# More Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Talk [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 19, 2015)

```
We’re hearing more about a new EF 16-35 f/2.8L III, which is expected in 2016 along with one of Canon’s new “pro” body announcements. We’re not sure if it’ll arrive around the time of the EOS-1D X replacement in early 2016 or the EOS 5D Mark III replacement later in the year.</p>
<p>We’re told the new lens will be slightly longer and a bit heavier, and will retain the 82mm filter thread diameter of the current lens. Weather sealing, durability and optics will get obvious improvements. The lens hood will also be unique to the new lens, but we weren’t told what “unique” meant.</p>
<p>There is little to no chance of IS making its way into the lens. You can get the EF 16-35 f/4L IS if you want stabilization.</p>
<p>You can see the latest patent for the optical formula <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-16-35-f2-8l-iii/">here</a>, I think we’ll probably see another one before the announcement.</p>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 19, 2015)

Does unique mean a small window to operate the CPl?


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 19, 2015)

A quick question for lovers of this lens.

I have the 24-70 2.8L II. I love this lens. There is a lot of overlap between the two. What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?

Thanks for the info.

Sek


----------



## addola (Nov 19, 2015)

scottkinfw said:


> A quick question for lovers of this lens.
> 
> I have the 24-70 2.8L II. I love this lens. There is a lot of overlap between the two. What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?
> 
> ...


24-70 f/2.8 is your walk around lens. 16-35 f/2.8 is for ultra-wide shots (like basketball under the ring and dramatic close ups). I personally own Tamron 24-70 VC for all-around zoom and the 17-40 f/4 for wide-angle landscape shots. I'd replace the 17-40 with a 16-35, but maybe I'd go with the f/4 since my landscape shots are at f/5.6 or f/8.

I like the way Nikon does it: 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 all in f/2.8 max aperture. The problem with Nikon is that you can not screw filters on the 14-24. 

Canon could do a 16-24 to make you happy. There's also the 11-24 f/4, but it's still a very expensive lens.


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Nov 19, 2015)

I cant wait for this lens. I wish it would have stayed the same size but now that I have the mammoth Tamron15-30, I will be accustomed to the large and heavy size ;D . I'm hoping this lens will outperform the Tamron 15-30 and Nikons 14-24. Then ill sell mine and purchase this. 

as for the 24-70 ... 20mm is much wider than 24, and 16 is much better than 20. you can rent a 16-35II and go out and shoot around. I think you'll like it. I loved the 10-22mm as well. its a great lens. that setup worked well (canon 10-22, 24-105/f4, and a 70-200/2.8II) now I have (Tamron 15-30, canon 50/1.4, macro 100/2.8, and the 70-200) that gets done most everything I need. Although I miss the 24-105 because its a great lens for full frame walk around.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 19, 2015)

scottkinfw said:


> *What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?*



Question #1 is obvious 16-23mm range
Question #2 I sold my 16-35mm because I never used it. If you need a wider lens then there is a reason to have both. Even if you need the wider range you need to look at what you need the wider range for since there are other options in that range.


----------



## gsealy (Nov 19, 2015)

scottkinfw said:


> A quick question for lovers of this lens.
> 
> I have the 24-70 2.8L II. I love this lens. There is a lot of overlap between the two. What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?
> 
> ...



I have both of these lens. Some people have criticized the 16-35 f2.8 II. But my copy has been really good. I get sharp pictures with great color. I use it mainly for landscape shooting. I do a lot of early morning or early evening shooting in this realm so the f2.8 really helps. I doubt I will get the 'III' as it will likely be in the $1500 range, and I can't justify that cost over what I already have. 

I use the 24-70 2.8L II for situations involving people in fairly close proximity. The added focal length allows me to zoom in a bit for more facial shots and yet is wide enough to capture the surrounding context, if I want. It is really sharp. Just last weekend I did a professional shoot of several 'models' in various settings using the 5DIII/24-70 and it worked out really well. Every shot was a keeper. The 16-35 would not have worked nearly as well. 

So those are just my thoughts and my use cases.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 19, 2015)

I think that all lenses under 24mm are specialty-use lenses. If you do a lot of wide angle work, grand landscapes with interesting foregrounds, auroras or Milky Way, or work in tight spaces (interiors, slot canyons, etc), wider than 24mm is a good option. Wide-angle composition is a specialty unto itself, and I am still not quite getting it. 

