# EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications



## rushfan21122 (Aug 17, 2016)

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g

The old version EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens is:

Filter Thread: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 111.6mm
Weight: 635g


EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g

The old version EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens is:

Filter Thread: 77mm
Size: 83.8 x 106.7mm
Weight: 670g


----------



## NorbR (Aug 18, 2016)

Sweet, thanks for sharing. 
Nice to see that the 24-105mm retains the 77mm filter size. 

Provided the price remains reasonable, it won't be long until that baby replaces the older one in my kit. 
(Now, whether it comes kitted with a 5D IV, that remains to be seen ...)


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 18, 2016)

The 24-105ii looks promising. Adding weight means adding elements for correction. Wondering how much it'll be. Maybe $1100?


----------



## docsmith (Aug 18, 2016)

EF 16-35 f/2.8 III will be awfully tempting for starscapes if it has reasonable coma. I have and love the 16-35 f/4 but I do not really need IS.


----------



## Good24 (Aug 18, 2016)

Wow very nice. So much chatter about the 5d Mk IV was beginning to think people forgot about the new lenses. I'm vaguely in the market for the 16-35. I have the Mk II. It's great for many purposes. But the CA. I'll wait to see how well CA is controlled in the new one before considering a purchase.


----------



## N2itiv (Aug 18, 2016)

Once again, I'll be keeping my eyes on user reviews of the 24-105. If those reviews are favorable-as I suspect they will be- there is a place in my bag for it. In line w/Canons current lens offerings, these should provide great optical performance.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 18, 2016)

No IS for 16-35 that would have been useful. Else those looks like cleaner designs seen in new L glass released in last couple of years.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Aug 18, 2016)

What is the extra little 'lump' on the side of the 24-105? Right beside the 24-105 mm label? It appears the switches for AF/MF and stabilizer on/off are on the left side of the photo just like on the current version.


----------



## rs (Aug 18, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> What is the extra little 'lump' on the side of the 24-105? Right beside the 24-105 mm label? It appears the switches for AF/MF and stabilizer on/off are on the left side of the photo just like on the current version.



Zoom lock?


----------



## Refurb7 (Aug 18, 2016)

I hate to see this lenses get bigger and heavier, but it's a sign that Canon is going all-in for image quality. Can't blame them for wanting to make excellent products.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 18, 2016)

docsmith said:


> EF 16-35 f/2.8 III will be awfully tempting for starscapes if it has reasonable coma. I have and love the 16-35 f/4 but I do not really need IS.



Hey docsmith 

What's your opinion on IS for shorter focal lengths? When does one want IS and when is it sufficient to work with a faster shutterspeed?


----------



## x-vision (Aug 18, 2016)

sunnyVan said:


> The 24-105ii looks promising. Adding weight means adding elements for correction.


Yes. And better light transmission too. 
DxO rates the transmission of the current 24-105 f4L at 5.1.
I guess the new one will fare better.



> Wondering how much it'll be. Maybe $1100?


The rumors say that the 5DIV will come in two kits: one with the 24-70/4L and another one with the new 24-105/4L.
I'd assume that there will be a $400-500 price difference between the two kits.
So, the price of the new 24-105/4L will likely be $1400-1500.


----------



## honestlo (Aug 18, 2016)

rs said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > What is the extra little 'lump' on the side of the 24-105? Right beside the 24-105 mm label? It appears the switches for AF/MF and stabilizer on/off are on the left side of the photo just like on the current version.
> ...



Hoping that is lens lock plus marco on / off just as the 24-70 F/4L


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 18, 2016)

Probably won't have the "macro" mode, as the yellow line is missing from the distance scale. Bit of a shame as that would have been nice.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

sunnyVan said:


> The 24-105ii looks promising. Adding weight means adding elements for correction. Wondering how much it'll be. Maybe $1100?



The original was around 1200 MSRP. It's going to be higher that that.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Nice to see they'll become reality soon ;D



honestlo said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > old-pr-pix said:
> ...


100% this is a zoom lock. 
I don't believe in a dedicated macro functionality like the 24-70/4L has, even though it would be really nice.
If it was so there wouldn't be any reason for the 24-70/4L anymore (except for the size/weight).
If I was wrong here I was really happy


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Maximilian said:


> Nice to see they'll become reality soon ;D
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here the same: macro functionality would be gread. It will not replace the 2.8 100 macro but make a good "single lens solution" for a variety of applications - landscape (+ some closeups of flowers, stones), cityscapes (+ some closeups of e.g. building ornaments, etc.).


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Blue goo for everyone!


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I am very interested to see how the 16-35 f/2.8L III compares to Canon's 16-35 f/4L IS which has really impressed me so far.

I am sure both of these two new lenses will be excellent performers.


----------



## rizaru (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I've been waiting for this update. Can't wait for the official launch. Hopefully the price for new 16-35mm lens is not too expensive ;D


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I very much like the current design of the L lenses - very clean...
These have gained quite some weight over their predecessors...
Cannot wait to see the MFT chart of the 16-35


----------



## docsmith (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Sabaki said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > EF 16-35 f/2.8 III will be awfully tempting for starscapes if it has reasonable coma. I have and love the 16-35 f/4 but I do not really need IS.
> ...



At least with my copy and level of caffeination, I have consistently good images @ 16 mm and 1/4" shutterspeeds, mixed results at 1/2" and occasionally a hand held shot up to 1". So it definitely works, but may be more of a 2-3 stop advantage. 

The question is, what does that give you? I've hand held a few shots of small waterfalls, but I usually have a tripod when shooting waterfalls. I've also used it for "blue hour" walk around shots around a city and it did reasonably well at that. Although, when doing so with street photography, that shutterspeed range has given a moderate amount of blur to any moving object, which, of course, works in some instances but not others. I have yet to use it for low light landscapes, again, I usually have my tripod. But I did buy it with the intent of being a lighter travel combination with the 70-300 L. So I expect there will be times when I am without my tripod and I want a blue hour landscape.

