind). Which means that faces off centre don't distort too much and straight lines look straight-ish...but are easily corrected in LR / PS. This adds to their versatility. Where the Sigma 12-24mm is concearned, it's straight lines are exactly stright...uncanny! But faces tend to look very distorted if slightly off centre. What I like about the 12-24mm lens is that it's a very extream lens which compliments the 16-35IIL very well. It does all the things the 16-35IIL doesn't do. But it's less versatile as a result. 
I just wished Canon decided to make an f2.8 version of the 12-24mm instead, which was sharper and didn't need f16 to get acceptable corners.


----------



## tron (Jun 21, 2013)

pwp said:


> A 14-24 f/2.8 would be a very cool lens, negatives include the inevitable stratospheric price and the inevitable bulbous, vulnerable front element that couldn't take filters. For my priorities, use and needs, such a lens would come a fairly close second to an upgraded 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII. Currently my very occasional _ultra_-wide needs are handled by a very good copy of the Sigma 12-24. These are OK lenses for occasional careful use, but YMMV.
> 
> The current 16-35 f/2.8II is a usefully competent lens, but not one that anybody could describe as consistently stellar. Used carefully, it does the job pretty well. The new 24-70 f/2.8II has given us a taste of what Canon is capable of, but given the usual life spans of Canon glass, I doubt there will be a 16-35 f/2.8III for quite some time.
> 
> -PW


+1 A 16-35 f/2.8III that has IQ comparable to 24-70 2.8 II would be ideal. I would get that lens to use with my Lee filter base. Now it seems we will wait a few more years ...


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 21, 2013)

Radiating said:


> I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:
> 
> 16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.
> 
> ...



Absolutely!!!


----------



## RGF (Jun 21, 2013)

I use my 14 a lot, so a 14-24 would be more useful than a 16-35 M3. Keyis IQ.

Both will be expensive - pick a number. I expect around $2500, maybe even $3000


----------



## pedro (Jun 21, 2013)

I did some 16-35 tests at ISOs 51k and 102k this week. For my type of photography the improvement at the moment lies rather in sensor tech than lenses. With the F/2.8 wide open I got down as low as 1/6 at 51k to be able to take the same photograph exposed to the right as I took here with the 50 F/1.4 at 1.6. So, gathering as much light as possible is imperative for me. Enhanced sensor tech will result in better IQ at weird ISOs like these. Sorry, my post is slightly out of topic. But almost wide open I got 1/60 at 51k and 1/100 at 102k with the 50 f/1.4. (this includes quite some PP in DPP for the 102k shot). Instead of an improved WA zoom therefore I'd opt for an 35 f/1.4 as a combo along with a later 5D body update. But I can understand, that upcoming high MP count bodies might requiere improved lens tech first, so hopefully Canon are able to combine both things.




5D3 extreme ISOs sample 1 by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
*ISO 51.200*




5D3 extreme ISOs sample 2 by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
*ISO 102.400*




Moonlight51kVersion I by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
*WA Sample ISO 51.200*


----------



## drjlo (Jun 21, 2013)

When I had the 16-35 II, I never dared put it through iso 102,4K, but I find DPP's noise reduction is not as good as a good dedicated program like Noisware, which I used to redo the image below with just a subtle additional noise reduction while trying to preserve detail. Obviously, working with original RAW would have been better.. Hope you don't mind.




isotestNW by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## pedro (Jun 21, 2013)

@drjilo: you did great! Thank you. I dare to do everything, as I pushed tri-X film to at least ISO 1600 or 3200 back in the day which looked kinda like the 5D3's ISO 51k today ;D I know about the downsides of DPP in PP. Looking forward to LR some time later this year. What are your highest ISOs you take pictures at? Kind regards from Switzerland. Peter


----------



## drjlo (Jun 21, 2013)

pedro said:


> @drjilo: you did great! Thank you. I dare to do everything, as I pushed tri-X film to at least ISO 1600 or 3200 back in the day which looked kinda like the 5D3's ISO 51k today ;D I know about the downsides of DPP in PP. Looking forward to LR some time later this year. What are your highest ISOs you take pictures at? Kind regards from Switzerland. Peter



I'm still kind of old school when it comes to iso and try to keep it below 6400 whenever possible. I stick to ISO 100 for studio shooting with controlled lighting.


----------



## pedro (Jun 21, 2013)

drjlo said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > @drjilo: you did great! Thank you. I dare to do everything, as I pushed tri-X film to at least ISO 1600 or 3200 back in the day which looked kinda like the 5D3's ISO 51k today ;D I know about the downsides of DPP in PP. Looking forward to LR some time later this year. What are your highest ISOs you take pictures at? Kind regards from Switzerland. Peter
> ...