16-35mm f/2.8 is an indoor event lens, a PJ lens, an astro-landscape lens - situations where one either needs as much light as possible to stop action, or as much light as possible to even see the subject (stars). 16-35mm f/4 is lighter weight, better suited to a landscape lens where f/8 is the likely aperture and where your camera is likely on tripod. If you shoot landscape at 24mm a lot and wish for more depth of field, a tilt shift lens might be for you. That's my gear lust lens - 24mm f/3.5 TS-E. 

For some wide angle landscapes, one can use the 24-70mm (or 24mm tilt shift)and just do panoramic shooting and merge.


----------



## bseitz234 (Nov 19, 2015)

gsealy said:


> I doubt I will get the 'III' as it will likely be in the $1500 range, and I can't justify that cost over what I already have.



This strikes me as really optimistic- the current one is listed at $1499 on Canon USA, so I imagine a v3 would be more likely $1800-$2000...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2015)

scottkinfw said:


> A quick question for lovers of this lens.
> 
> I have the 24-70 2.8L II. I love this lens. There is a lot of overlap between the two. What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?
> 
> ...



It's common to own both. The 24-70 is my staple walkaround/general use lens, and the 16-35 is a go-to for landscapes for me. But both of mine are the f/4L IS versions. 

In the f/2.8 world, I see the 16-35 being commonly used to capture the huddle at the end of an (American) football game when coaches and players meet to shake hands. It's also used at wedding receptions, sports in close quarters (mountain biking), etc. It's also used for astro work, but Canon has long struggled to provide a sharp + fast + coma free lens for that application -- there are far better lenses for astro than the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

As far as the range overlap, it depends. I love the 16-35 range, as shoot from 28-35 a lot and don't always want to bring my 24-70 to get it. But Nikon has a _very_ popular 14-24L f/2.8 lens that eliminates that overlap in return for a bulbous front element (makes filtering more expensive/cumbersome) but it also is critically 2mm wider. (It also was the sharpest UWA zoom on the planet for quite some time.)

- A


----------



## sunnyVan (Nov 19, 2015)

bseitz234 said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt I will get the 'III' as it will likely be in the $1500 range, and I can't justify that cost over what I already have.
> ...



$1800-2000 at least. Possibly more. New lens at launch price is often outrageously high. 

I can live with my f4 version + rokinon 14 2.8. Don't really need 2.8 that often.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2015)

NancyP said:


> 16-35mm f/4 is lighter weight, better suited to a landscape lens where f/8 is the likely aperture and where your camera is likely on tripod.



Yeah, optically the 16-35 f/4L IS absolutely mops the floor with the 16-35 f/2.8L II. If you're in the market for an L zoom, it used to be an easy decision -- *buy the f/2.8 to future proof for all possible applications*. But the market is a shade more crowded now.

11-24 f/4L -- expensive and front-filtering is complicated/expensive; I see this lens being meant for interiors and architecture, but you certainly could shoot landscapes with it. If you need to shoot 11-14mm, this is your only (rectilinear) choice.

16-35 f/2.8L II -- it can technically do everything, but it just doesn't do it all brilliantly. So I see this lens as the 'devil you know' for an f/2.8 wide zoom use where AF has got to be first party rock solid -- up-close sports/action in particular.

16-35 f/4L IS -- landscapes landscapes landscapes. It does other things, but landscapers needed to change their shorts when Canon released this. It was a massive sharpness improvement, and you didn't need to carry f/2.8 lens weight around when you shoot f/8 - f/14 all the time. A stellar lens, and a stellar value.

17-40 f/4L -- this is your budget play, your first L lens, etc. Wide + Fairly sharp + sealed + well built --> is well suited for landscapes, but certainly could serve as a wider walkaround for those who like wider FOVs.

Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC (IS) -- a big, heavy tool, but it's very sharp, very wide, has f/2.8 and has IS. Front filtering is a handful as there are no threads, but like the 11-24 it can be done if you don't mind the trouble. Also, I seem to recall it's a workable zoom option for astro due to fairly well managed coma. This is a great overall value if you don't need first-party AF confidence or screw in filtering.