So image stabilization is still useful, but I do find IS to be much more useful for longer focal lengths. With wider focal lengths I am just finding if I want longer exposures, I usually need/have a tripod.


----------



## tyger11 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

24-105 weighs quite a bit more than the old version; this indicates a significant change. Newest optical design and coatings, newest IS, etc. Hopefully another diaphragm blade or two. That would then compete nicely with the Sigma, though the price differential is going to get interesting. Right now, the Canon costs $100 more than the currently-superior Sigma. They don't want to price it TOO far out there, as the Sigma is pretty damned good from all reports I've read. Not that Canon realizes there are other manufacturers out there.


----------



## LordofTackle (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I am really excited about the new 16-35/2.8. I hope that it has MUCH better corner performance than the previous version...
And less CA would also be nice


----------



## Camerajah (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



wockawocka said:


> Blue goo for everyone!



I forgot about that-blue goo stuff,it would be like blue icing on the cake


----------



## Wedding Shooter (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

16-35 III is great news. The hole on my bank account will not be that much fun.
Estimated cost for the lens???


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I think when the f4 version came out it was selling for$1199. Usually f2.8 costs almost twice as much so the price tag is likely $2200-2400. 





Wedding Shooter said:


> 16-35 III is great news. The hole on my bank account will not be that much fun.
> Estimated cost for the lens???


----------



## infared (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



sunnyVan said:


> I think when the f4 version came out it was selling for$1199. Usually f2.8 costs almost twice as much so the price tag is likely $2200-2400.
> 
> 
> Wedding Shooter said:
> ...



Yes...I agree with your price guess...or maybe higher?.... I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II to buy the 16-35mm f/4 IS. GREAT LENS! I am definitely not paying the premium for this new offering....but I bet its (finally) a beauty. Canon is finally getting its $hit together with wide angle glass. ....but we is paying for it!!!!


----------



## Tom W (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

It'll be interesting to see what optical improvements are included with these two new versions. I also wonder if Canon will improve the copy to copy consistency that seems to be apparent in their newest lenses, based on observations at Lensrentals.com. 

Both are staple items in many camera bags.


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I am definitely not buying this new 2.8 version too. I am sure it's going to have stellar IQ but I am sure very happy with the f4 version. If I ever need 2.8 I'd rather get a cheap manual prime such as samyang. 



infared said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > I think when the f4 version came out it was selling for$1199. Usually f2.8 costs almost twice as much so the price tag is likely $2200-2400.
> ...


----------



## nightscape123 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

How long did it take for the original 24-105 to come down in price? I mean the old one MSRP is like $1200 but I don't think anyone would buy it for more than $600. Did that happen quickly or did it take a few years?

I am also interested to see if they will change the number of aperture blades on the 24-105. The old one has a terrible starburst. 

I'm also curious what canon will price the new 16-35. It has a lot of competition now. Between all the sigma art lenses, the excellent tamron 15-30, and canon's own 16-35 f/4 it will be hard to justify $2500 for a lens when you can get such excellent quality for $1000.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



sunnyVan said:


> I am definitely not buying this new 2.8 version too. I am sure it's going to have stellar IQ but I am sure very happy with the f4 version. If I ever need 2.8 I'd rather get a cheap manual prime such as samyang.



Nor am I going to buy the 16-35/2.8 III. I sold my 16-35/2.8 II intending, like you, to get the 16-35/4 IS...but I opted for the TS-E 17 instead, since much of my UWA shooting is architecture. 

Still, looking forward to seeing how these lenses perform. If the IQ of the 24-105/4 IS II approaches that of the 24-70/2.8 II (which I suspect won't be the case, but I have hope), that lens would be very tempting.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I want that 16-35! Would be a nice upgrade to my current UWA, the 17-40. I suppose there is zero chance that lens will be affordable. :-[

I Eagerly await some reviews!


----------



## photojoern.de (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



> I am definitely not buying this new 2.8 version too. I am sure it's going to have stellar IQ but I am sure very happy with the f4 version. If I ever need 2.8 I'd rather get a cheap manual prime such as samyang.


I owned both lenses in the current version (16-35mm f 2.8 II and the 24-105 L IS) and I haven´t been happy with both of them, for the same reason: low sharpness outside the center.
I currently own the 16-35 L f4 IS and the 24-70mm f2.8 L and they are sharp across the entire picture.
So the question is: given that the image quality improved significantly, who will buy these lenses:
- the 16-35mm f2.8 III favoured over the f4 IS probably only for night and i.e. star photography. Low light in general is better with the f4 IS because you can hand hold up to 1/10th of a second. Not too many applications where one whould really benefit from f2.8 vs f4 in this focal range.
- the 24-105: hopefully a better kit lens than the predecessor and nice to have added flexibility vs the 24-70. Cheaper probably also vs. the f2.8 24-70mm L version. And it has a four stop IS. So if this new Mark II lens performs in image quality, it could be a great "always on lense".
Let´s see what they do. And let´s not forget that with increase pixel density, flaws in the lens are more and more the bottleneck.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



mb66energy said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Nice to see they'll become reality soon ;D
> ...