There is much truth to that. With the 30D I never went higher than ISO 800 and ISO 1600 was for emergencies only. Usually I stay around ISO 6400 as well. But as I like to push myself to the limits photographywise I wanna know what lies beyond the rainbows end. So, I am all for high ISOs at lowest available light possible. Here's one of my late cat, taken sometime early this year, at ISO 51k aswell. There was a tiny bit of light fingering into the room. Didn't even see the cat correctly, had to focus on the white parts of its ears instead
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12258.0


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 22, 2013)

i was a nikon user and owned a 14-24mm. It was ina word, awsome. I really want the Canon vertion, ad hope it is as good or better. Either way 14 or 16 it will be $$$$.


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 25, 2013)

drjlo said:


> I'm still kind of old school when it comes to iso and try to keep it below *6400* whenever possible.



That made me smile. I remember a few years ago, when, in extreme situations, you would buy a *400 ISO* reversal film (possibly a Provia F, the others had too much grain, washed-out blacks and lifeless colours).
Despite my age, I felt like coming from another era, for a moment...


----------



## BagJunkie (Jun 25, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's a pity Canon haven't looked to the Sigma 12-24mm lens as their basis for this new UWL. I think the the extra 2mm difference between the 14-24mm and 16-35mm isn't really worth the added complications of Filter worries, bubous element etc.
> I think the Sigma offers some intersting features which are still lacking in every other UWL. Firstly, it's bonkers wide...I mean REALLY wide. Those extra 4mm make a BIG difference. It's a full frame lens, which unfortuantly needs really stopping down to f16. On some rouge copies the corners never really sharpen up. It's a fully corrected rectilinear lens, which means that it's the exact opposite of a fish eye. Straight lines stay straight and circles become egg shaped (fisheyes: lines become egg shaped and circles stay true). I mean exceptionally low distortion. Most UWL compromise a little barrel distortion with recilinear distortion to make them more versatile (16-35IIL / 17-40L come to mind). Which means that faces off centre don't distort too much and straight lines look straight-ish...but are easily corrected in LR / PS. This adds to their versatility. Where the Sigma 12-24mm is concearned, it's straight lines are exactly stright...uncanny! But faces tend to look very distorted if slightly off centre. What I like about the 12-24mm lens is that it's a very extream lens which compliments the 16-35IIL very well. It does all the things the 16-35IIL doesn't do. But it's less versatile as a result.
> I just wished Canon decided to make an f2.8 version of the 12-24mm instead, which was sharper and didn't need f16 to get acceptable corners.



If Canon would make it 12-24 I would definetely choose that one. Love wa lenses & their perspective up-close. It would also fit nicely with my other 2 favorite holiday lenses: 24-105L & 100-400L. I have the 17-40 and chose it instead of the 16-35 because I believe it has its advantages in bright daylight & high contrast situations & the weight. And of course the pricetag, gotta love the 17-40 for that.

@GMCPhotographics: I have been looking at the Siggy 12-24, you seem to have really good knowledge of that one. Would you say you'd recommend it to anyone? It doesn't seem to pricey, but I find it hard finding some test for full frame cameras, most are for crop cameras.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 26, 2013)

BagJunkie said:


> @GMCPhotographics: I have been looking at the Siggy 12-24, you seem to have really good knowledge of that one. Would you say you'd recommend it to anyone? It doesn't seem to pricey, but I find it hard finding some test for full frame cameras, most are for crop cameras.


On occasions I work with a world leader in a very high end niche photography market who's main lens is the Sigma 12-24, it took him three lenses until he got one that he was 100% happy with but when he did that was it, he even prefers it to my 17 TS-E. if you get a good one the results are unmatched, but only if you need the very extreme fov.


----------



## M.ST (Jun 26, 2013)

After the last mails from Canon I can say, that there will be no version II of the EF 16-35 2.8 L.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> BagJunkie said:
> 
> 
> > @GMCPhotographics: I have been looking at the Siggy 12-24, you seem to have really good knowledge of that one. Would you say you'd recommend it to anyone? It doesn't seem to pricey, but I find it hard finding some test for full frame cameras, most are for crop cameras.
> ...



I forget if you've said before, what kind of photography is that?


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 26, 2013)

Radiating said:


> I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:
> 
> 16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.
> 
> ...



I'm with you, the 16-35 range is far more useful than 14-24. Also, it seems to me that a Canon 14-24, will cost nearly $3000. Which is kind of absurd, considering the yen has collapsed so much lately (along with their stock market). $3000 is sort of like what $6000 used to be, to the Japanese. Kind of like selling an entry level Toyota Camry, with only a cassette player and no air conditioning, in metallic beige paint, for $60,000.

As far as lenses go, we have to take what gets built. Nobody makes the lenses I want (or at least, think that I want) either. Just as well, I couldn't afford them now anyway.