There's also an f/2.8 Tokina, but I've read nothing about it.

- A


----------



## tomscott (Nov 19, 2015)

No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create? With the Tammy 15-30 having IS and it being a pretty good performer for a good price this lens will have to blow away the competition because it will more than likely be expensive.

This lens is most likely to be used by event, wedding, photo journos where shooting in low light is pretty regular, F2.8 at times isn't always that fast.

For landscape and Astro there isn't much need for IS as a tripod will be used but for the above… F4 is too slow for wedding and event work.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2015)

tomscott said:


> No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create?



Canon has been following a nutty strategy of IS for f/4 in the 16-35, 24-70/105 lenses but _not_ with the f/2.8 lenses. 

IS helps in low light / handheld situations if your subject isn't moving, and that's true for an f/2.8 lens or an f/4 lens. 

The only argument I can think of to back Canon's reasoning for this is that the f/4 lenses _need IS more_ to keep the ISO levels from getting stratospheric.

- A


----------



## nightscape123 (Nov 19, 2015)

I love my Tamron 15-30. I love the wide range of wide angle options that are out there now though. In a year or 4 I might consider this lens as the price comes down. It can be a pain to lug around all the stuff I need to use filers on the tamron. However it all depends on the coma performance of this lens. My tamron is almost coma free, and canon doesn't have a great history with coma control.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2015)

nightscape123 said:


> I love my Tamron 15-30. I love the wide range of wide angle options that are out there now though. In a year or 4 I might consider this lens as the price comes down. It can be a pain to lug around all the stuff I need to use filers on the tamron. However it all depends on the coma performance of this lens. My tamron is almost coma free, and canon doesn't have a great history with coma control.



If you're an astro shooter, you're kinda screwed. Wide + fast + coma free + sharp = good luck with that. So things like '"how's the AF?" or "can you thread-in filters?" become distant priorities to coma coma coma. That seems to be the back-breaker for so many f/2.8 and faster wide lenses for astro.

I joked the new Sigma 20 f/1.4 Art -- which might have a number of uses, but astro was clearly the breakthrough opportunity there -- would live or die almost entirely due to its coma performance. Turns out the coma was not great. Lens was DOA for many based on that one test.

- A


----------



## preppyak (Nov 19, 2015)

bseitz234 said:


> This strikes me as really optimistic- the current one is listed at $1499 on Canon USA, so I imagine a v3 would be more likely $1800-$2000...


MSRP of the 16-35 II was $1,599...they've generally stayed within $100-200 of that price point. So I cant imagine more than $1799.



tomscott said:


> No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create?


In the 70-200 f/2.8, the difference is 44oz vs 53oz, so 1/2lb. Hard to say if wide angle would create a bigger or smaller difference. But, 1/2lb would be a BIG deal in that focal range, since the lens only weighs 2lbs to begin with. Adding 25% weight isnt minor.

I think it mostly depends on use cases. Most of the f/2.8 use cases are shutter speed needs. So IS isnt practical for sports or astro. And for event work, you're likely supplementing with flash anyway, so f/4 vs f/2.8 isnt deal-breaking. I'd say its the PJ's that might actually have the use case; but not sure they are a large enough group to justify the extra R&D and cost.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2015)

preppyak said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > This strikes me as really optimistic- the current one is listed at $1499 on Canon USA, so I imagine a v3 would be more likely $1800-$2000...
> ...



However, IS makes an easier 'this is the most capable lens' sell to consumers. For non-specialists that don't have a speed or astro need -- those who just want a great 16-35 lens -- buying an f/2.8 IS lens is a _future-proofing_ call. You can simply do more with that lens if you don't mind the price and weight.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 19, 2015)

IS would be great, but not a deal breaker for those shooting moving targets, such as wedding guests, photojournalism subjects. Also, 16-30mm, where I'd be using it most of the time, isn't all that susceptible to blur. But it would be very, very nice to have. And as I get older, even more so.

By the way, how many other Canon lenses have a "III" as part of the name?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> By the way, how many other Canon lenses have a "III" as part of the name?



EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III 
And the two teleconverters

I think that's it. But I'd imagine that Canon would indeed go with the 'III' here for the new 16-35L for the aforementioned 'IS isn't part of it' reasons.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, how many other Canon lenses have a "III" as part of the name?
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 19, 2015)

This is my next lens


----------



## RGF (Nov 19, 2015)

StoneColdCoffee said:


> I cant wait for this lens. I wish it would have stayed the same size but now that I have the mammoth Tamron15-30, I will be accustomed to the large and heavy size ;D . I'm hoping this lens will outperform the Tamron 15-30 and Nikons 14-24. Then ill sell mine and purchase this.
> 
> as for the 24-70 ... 20mm is much wider than 24, and 16 is much better than 20. you can rent a 16-35II and go out and shoot around. I think you'll like it. I loved the 10-22mm as well. its a great lens. that setup worked well (canon 10-22, 24-105/f4, and a 70-200/2.8II) now I have (Tamron 15-30, canon 50/1.4, macro 100/2.8, and the 70-200) that gets done most everything I need. Although I miss the 24-105 because its a great lens for full frame walk around.



DOn't want mammoth lens - avoid the 11-24. That is a monster but great range.


----------



## RGF (Nov 19, 2015)

Like to see Canon update the 14 F2.8 with 14 F2.0. Would be larger but the extra stop helps with night skies.

The Sigma 20mm F1.4 looks promising


----------



## infared (Nov 19, 2015)

It will be $2000!...ah.... I sold my version II to purchase the 16-35mm F/4L IS. No regrets there!!!! 
I am going to be holding on to that lens....For what is on the market and the fact that it is a Canon L lens...it is a bargain for the performance that it provides. Really a sweet lens!!!!
I am glad that Canon is making the new f/2.8, though! It's good for the system and most likely will work much better with the new high-Rez bodies.
I plan on complementing my 16-35f/4L with the new Sigma 20mm f1.4 Art...hmmm..it just showed up "IN STOCK" tonight at B&H...and it's my birthday.....hmmmmmmm.....help!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 19, 2015)

tomscott said:


> No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create? With the Tammy 15-30 having IS and it being a pretty good performer for a good price this lens will have to blow away the competition because it will more than likely be expensive.
> 
> This lens is most likely to be used by event, wedding, photo journos where shooting in low light is pretty regular, F2.8 at times isn't always that fast.
> 
> For landscape and Astro there isn't much need for IS as a tripod will be used but for the above… F4 is too slow for wedding and event work.



f2.8 isn't too slow for weddings at all. At 16mm, a 1/15th of a sec shutter speed at f2.8 Iso 6400...that's pretty low light. I run with a three camera / three lens set up for most weddings these days...a 16-35 f2.8 II L, a 35 f1.4 L and an 85 f1.2 IIL. I use a swapout of a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II for the reception. Been working for me for the last 5 years.


----------



## adventureous (Nov 19, 2015)

I am so ready for this !!!!!!!! Come on Canon, give it up before April 1st !!! My MKII does a good job but seeing the newer lens quality I know the MKIII should be great! 16-35 is my most used lens for sure, and if you leave the filter size the same, I promise to be a good boy next year and buy a new camera!!!!!


----------



## Etienne (Nov 19, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> Does unique mean a small window to operate the CPl?



Maybe the lens hood will have a slot to drop in filters


----------



## Etienne (Nov 19, 2015)

bseitz234 said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt I will get the 'III' as it will likely be in the $1500 range, and I can't justify that cost over what I already have.
> ...



yes, possibly north of $2000


----------



## e_honda (Nov 19, 2015)

tomscott said:


> No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create? With the Tammy 15-30 having IS and it being a pretty good performer for a good price this lens will have to blow away the competition because it will more than likely be expensive.



For these ultra wide zooms, it looks like you're going to have to pick 2 out of 3 from IS, f2.8 and front filtering. There isn't a single ultra wide zoom in existence to have all 3 of these features.

Looks like this MK III of the Canon is going to lack IS but have front filtering, which is the opposite of the Tamron. 