The current model has a MFD of 45 cm and a maximum 0.23x magnification. The 24-70/4L has a 0.7x magnification. 
I see no reason why this new lens shouldn't get a HIS image stabilizer and a magnification of at least 0.5x. 
Except for causing IQ loss in normal non-macro use.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



dilbert said:


> Both of these lenses look more like the newer varieties... the 16-35/f2.8 III resembles the 16-35/f4 and the 24-105/f4 II resembles the 24-70/f4


I hope the EF 24-105mm f4L II is better optically & mechanically than the EF 24-70mm f4L that lens is not strong optically and exhibits focus shift.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



photojoern.de said:


> - the 16-35mm f2.8 III favoured over the f4 IS probably only for night and i.e. star photography. Low light in general is better with the f4 IS because you can hand hold up to 1/10th of a second. *Not too many applications where one whould really benefit from f2.8 vs f4 in this focal range.*



Events. Weddings and receptions. Sports. Lots of applications for UWA shooting in lower light where subjects are moving and thus an extra stop of light is a big benefit but IS is completely useless.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

The EF 16-35mm f4L is one of Canon best zooms and measurably far superior than the EF 24-70mm f4L. The present EF 24-105 f4L for me has been a real work-horse but on the 5DS it has been wanting on occasions. If the new lens is remotely as good as the EF 16-35mm f4L my credit card will immediately see daylight!


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

If the new 24-105 approaches 24-70 2.8ii in IQ, it would present a big dilemma : should I still keep the 2.8? Sometimes having too many choices is painful. If 24-105ii is decent wide open in the 24-50 and at 100mm, then I'm absolutely buying it. 



neuroanatomist said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > I am definitely not buying this new 2.8 version too. I am sure it's going to have stellar IQ but I am sure very happy with the f4 version. If I ever need 2.8 I'd rather get a cheap manual prime such as samyang.
> ...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



sunnyVan said:


> If the new 24-105 approaches 24-70 2.8ii in IQ, it would present a big dilemma : should I still keep the 2.8? Sometimes having too many choices is painful. If 24-105ii is decent wide open in the 24-50 and at 100mm, then I'm absolutely buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The current 24-105 LIS is weakest at 24mm. Strong distortion, vignetting, and lower optical resolution. But the huge focal range is really nice and it makes a great 2 lens line up with the 100-400 LIS II. I'd hope that the new mkII lens offers 24-70mm f2.8 II L performance along with the higher number of aperture blades for nicer sunbursts. 

I'm a big fan of the current 16-35IIL. As a wedding photographer...I need the f2.8 aperture more than I need an f4 with an IS system (regardless of how good it is). The current mk I lens has poor CA and isn't as great as other lenses in terms of wide open resolution. But it still offers the best sun stars of any lens I know. Better than the 16-35 f4 LIS. So i'm hoping Canon have kept the same number of aperture blades as the mkI


----------



## TheDrift- (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

What are we talking about for ball park prices (£ uk)?

2k ish for the 16 35
1.5k ish for the 24 105
3k ish for the 5d mk iv


----------



## roxics (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Are these lenses Nano USM? Will they support the new power zoom box that Canon released with the 80D and the new 18-135 Nano USM? 
I would think that with the 5D mkIV getting DPAF and the 1D X mkII already having it they would make all the new L lenses work well with it.


----------



## Skywise (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I've got the 16-35 f2.8ii and do a lot of night time videoing with it (fireworks, night lighting and such) I'm still trying to figure out if the f4 with IS is going to be better for me than the f2.8iii. IS will help hand held video obviously but will I lose some of the lighting depth... :/


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I've been using the 24-105mm F/4 L IS as a video lens for ages and it's just a workhorse of a lens. This lens has been a de-facto standard for video shooters on the 5D series era and on the C100/C300 as an all rounder ''doc'' lens. 

Mine lived on my 5DII and 60D (great range for both sensor sizes from wide to tele) and the lens alone carried my video production company, it's specifically ultimately exceptional in video Image Stabilisation unlike any other Canon lens, but sadly one time the tripod fell off and the hit was right to the extended lens barrel. It was stuck/fixed, seemed like something easy to fix, but I found out it was officially dead and repair exceeds the cost of a new one. So it lives now as room decoration. 

Since I moved from Full Frame video and lost the 24-105mm. I found an alternative in the absolutely brilliant Canon 18-135mm IS. It's only APS-C (so only 60D, C100, C300, not 5D, which I sold and it got outdated in the video world). 

And I found that little gem to be better in every single way including image quality except for build quality/feel and constant f/4 aperture. 

But the 24-105mm wasn't ACTUALLY a constant aperture lens, it got darker whilst zooming during video, not much different from the variable 18-135mm oddly. So that was a strange downside with the lens, I thought I was the only one with a bad copy but it turns out this was documented and reported by all video shooters. 

The 18-135mm has a larger range and wider for APS-C (which is the standard for video/cinema), less distortion at 24mm, similar/identical sharpness, same overall image, slightly better image stabilisation, silent AF and IS and Iris, and smaller/lighter weight and cost. 

The 24-105mm has Full frame coverage shall you need it, constant f/4, and L series build quality, for a very low price point. 

I'd ditch the 18-135mm and get this new lens if it has a few things. Most importantly, image quality. The 24-105mm and 18-135mm are great lenses and do very good 2mp 1080p video, but when you pop on a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and look at the image both set at f/4, it just hits you how much POP and cleaner colour and 3d dimension feel these primes have. This aesthetic is in the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS and 24-70mm F/2.8. One might think that at at 1080p HD the resolution increase in the lens wouldn't show up but it does, significantly. 

So for me it needs to be:

1- Sharper. Higher resolution. Just get more of that *POP *it lacks compared to primes and other L glass. 
2- Less Distortion at wide shots. It's hideous. In photography you can correct it but in video, not so much. 
3- Doesn't ramp aperture/transmission while zooming from 24mm to 105mm like a normal constant should.


----------



## NorbR (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



roxics said:


> Are these lenses Nano USM? Will they support the new power zoom box that Canon released with the 80D and the new 18-135 Nano USM?