----------



## J.R. (Jun 26, 2013)

A question which comes to my mind is - what will happen to the 14mm f/2.8L II lens if a 14-24 f/2.8 L is released by Canon? I guess the prime will be pretty much dead unless at 14mm, the zoom is NG. 

I've tried out two copies of the existing 16-35 and didn't see substantial improvements over my 17-40 (which I sold). While I'd love to get a 16-35 III or a 14-24 Canon doesn't seem to be in a mood to release either of these lenses, I'll be buying the TS-E 17 next month.


----------



## pedro (Jun 26, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I've tried out two copies of the existing 16-35 and didn't see substantial improvements over my 17-40 (which I sold). While I'd love to get a 16-35 III or a 14-24 Canon doesn't seem to be in a mood to release either of these lenses, I'll be buying the TS-E 17 next month.



Well, bought a 16-35 II used in April. The 2.8 aperture comes in very handy at low light. But as you can see in some of my posts in this thread, the 50 f/1.4 has the edge if it comes to very low light. So I might go for a Sigma 20 mm F/1.8 EX DG to compensate that, some time later...*Anyone out there shooting a Sigma 20 F/1.8?*


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 26, 2013)

M.ST said:


> After the last mails from Canon I can say, that there will be no version II of the EF 16-35 2.8 L.



Hilarious, funnily enough in my last email from Canon about the 16-35 MkII they pointed me here. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

At least we now have confirmation of how good your hinted "insider" info really is :


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 26, 2013)

BagJunkie said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > It's a pity Canon haven't looked to the Sigma 12-24mm lens as their basis for this new UWL. I think the the extra 2mm difference between the 14-24mm and 16-35mm isn't really worth the added complications of Filter worries, bubous element etc.
> ...



Hi, I certainly wouldn't recommend it over a 16-35IIL for versatility. It's only good when stopped down to f11-16 which limits it's useage somewhat. But it's just so well corrected and SO wide. Using filters is a complete PINA...it can be done using the newer Photodiox Wondapana filter range. But it's a complete faf. 
It's fairly flare resistant, but it's not Canon L lens. What it does, it does very well....what it doesn't do well...it completely fails at. It's as niche as a fisheye in that respect. 
If you need a very capable Ultrawide, which goes wider than anything else....which can be shot using a tripod and doesn't need filters....where your straight lines stay straight....then this is the one to get. For everything else, the 16-35IIL is a far far better option.


----------



## cpsico (Jun 26, 2013)

I wonder if a 14-24 would be versatile enough? A low distortion 16-35 with improved optics would make a better walk around lens for me personally.


----------



## tron (Jun 26, 2013)

cpsico said:


> I wonder if a 14-24 would be versatile enough? A low distortion 16-35 with improved optics would make a better walk around lens for me personally.


I agree. Actually distortion is not so much of a problem. But sharpness even at the edges is an absolute must.
It will be a better walk around since it will allow the use of filters (including filter systems like Lee) and anyway 16mm is already very wide. The upper end at 35mm instead of 24mm would help to make less lens changes.
But I guess we will have to wait a few more years ...


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 26, 2013)

I vote for the improved 16-35mm. Less lens switching, easier filter situation. All-in-all, more practical for weddings and real-estate (interiors).

I'm still enjoying my eight year old 16-35mm version one, but if Canon (or Sigma!) could come up with an ultra-sharp from edge to edge version, especially one with significantly less distortion at the 16mm end, I'm an upgrader.

I do NOT want a $2000+ lens with a bulbous front-element that cannot be protected by a UV filter, thank you.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 26, 2013)

For me now, it's between the Samyang 14mm manual lens, and the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. I've already spent hundreds past my budget for this year as it is...and having to buy a new (albeit not large) tv...and not selling enough of what I need to sell to compensate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2013)

M.ST said:


> After the last mails from Canon I can say, that there will be no version II of the EF 16-35 2.8 L.



Really? Then why was the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II released back in 2007? :


----------



## davidrf (Jun 28, 2013)

Is a 15-30 f2.8 with sharpness like the Nikon 14-24 an impossibile idea? Best of two worlds  No IS needed. Just saying 

By the way I just bought a used 16-35 and YES, I'd like a mk3.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 28, 2013)

Radiating said:


> I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:
> 
> 16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.
> 
> ...



Mostly I share your arguments except these about the lens design - I am not interested in numbers of special lens elements but the result. But: aspherical surfaces help to correct aberrations with ONE LENS ELEMENT and avoid large numbers of elements - vital for ultra wides which have light sources in the frame often to increase contrast and supress flares.

A 16-35 has - with its 35mm focal length some universal character - as you said. I am someone who thinks of 100 mm as standard focal length (in terms of FF) so 35mm is a strong wide angle lens for me, but still usable for a broad range of subjects and situations.

I think an improved close focus capability of 1:[email protected] would be very interesting ... and good IQ from center to corners in terms of contrast, good color reproduction and percepted sharpness.


----------