Main thing they need to add on the MK III is better sharpness across the frame. As it is, the MK I and MK II are just too poor on the edges/corners at wide apertures. The MK II is probably the worst "value" of all current L lenses from a price/performance standpoint.


----------



## Kim Bentsen (Nov 19, 2015)

In a wonderful world, Canon would add *IS* in all new lenses like Tamron, have resolution and contrast like new Zeiss lenses and low sensor noise like Sony cameras. So why can't we have it all?


----------



## Matthew Saville (Nov 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> If you're an astro shooter, you're kinda screwed. Wide + fast + coma free + sharp = good luck with that. So things like '"how's the AF?" or "can you thread-in filters?" become distant priorities to coma coma coma. That seems to be the back-breaker for so many f/2.8 and faster wide lenses for astro.
> 
> I joked the new Sigma 20 f/1.4 Art -- which might have a number of uses, but astro was clearly the breakthrough opportunity there -- would live or die almost entirely due to its coma performance. Turns out the coma was not great. Lens was DOA for many based on that one test.
> 
> - A



You, sir, are a unicorn. I'm pretty sure part of the pledge of allegiance to Canon contains the oath "I shall never inspect the corners of my wide angle lenses"...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2015)

Matthew Saville said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > If you're an astro shooter, you're kinda screwed. Wide + fast + coma free + sharp = good luck with that. So things like '"how's the AF?" or "can you thread-in filters?" become distant priorities to coma coma coma. That seems to be the back-breaker for so many f/2.8 and faster wide lenses for astro.
> ...



...so sayeth the astro landscaper whose personal kryptonite are red ringed lenses wider than 24mm and faster than f/4. 

- A


----------



## Matthew Saville (Nov 19, 2015)

preppyak said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > This strikes me as really optimistic- the current one is listed at $1499 on Canon USA, so I imagine a v3 would be more likely $1800-$2000...
> ...



Modern times call for modern equivalents. The 24-70 2.8 mk2 is $1800, however that is down from the original $2300. Then there's the newest exotic "trophy" lens, the 11-24 f/4, at a whopping $3K. Because it goes to eleven.

If Canon were to stick with 16-35mm specifically, AND omits stabilization, they might price it at $1800. However I guarantee you they're just itching for any reason to hit their recent favorite number, $2300. Make it a 15-35 2.8, without IS, and it'll be $2K easily. Make it a 14-XX 2.8, without IS, and it'll be $2300. Add IS to either of those new optical formulas, and it'll be at least $2300.

It's all a game of projected sales volume and profit margins. And none of us know just how many units they think they can or cannot sell at X price.

Besides, unless you shoot astro, most ultra-wide photographers really don't need an f/2.8 zoom anymore, the 16-35 f/4 IS is plenty fast and wicked sharp. If you want Canon L build quality and AF reliability, it's going to cost easily 40-50% more than the Tamron 15-30.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Nov 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> ...so sayeth the astro landscaper whose personal kryptonite are red ringed lenses wider than 24mm and faster than f/4.
> 
> - A



How dare you. ALL my Rokinon lenses have red rings on them!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2015)

Matthew Saville said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...so sayeth the astro landscaper whose personal kryptonite are red ringed lenses wider than 24mm and faster than f/4.
> ...



I knew you would say that. Stop making fun of me and take more amazing pictures.

- A


----------



## Matthew Saville (Nov 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Matthew Saville said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Well played. No promises on amazing pictures though. These days I'm stuck in my studio, watching http://www.yosemiteconservancy.org/webcams. Some gorgeous scenes during the recent storms...


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 20, 2015)

Ah, this is a struggle for me as a photojournalist.

My two main workhorses are my 24-70mm f/2.8 II and my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, which I use for basically 85% of my work. Then there's the 16-35mm f/4 IS that I love so much. I get so many unique opportunities thanks to the F/4's IS, which lets me do up to 1 second exposures handheld. 

Seriously, I climbed a waterfall and could shoot 1 second exposures handheld. Can you imagine trying to use a tripod while climbing a waterfall? 

So with that in mind, I feel like I'd rather stick to my 24-70mm f/2.8II for wide/fast shots, and use my 16-35mm f/4IS for wide/slow shots instead of getting a 16-35mm F/2.8 III, because that gives me a lot more creative control as a photojournalist that doesn't always have access to my tripod. 