Hard to tell for sure, but since the 18-135mm actually has the words "Nano USM" written on it, and these ones don't, I'm guessing they have the good ol' regular USM. Not that that's a bad thing, although I was really impressed with the focusing speed on that 18-135mm, and it would have made sense to find it at least on the new 24-105mm.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I see the 24-105 barrel extends... strike 1 for me... That's the one thing i hate most about the lens... 16-35,17-40,70-200 all zooms internally, why cant this?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



NorbR said:


> roxics said:
> 
> 
> > Are these lenses Nano USM? Will they support the new power zoom box that Canon released with the 80D and the new 18-135 Nano USM?
> ...



Almost certainly true USM focusing, not nanoUSM.


----------



## j-nord (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

It's not every year that we see 2 major lens refreshes like this. I'm more excited for the reviews/tests of these lenses than the 5DIV! 

Fingers crossed that the 16-35iii has good coma! Ill trade IS for good coma (since it's UWA).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



awinphoto said:


> I see the 24-105 barrel extends... strike 1 for me... That's the one thing i hate most about the lens... 16-35,17-40,70-200 all zooms internally, why cant this?



The UWA lenses do extend with zooming, they just do so with an inner barrel behind the filter thread (which is why those lenses require a front filter to complete the weather sealing). If you look at the zoom mechanism, they're actually most extended at the ends of the zoom, and most retracted in the middle (the lens has to get longer as it gets more retrofocal).

As to why the 24-xxx zooms can't zoom internally, the answer is that they could be made that way, but would you really want them to always be the extended length (or slightly longer)? Personally, I'm glad that Canon designs them with a shorter collapsed length. For example, compare the non-extending 70-200/4 IS with the extending 70-300L – the latter has a 50% longer FL, but is shorter when retracted. That is why the 70-300L is my preferred travel telezoom, it fits vertically in a camera bag slot, rather than needing to lay flat and take up two lens compartments.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I see the 24-105 barrel extends... strike 1 for me... That's the one thing i hate most about the lens... 16-35,17-40,70-200 all zooms internally, why cant this?
> ...



Fair enough, however i've always found the extended barrel tends to be one of the weakest points on the lens, as a working professional photographer... i've had to send my lens in before because while walking from location to location at a shoot, the barrel self extended and then an unfortunate knock screwed up the zoom ring so it could not fully zoom in or out and had to be repaired. At the very least, i hope they put a zoom lock on this lens.


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

The 16-35mm II had shameful image quality in the corners so I hope this mk3 version is significantly better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



awinphoto said:


> At the very least, i hope they put a zoom lock on this lens.



The leaked images seem to indicate it will have a zoom lock. The 70-300L has one, it's a bit annoying becuase the reverse-mounted hood blocks the zoom lock, but that won't be the case with the shallow hood for the 24-105L II.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Meatcurry said:


> Probably won't have the "macro" mode, as the yellow line is missing from the distance scale. Bit of a shame as that would have been nice.



Not sure about that. The 24-70 f/4L IS macro indicators are visible in three places:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The distance scale
[*]The lock/macro switch
[*]The long end of the zoom (you 'go past' 70 on the zoom ring to use it after you flip the switch)
[/list]

...and we only have two similar views of that 24-105L II. There's clearly a lock switch on the right that _might_ have the macro option, but we cannot see the macro end of the focusing range in the distance scale and we can't see the 105mm end of the zoom ring.

So I'm calling macro mode on the 24-105L II as _still possible_ from what we can see, but fairly unlikely.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



docsmith said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > docsmith said:
> ...



+1. That's been my experience as well. I believe IS belongs on everything as I tend to shoot handheld without flash and often climb up to ISO 6400 or so. Unless my subjects are moving, IS lets me walk the ISO back down to earth, which is huge.

Agree you get less bang for the IS buck with wider lenses, but it's still useful.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Luds34 said:


> I want that 16-35! Would be a nice upgrade to my current UWA, the 17-40. I suppose there is zero chance that lens will be affordable. :-[
> 
> I Eagerly await some reviews!



If you need f/2.8, then I'm sorry, you need to pony up the bucks or consider the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC (be advised that Tamron has no front filter threads).

But if you don't need f/2.8 -- if you aren't shooting events / sports / astro / reportage -- what you waiting for? the 16-35 f/4L IS is a stellar, stellar lens and it won't set you back the (guessing) $1,600-1,800 that the new f/2.8 will.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



awinphoto said:


> I see the 24-105 barrel extends... strike 1 for me... That's the one thing i hate most about the lens... 16-35,17-40,70-200 all zooms internally, why cant this?



I hear you, but sorry, all EF (and EF-S and EF-M, right?) Canon standard zooms do this. Good wides don't, and some good longer zooms don't. But with standard zooms you are SOL, and there's a reason for that.

Standard zooms externally zoom 99% of the time because having a 'short configuration' (usually on the wide end of the FL range) lets you put it in a smaller bag than if they didn't. These lenses tend to get left on the body much longer than other lenses, so bag fit is a key consideration.

Also, the percentage of knowledgeable photogs that understand/value why internally zooming lenses are worth the trouble has got to be dwarfed by the number of general consumers who don't. To them, a smaller footprint for packing is far more attractive than the downside of a pathway for dust/dirt/fluid ingress.

- A


----------



## adventureous (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> I've been using the 24-105mm F/4 L IS as a video lens for ages and it's just a workhorse of a lens. This lens has been a de-facto standard for video shooters on the 5D series era and on the C100/C300 as an all rounder ''doc'' lens.
> 
> Mine lived on my 5DII and 60D (great range for both sensor sizes from wide to tele) and the lens alone carried my video production company, it's specifically ultimately exceptional in video Image Stabilisation unlike any other Canon lens, but sadly one time the tripod fell off and the hit was right to the extended lens barrel. It was stuck/fixed, seemed like something easy to fix, but I found out it was officially dead and repair exceeds the cost of a new one. So it lives now as room decoration.
> 
> ...