But a 16-35mm F/2.8 IS? I would sell my 16-35mm F/4 IS so quickly. That would be such a capable lens, I can't even imagine. Please? I'd pay $2300, I don't even care. It could even weigh as much as my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and I'd still buy it.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Nov 20, 2015)

scottkinfw said:


> A quick question for lovers of this lens.
> 
> I have the 24-70 2.8L II. I love this lens. There is a lot of overlap between the two. What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?
> 
> ...



If you're a casual photographer, even a "traditional" landscape photographer, then 24mm may be all you'd ever need in the wide range, and that new 24-70 mk2 is an incredibly sharp lens, corner to corner. It's Canon's crown jewel, as far as being wider than 35mm and faster than f/4 is concerned.

Even if you're a travel / landscape etc. photographer who does want to go wider than 24mm, there's a pretty good chance that you still don't need f/2.8 wider than 24mm, and a 16-35mm f/4 L IS is another wicked-sharp option that will save you at least half a pound. Not compared to the existing, aging mk2 and the new f/4, since they're about the same, but compared to the newer more exotic 14-XX and 15-XX f/2.8 ultrawides, which add as much as a whole pound above the existing Canon 16-35 2.8.

Or, if you've got tons of cash, and don't want to "waste" your mm yet don't mind lugging around a similarly ginormous lens, there's always the 11-24mm f/4.

Simply put, you have to really ~16mm, AND f/2.8, in an extremely sharp package, for such a mk3 lens to be worth buying. Which, even as a full-time wedding photographer, I must say is a tough thing to truly require. Even wedding photojournalism is just fine at f/4 when you go wider than 24mm, especially if you have stabilization.

Basically, the main application is astro-landscape photography. And even then, a lens needs to have pretty low vignetting to be worth its pricey aperture.

TLDR unless you're a low-light / nightscape junkie, get the 16-35 f/4 L IS and be happy.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Nov 20, 2015)

addola said:


> I like the way Nikon does it: 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 all in f/2.8 max aperture. The problem with Nikon is that you can not screw filters on the 14-24.
> 
> Canon could do a 16-24 to make you happy. There's also the 11-24 f/4, but it's still a very expensive lens.




Agreed. If I'm going to lug around a 2-2.5 lb lens with such a bulbous front element, I'd rather it be f/2 than f/2.8, and f/4 is completely useless for me as a nightscape shooter. Given the weight of the recent 2.8 zooms, and Sigma's f/2 24-35, I'd be happy with a ~2 lb 17-24 f/2, give or take a mm based on keeping the weight down and the price....not exorbitant.

On the other hand, if I'm going to "settle" for an f/2.8 lens, I'd rather have a simple 16mm or 17mm f/2.8 prime that accepts 77mm filters. I had the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 once, and if they can create such a decent lens so many years ago, I'm sure they could do better today. Heck, if it ain't too heavy or expensive, an f/2 prime in that range should be doable, considering the weight and price of the half-decent Nikon 20mm f/1.8 G which also doesn't need 82mm filter threads.

But, my money is on Rokinon for such prime lenses. As of now Rokinon still has nothing between 14mm and 24mm that is full-frame, yet they've recently added almost every other focal range to their lineup. Unless they want to start making zooms, or mk2 versions of their already super-sharp lenses, something between 14mm and 24mm is inevitable. I'd go for a 20mm f/1.4, but considering the size and weight (and useless corners) of the Sigma 20 1.4, ...meh...


----------



## tron (Nov 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> nightscape123 said:
> 
> 
> > I love my Tamron 15-30. I love the wide range of wide angle options that are out there now though. In a year or 4 I might consider this lens as the price comes down. It can be a pain to lug around all the stuff I need to use filers on the tamron. However it all depends on the coma performance of this lens. My tamron is almost coma free, and canon doesn't have a great history with coma control.
> ...


Very true unfortunately.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 20, 2015)

Kim Bentsen said:


> In a wonderful world, Canon would add *IS* in all new lenses like Tamron, have resolution and contrast like new Zeiss lenses and low sensor noise like Sony cameras. So why can't we have it all?