Thank you for this write up as it helps us video neophytes.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



awinphoto said:


> Fair enough, however i've always found the extended barrel tends to be one of the weakest points on the lens, as a working professional photographer... i've had to send my lens in before because while walking from location to location at a shoot, the barrel self extended and then an unfortunate knock screwed up the zoom ring so it could not fully zoom in or out and had to be repaired. At the very least, i hope they put a zoom lock on this lens.



Good writeup, Neuro, you beat me to it.

awinphoto, I'm hard pressed to think of a standard zoom that _doesn't _externally zoom besides the Sigma 24-35 f/2, which doesn't cover much FL range. Are there any others for the EF mount? Off the top of my head (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Canon) I cannot think of any.

- A


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > At the very least, i hope they put a zoom lock on this lens.
> ...



I don't know what else the right 'boss' for a switch in that photo could be other than a zoom lock. It's either that or a zoom + macro mode lock like with the 24-70 f/4L IS, but in either case, you get a zoom lock.

Also, do we think we'll we get a CPL access window on the hood for this one like with the 100-400L II? 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ashmadux said:


> Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.



You never know. If you are judging that from the length/weight numbers, remember that the 24-70 f/2.8L II got shorter and lighter than the Mk I version -- and that Mk. II lens absolutely mopped the floor with its predecessor.

And as Canon knows that its L lens customers study IQ intensely, they tend not to release a II of something that is worse than what came before. There are exceptions to that rule, but they tend to be more quirky / tradeoff-y than pure IQ letdowns. (e.g. the 24-70L II decision to reverse the in-out zoom direction --> this led to a much more bag/storage/reversable-friendly hood, but it only optimally protected from flare at 24mm).

- A


----------



## tr573 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ashmadux said:


> Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.



I doubt they would add 120 grams of weight to the thing for zero or near zero improvement. What's the market for such a thing

"Pretty much the same but over 4 ounces heavier and more expensive to boot! Come and get it folks!"

I could see assuming the IQ won't get a boost if they managed to shave the size down significantly - at least you have a point to market it on then.


----------



## mrzero (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



roxics said:


> Are these lenses Nano USM? Will they support the new power zoom box that Canon released with the 80D and the new 18-135 Nano USM?
> I would think that with the 5D mkIV getting DPAF and the 1D X mkII already having it they would make all the new L lenses work well with it.



I think the new 24-105 would make perfect sense to be paired with the new power zoom controller, and I hope that Canon had that foresight as well. It would also justify kitting it with the 5DIV (with DPAF), as well as kitting the 24-70.


----------



## George D. (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I've said years ago in this forum this sort of UWA and WA in-one combination zoom offers good optical performance on one end and a convenience on the other. One purchases the 16-35mm f/2.8 for the 16mm end, the 35mm is secondary and lesser performing. If you mostly work on the 35mm end the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the choice. So I'm very curious how Canon have addressed the "poor" performing end. Will this III attempt be a truly stellar lens end-to-end or will we see another compromise.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



George D. said:


> I've said years ago in this forum this sort of UWA and WA in-one combination zoom offers good optical performance on one end and a convenience on the other. One purchases the 16-35mm f/2.8 for the 16mm end, the 35mm is secondary and lesser performing. If you mostly work on the 35mm end the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the choice. So I'm very curious how Canon have addressed the "poor" performing end. Will this III attempt be a truly stellar lens end-to-end or will we see another compromise.



Ah. So a 16-35 zoom is just Canon's best autofocusing 16mm prime. Got it.

(I've been similarly calling the 11-24 f/4L as an 11mm prime for the same reason. )

- A


----------



## FECHariot (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I have been holding off on buying an UWA until I upgrade to full frame and the 5D4 looks like it might work well for me. I'll probably hold off until the 6d2 is announced to let the price settle down on the 5D4 and compare the two.

However I just don't see either of these two lenses making my bag, at least for a very long time. In an UWA I want stabilization for video and I want fast aperture for Milkey Way stuff. The Tamron 15-30 gives me both and it gives them to me for about half of what the 16-35/2.8 III for probably cost. The alternative would be for me to get the 16-35/4 and a Samyang 14/2.8.

The 24-105 I bet is going to be great. However it's street price being a kit lens is going to drive the value down significantly over time. I am not going to want to pay full price as an early adopter there. I'll keep using my original 24-105 when I need a zoom and use the existing primes when I don't.

So I am just not excited about the lenses here, at least not as excited as I am about the 5D4.


----------



## George D. (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > I've said years ago in this forum this sort of UWA and WA in-one combination zoom offers good optical performance on one end and a convenience on the other. One purchases the 16-35mm f/2.8 for the 16mm end, the 35mm is secondary and lesser performing. If you mostly work on the 35mm end the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the choice. So I'm very curious how Canon have addressed the "poor" performing end. Will this III attempt be a truly stellar lens end-to-end or will we see another compromise.
> ...



Well, if you're happy with the 16-35/2.8L II you can just invest USD 1,500 and get one. Sorry I won't.

BTW Canon weren't happy and upgraded it. Let's see where it improves and we'll take it from there.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



mclaren777 said:


> The 16-35mm II had shameful image quality in the corners so I hope this mk3 version is significantly better.



There's plenty worse wide lenses out there. When the 16-35IIL was launched it was the best in it's class bu quite some margin. I think you are exaggerating the corner sharpness issue far more than it really is. Not many people use this lens wide open. For landscape work, stopped down to f8 and the corners are very good. For group shots, no one places people on the far edges, so that's not an issue either. So for most uses, the current model is more than adequate...certainly better performing than many of the photographers who are complaining about it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

few people actually paid that though for the original 24-105L, not for years and years, you could get split kit, new lenses for half the price for ages now

I always felt the 24-105L was the single most over-priced (at list) and poorest quality of the L lenses.
I tried it a few different times but it stunk (for an L and for the full box price) every single time. Poor T value, poor LoCA, poor edge/corner sharpness at 24mm and some other focal lengths.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



jeffa4444 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Both of these lenses look more like the newer varieties... the 16-35/f2.8 III resembles the 16-35/f4 and the 24-105/f4 II resembles the 24-70/f4
> ...



24-70 f/4 had pretty solid optics, vastly better than the 24-105L, and it's weakest spot was right in the middle at 50mm and most people tend to use zooms more towards either extreme


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35mm II had shameful image quality in the corners so I hope this mk3 version is significantly better.
> ...



+1. If you are shooting landscapes or architecture on a tripod, wide open corner sharpness is an unfair bar to judge any UWA lens with. My 16-35 f/4L IS usually sits around f/8 or so unless I'm informally shooting handheld in lower light (cityscape on walkabout, inside of cathedrals and other structures on vaca, etc.). That's why *if you only shoot non-astro landscapes* with your 16-35, don't pony up the money for the f/2.8 lens. It's just heavier and more expensive for you.

*Astro / sports / event / reportage people* obviously would care more about wide open work and would likely pay the money for this new one. That's an easy call.

Who I feel for are the *all-around-interest photographers* who might feel the need to make the plunge on this new 16-35 f/2.8L III because _who knows what they'll shoot next year_. The landscaper who always wanted to get into astro someday is a good example. In that light, the f/2.8 version is a degree of future-proofing their lens collection.

- A


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > I want that 16-35! Would be a nice upgrade to my current UWA, the 17-40. I suppose there is zero chance that lens will be affordable. :-[
> ...



Two issues there...the Tamron doesn't have a front filter thread...that's a dead duck to start with. Polarisers and ND filters are a landscaper's regaulr tools to balance sky, sea, reflections and land exposures. Secondly, please don't think that a Tamron lens is any where near the build quality of a Canon L lens. When I started shooting weddings, I literally went through two copies of their 17-35mm Dii lenses. They just fell apart, both of them...one after the other. Then I bought a 17-40L and after three years it never missed a beat. It could handle anything I needed it too and still looked like I'd just bought it. But I missed the f2.8 at the wide end and upgraded to a 16-35IIL for the next season. I sold the 17-40L for slightly more than I paid for it (the prices had gone up) and that would never had happened with Tamron, usually they drop. My current 16-35IIL has been an amazing workhorse over the 9 years I've been using it. I've never once had a client complain about soft corners when using this lens, but I've got lots of "wow..." so maybe our metrics for judging a lens are skewed.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



tr573 said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.
> ...



Maybe the extra weight all comes from the build quality? all those blurbs mentioned were better AF for one and better build quality for both.

Still it would seem a bit weird, granted.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Other than the focus shift, that 24-70 f/4L IS is a peach of a lens. Light / sharp / sealed / IS / USM / 0.7x macro with working AF. That last feature is a dagger nothing in else in the standard zoom world can boast, and it turns this lens into a perfect hiking / walkabout standard zoom.

It also tucks under the total length limits of some major ballparks & stadiums, so in some cases you can bring it to the game with you.

I appreciate those who want the 24-105L II to outperform the 24-70 f/4, but as it's apparently a kit lens with the 5D4, I'd keep your feet on the ground. A new 4.5x zoom outperforming a within-the-last-few-years 3x zoom seems either very unlikely or very expensive. We shall see!

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> Two issues there...the Tamron doesn't have a front filter thread...that's a dead duck to start with. Polarisers and ND filters are a landscaper's regaulr tools to balance sky, sea, reflections and land exposures.



Preaching to the choir, sir. No filter ring = no sale _ever_ for me. I don't mind fighting through a Lee or Wonderpana outrigger for the occasional ND grad use, but if I can't quickly slap a CPL on it, absolutely forget it.

Other feel differently of course. If you principally will use your UWA zoom for astro, you care a whole lot less about the lack of a filter ring. And some others would say IQ or features are king no matter what the drawbacks are, and if Lee/Wonderpana is needed to use the best lens, then so be it. Good luck to them, I say.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



rushfan21122 said:


> EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
> 
> Filter diameter: 82mm
> Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
> ...



24-105L came out at 145,000 Yen
the 16-35 II came out at 230,000 Yen

I'm going to guess $1499 and $2199 for these two bad boys each.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > ashmadux said:
> ...



that's a lot of build quality


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

$1500 is a very steep price for a kit lens no matter how good it is



rrcphoto said:


> rushfan21122 said:
> 
> 
> > EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
> ...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Two issues there...the Tamron doesn't have a front filter thread...that's a dead duck to start with. Polarisers and ND filters are a landscaper's regaulr tools to balance sky, sea, reflections and land exposures.
> ...



Here here! I think it's one of the big attractions to the Loawa 12mm f2.8 prime. It's that massive angle of view and it can take regular screw in filters. Plus, it's relatively small and light weight.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Best guess for me:

24-105L II: $1,199

16-35 f/2.8L III: $1,799 

I think working pros / agencies / news outlets / etc. will gobble up that 16-35 as a future workhorse they will use all the time. 

It may be less to do with it being _better_ than the II so much as their prior 16-35 II's will be worn to hell from so much use and they just need new lenses, and this will be the current/latest thing Canon gives them. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> Here here! I think it's one of the big attractions to the Loawa 12mm f2.8 prime. It's that massive angle of view and it can take regular screw in filters. Plus, it's relatively small and light weight.



Take 'regular' with a grain of salt  -- those filters are huge, though do-able (100 or 105 with their nutty holder).

But moving up to slot filters (ND grads and such) on this will likely require something specialized / non-standard like Wonderpana -- not for front thread reasons, but for filter size reasons given the FOV. Pretty sure Lee's SW150 craps out vignetting-wise around 14mm.