Buy a Sony A7r II or A7s II, both of which have in-body stabilization, and use Zeiss lenses with an adapter .... you're good to go.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 20, 2015)

Thanks all for the education!

sek


----------



## infared (Nov 20, 2015)

tron said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > nightscape123 said:
> ...



But if you are NOT an Astro boy...(or girl)...the Sigma looks pretty kickass for $899! I think it's an exciting lens...but it is a bit odd that Sigma touted the coma and in reviews it is not at the level needed for Astro work? DUH.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 20, 2015)

It is only a CR2, but if Canon do make an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens then it is going to be very interesting to see just how it can perform. Canon did such a truly amazing job with the 16-35 f/4 IS that I am really looking forward to the comparisons.


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 20, 2015)

I use my 16-35 II a lot, and it's been an excellent workhorse.

If the new has BR I'll get the new one, but if not, this lens will last me another 4 or 5 years.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 20, 2015)

A lens rumour is less mysterious than a new body

I guess the only thing we can speculate on is IQ and whether it has IS or not.


----------



## Ladislav (Nov 20, 2015)

Interestingly a lot of people here tout 16-35 as landscape lens and 24-70 as walk around. I have it mostly the other way. 16-35/4 IS as ultimate city/interior walk around lens and 24-70/2.8 IS as event/landscape/countryside walk around lens. Anything wider than 24 usually feels too wide for me when taking landscape pictures. 

There is no way I could replace my 16-35 for something heavier, more expensive and without IS. And I'm considering only situation when new f2.8 version is optically at lest the same as f4 version - anything worse is just disappointment. I bought the current lens just to "try" something wide because it was in some special sale. Turns out to be the best purchase I did in the long time. 

I wonder if 24-70/4 IS is as good as 16-35/4 IS? If it is, I will consider selling my Tamron and go for Canon.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 20, 2015)

Etienne said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Does unique mean a small window to operate the CPl?
> ...



I don't know anybody who actually uses the hood on their 16-35 II L. Mine looks like new because it's never been used and is completely pointless. Unlike my lens which looks pretty well used.


----------



## tron (Nov 20, 2015)

infared said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


I guess different people, different needs. But, as others pointed out the coma would cause trouble even in non astro nightscapes (assuming there are light sources near the edges). 

A very strange use I just thought would be to use it for astro and crop to make it equivalent say to 24 - 28mm. Combined with a high megapixel camera it could provide a less than perfect solution but never the less a 1.4 one... 

On second thought Samyang 24 1.4 covers this area so the issue is which lens is sharper and more consistent - for example with no decentering - wide open...


----------



## infared (Nov 20, 2015)

tron said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Sounds like the Samyang is the best and cheapest! for astro. Coma is not much of a consideration for me...If I have a great photo...no one really notices what the lights might be doing once in 200 photos on the edge in the background...that is really...really over obsession! LOL! 
I plan on owning the Sigma....it's the most interesting wide angle in ages and not badly priced! I need AF.


----------



## Ryananthony (Nov 20, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> A lens rumour is less mysterious than a new body
> 
> I guess the only thing we can speculate on is IQ and whether it has IS or not.



maybe it will have a "touch" zoom ring. ;D


----------



## pwp (Nov 21, 2015)

A 16-35 f/2.8III will be welcomed globally. One would expect similar performance gains as we saw when the 24-70 f/2.8 upgraded to MkII a couple of years ago. A 16-35 f/2.8III release won't be coming any time soon, and I have no buyers regret at yesterday having bought a 16-35 f/4 to replace my unloved 16-35 f/2.8II. I'll sell the f/2.8 for more than the f/4 cost me. And I'll use it a lot more often.

There is little doubt that the 16-35 f/2.8III will be an absolute cracker of a lens when it eventually ships. Think back to the slow-motion, years long wait and years of rumors before the 24-70 f/2.8 finally got it's update. In the meantime I need a 16-35 that delivers, and the f/4 delivers in spades.

-pw


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 21, 2015)

adventureous said:


> I am so ready for this !!!!!!!! Come on Canon, give it up before April 1st !!! My MKII does a good job but seeing the newer lens quality I know the MKIII should be great! 16-35 is my most used lens for sure, and if you leave the filter size the same, I promise to be a good boy next year and buy a new camera!!!!!