- A


----------



## bholliman (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I'm really looking forward to the reviews for the 24-105 II. I've always felt the zoom range of the 24-70 lenses was too short, so almost always carry either my 100L or 135L along with my 24-70 for reach. I owned a 24-105 I several years ago but was unhappy with its sharpness and distortion at the wide end. With a good 24-105, I can finally have a single lens solution for many outings. I fully expect the new version to be excellent, as all other recent lenses released by Canon have been, and for one to reside on my 5DsR within a few months.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



I agree that the 24-70 f/4L IS is a really nice lens. Its a little soft in the 40-55mm focal range, but sharp at both extremes where I tend to use mine the most anyway. It's certainly not as good as the excellent 24-70 f/2.8 II, but it's currently selling for 1/2 the price and is roughly 1/2 the size. Overall, it's a very nice compact, general purpose lens. 

That said, mine will probably be up for sale soon. I'm hoping for a 24-105 f/4 II that equals or exceeds the 24-70 f/4 in IQ, and I think Canon is certainly capable of doing that. I single lens for travel that will handle everything from landscapes to portraits with very good to excellent IQ will be awesome.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16*



GMCPhotographics said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35mm II had shameful image quality in the corners so I hope this mk3 version is significantly better.
> ...



The corner quality of the mkII keeps me from using it for the architecture/landscape work I primarily bought it for. The 17mm TS-E (at least unshifted) and the 16-35 f/4 IS beat the s... out of it. And at least my copy has a corner sharpness issue stopped down. I agree you don't need 2.8 for architecture/landscape work, but it is more versatile with 2.8 to be used as a walk-around-lens as well...


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



bholliman said:


> I'm really looking forward to the reviews for the 24-105 II. I've always felt the zoom range of the 24-70 lenses was too short, so almost always carry either my 100L or 135L along with my 24-70 for reach. I owned a 24-105 I several years ago but was unhappy with its sharpness and distortion at the wide end. With a good 24-105, I can finally have a single lens solution for many outings. I fully expect the new version to be excellent, as all other recent lenses released by Canon have been, and for one to reside on my 5DsR within a few months.



+1

Now that I've decided to pass on the 5D Mark IV (and possibly pick up a 2nd 5D III at closeout), the 24-105L II is getting all my attention. The 24-105L is my most used and (arguably) lowest quality lens. Bought my first copy retail ($1099) in 2005 during my crop days, and while never really blown away with its quality, its zoom creep really irritated me. 

I replaced it in 2013 with a new one split out of a kit; not really any better on either the image quality or zoom creep fronts. Now I wish I had kept the original and saved that money (although it cost me less than $200 to upgrade). I'll be watching closely for real-world reviews of the 24-105 II, and looking to buy one new out of someone's kit.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35mm II had shameful image quality in the corners so I hope this mk3 version is significantly better.
> ...



Not true, the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and 16-35 f2.8 both beat the shit out of the Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkII. The Canon did best its sibling prime 14mm f2.8 but that was another complete dog too. The 14mm f2.8 MkII put the 16-35 f2.8 MkII back in its place as the most expensive and poorest performing ultra wide angle out there.

One of the most amazing turnarounds from Canon lenses has been their wide and ultrawide lenses. The 8-15 fisheye was the first shots across all others bows, the TS-E 24 MkII and TS-E17 cemented the notion that they had turned it around (Nikon are still years behind with their mere and unreleased as yet 19PC-E). The 16-35 f4 IS is an unbelievably good lens and great value, the 35 f2 IS is loved by all who use it, the 11-24 broke all the molds and the 35 f1.4 MkII has set yet another benchmark. 

The various 16-35 f2.8's have all been weak performers and the sooner a MkIII is released we will see how bad they have all been by their pathetic resale value.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



privatebydesign said:


> One of the most amazing turnarounds from Canon lenses has been their wide and ultrawide lenses.



+1

Last 5 years, I can't speak for the UWA primes or T/S lenses, but UWA zooms have come tremendously forward for Canon. The 16-35 f/4L IS is the great landscaper's lens we've been waiting forever for. Then the 11-24 f/4L came out and scratched the U-UWA itch. Now it's time to complete the triumvirate with the event/sports f/2.8 lens and Canon can start focusing their lens designers elsewhere.

...like on a 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM. 

Soon.

Please.

- A


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Pricing Prognostications:
16-35mm f2.8L Mk III - somewhere between $1999.99USD and $2199.99USD

24-105mm f4.0L Mk II - somewhere between $1199.99USD and $1399.99USD

Performance Prognostications:
16-35mm f2.8L Mk III - better in every respect over it's predecessor, especially in corner performance. Better CA control, etc. Better micro-contrast, etc.

24-105mm f4.0L Mk II - better build, better IQ (approaching and/or exceeding the 24-70mm f4.0L), much better performance at the wide end (24-35mm).

I think the development and release of these 2 lenses may also spark or put renewed interest in Canon's 5DsR and 5Ds if the IQ/resolution is on par with the 16-35mm f4.0L.

We shall see.

A few have mentioned the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC lens. It is a stellar performer based on all the reviews with accompanying photos I have read. The one major drawback is the lack of front filter threading...however, Fotodiox's Wonderpana system works well with it based on Dustin Abbott's review. And is an option. And while it is very true that Canon's hold their resale value much better than 3-party lenses. I'm not sure why one would sell this type of lens after buying and owning it. (Other than to get a newer/better version.)