That's funny!


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> I use my 16-35 II a lot, and it's been an excellent workhorse.
> 
> If the new has BR I'll get the new one, but if not, this lens will last me another 4 or 5 years.



What happens after 5 years? I can last practically forever.... If the new one does not have BR (I think it will) then the next replacement will be LONG time from now.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 22, 2015)

sanj said:


> Bennymiata said:
> 
> 
> > I use my 16-35 II a lot, and it's been an excellent workhorse.
> ...



The lens will probably still work, though after enough time Canon don't support it and the inability to get parts for them will make many of them paperweights. I think the more relevant point is the IQ doesn't really stack up for many images. 

The 16-35 f2.8 MkII came out when the Canon wide angle lens design team consisted of a on old blind guy, the work experience guy that also empties the bins when everybody went home, and the new kid who didn't know what end of the lens went on the camera. Well that new kid made good, he went to optics school in the evening and continued on to write his PHD on an unimaginable concept, a 17 TS-E. Well the old blind guy signed off on the 17 idea even though he truthfully didn't have the authority to and the blind guys protege, the 'new kid', became the wide and ultra wide go to guy. The marketing department, fresh from the success of the 17 TS-E put pressure on everybody else to let 'the new guy' do whatever he wants, kind of a Japanese lens skunkworks. Because all these random elements (little pun intended) fell into place, we now have the 17 TS-E, the 24 TS-E MkII, the 8-15, the 16-35 f4, the 11-24, the 35 f2 IS, the 35 f1.4L MkII. 

The 16-35 f2.8 MkII is a weak performer by modern standards, and while content might trump IQ a lot of the time, there is a limit and those old weak Canon wides are not a thing of beauty.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 23, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



LOL! I totally agree! I use a hood for all my lenses except the 16-35. That hood just seems ridiculous to me.


----------



## YellowJersey (Dec 2, 2015)

nightscape123 said:


> I love my Tamron 15-30. I love the wide range of wide angle options that are out there now though. In a year or 4 I might consider this lens as the price comes down. It can be a pain to lug around all the stuff I need to use filers on the tamron. However it all depends on the coma performance of this lens. My tamron is almost coma free, and canon doesn't have a great history with coma control.



Coma is the big issue for me, too. I do landscapes, but also shoot low light and the stars. The tossup is do I get the 16-35 f/4 and the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 now or wait and see if the 16-35 f/2.8 III has good coma control. Looking at the cost, I'd probably be paying $500 more to get the two lens option, but I'd also have to buy all new filters for the 16-35 2.8 since all my current filters are 77mm. Once you get a circ pol and UV, that differences is around $100 or $200. 

Right now, I'm leaning heavily towards getting the Canon 16-35 f/4 and Tamron 15-30 2.8. Canon's never had a great history of good coma, plus IS is something I value (despite the fact that I use a tripod a fair bit). I know what I'm getting and the 16-35 f/4 has pretty good aberration control even without the BR coatings.


----------



## tron (Dec 3, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> nightscape123 said:
> 
> 
> > I love my Tamron 15-30. I love the wide range of wide angle options that are out there now though. In a year or 4 I might consider this lens as the price comes down. It can be a pain to lug around all the stuff I need to use filers on the tamron. However it all depends on the coma performance of this lens. My tamron is almost coma free, and canon doesn't have a great history with coma control.
> ...


True except for : 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 4L IS. So there is hope for the new 16-35 2.8L III


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 15, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create? With the Tammy 15-30 having IS and it being a pretty good performer for a good price this lens will have to blow away the competition because it will more than likely be expensive.
> ...



Wedding photographers are the Green Berets of the photographic world. That has to be the most pressured and super heated category there is. Hats off to all you wedding photographers.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 15, 2015)

Etienne said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > gsealy said:
> ...



$2,199.00


----------



## romanr74 (Dec 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Bennymiata said:
> ...



I fully agree with the 16-35 assessment - or at least my copy is not amazing. 
The 17 TS-E is brilliant, but when shifted sharpness is suffering (which can be expected).


----------