It'll be interesting to see over the next few years what technological developments there will be to keep making improvements to lenses...perhaps mostly these developments will be in manufacturing techniques and materials?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



privatebydesign said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



Firstly, the TS-e 24L and TS-e 17L were released before the 8-15L fish. A long time before. Secondly, the 16-35IIL was released before the Nikon 14-24, which is a completely different lens class to the 16-35mm. Nikon already had a 17-35 f2.8 variant and the 14-24 f2.8 didn't replace it. I know many Nikon wedding photographers who rushed out...bought one and then sold it soon after, preferring the 17-35 for venue shots and group shots, which says a lot considering how old the 17-35mm f2.8 lens is. The 14-24 is in the same genre as the Sigma 12-24 and the new Canon 11-24L. It's a completely different type of lens and it shouldn't be compared. A 16-35 is way way way more versatile than a 14-24 any day. A 14-24mm lens is an evolution of the 14mm architecture lens, which is why they are generally so heavily corrected for straight lines. Which is why it's SO good for shoot brick walls. But conversely, they are rubbish for anything with circles...like faces. Filters...weight, elongated faces, bulbous front element to name just a few. So...yes sir...yes true. 

Yes Canon have come a long way with their wide lenses. The original 16-35L wasn't great at all...but that was a pre-digital lens. Canon now have a lot of great wide lenses, (I have copies of most of them) to Nikon's 1 great wide lens, the 14-24. Their 16-35 f4 VR looks pretty bad in the corners...worse than the 16-35IIL. Before that, you had to get a lens that was really old, 1st gen USM, the 17-35mm f2.8 IF ED, which was last used by Noah in the ark.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



FramerMCB said:


> A few have mentioned the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC lens. It is a stellar performer based on all the reviews with accompanying photos I have read. The one major drawback is the lack of front filter threading...however, Fotodiox's Wonderpana system works well with it based on Dustin Abbott's review. And is an option. And while it is very true that Canon's hold their resale value much better than 3-party lenses. I'm not sure why one would sell this type of lens after buying and owning it. (Other than to get a newer/better version.)



We've spoken of the Tamron a fair amount on this thread, I thought. Fine lens.

But threading in a CPL or an ND in seconds without needing to leave a large outrigger on the lens (or in your bag) is a huge, huge advantage for the Canon. As are first-party AF routines and build quality. Some people who have the money will absolutely trade up from the Tamron to the Canon once it's out.

I see landscapers and astro folks reaching for the Tamron as those two arenas don't rely on AF or require quick changeouts of filters. Everyone else who needs an an all-weather / front-filterable event / sports / reportage f/2.8 UWA zoom lens will reach for the Canon.

I cannot state enough how idiotic a design decision it was to not allow front filtering with the Tamron. Even if they had gone with a comically wide integral hood/filter ring thing like with the Zeiss 15mm prime (or even lowered their FL range to 16-35, 17-35, etc.) they would have sold a boatload more lenses, IMHO. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> Firstly, the TS-e 24L and TS-e 17L were released before the 8-15L fish. A log time before. Secondly, the 16-35IIL was released before the Nikon 14-24, which is a completely different lens class to the 16-35mm. Nikon already had a 16-35 f2.8 variant and the 14-24 f2.8 didn't replace it. I know many Nikon wedding photographers who rushed out...bought one and then sold it soon after, preferring the 17-35 for venue shots and group shots, which says a lot considering how old the 17-35mm f2.8 lens is. The 14-24 is in the same genre as the Sigma 12-24 and the new Canon 11-24L. It's a completely different type of lens and it shouldn't be compared. A 16-35 is way way way more versatile than a 14-24 any day. A 14-24mm lens is an evolution of the 14mm architecture lens, which is why they are generally so heavily corrected for straight lines. Which is why it's SO good for shoot brick walls. But conversely, they are rubbish for anything with circles...like faces. Filters...weight, elongated faces, bulbous front element to name just a few. So...yes sir...yes true.



+1. I thoroughly applaud Canon for not chasing the 14-24 f/2.8 dragon. It's like a Ferrari and sexy and mythical and fabled, _until you have to use one to go buy groceries_. 

In comparison, Canon now (as they have in other parts of the portfolio) have more and better answers for photographers. One ideal zoom for landscapes, one ideal zoom for architecture, and one ideal event/sports zoom. I love what they've done with the place.

The only question is if the astro camp will be shut out from their dream of wide + fast + coma free. Canon has only ever been able to do that in a lens that isn't quite wide or fast enough for them (24-70 f/2.8L II). I think this 16-35 f/2.8L III may let them down, but a future 24 f/1.4L III with the BR gunk may do the trick for them.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



My bad on the release sequence, senility is creeping in.

However I double down on the 16-35 f2.8 MkII being a dog from day one. The fact that the 14-24 is a 'different design' of lens doesn't mean it didn't still beat the shit out if the Canon dog and as they share focal length and aperture I suggest you saying they shouldn't be compared is ridiculous. It's interesting because when you do comparisons now between the 14-24 and the 11-24 the Canon knocks the shit out of the previous all holy ultra wide angle zoom.

For perspective I own the TS-E 17 and the 11-24, I owned the 16-35 f2.8 MkI since it came out and didn't get the MkII because I tested two against my MkI and found all three were dogs. I got a 16-35 f4 IS when it came out and it was the first Canon ultrawide zoom worth a damn for anything off center. I sold it and got the 11-24 soon after that came out and whilst it is an unmatched lens in many regards, it wipes the floor with the Nikon 14-24 (which really isn't very usable at f2.8) even at 11mm vs 14mm, it isn't as good as that bargain 16-35 f4 IS where they cross over.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



I've tested 9 in total EF 24-70mm f4L lenses on MTF and using the new CIPA high resolution chart. All of them were "very average lenses" weakest at 50mm, all had image shift and the only real advantage over the EF 24-105mm f4L was better chromatic aberration control. Admittedly this is not one of the more expensive L lenses and price plays its part. I don't agree given advancements in optical design that Canon cannot make a EF 24-105mm f4L II a superior lens I think they can and if it's up to 50% more than the current lens then it should be better to justify the cost.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ashmadux said:


> Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.



That's my thought as well. Center sharpness on the current version is already fairly decent - it's corner sharpness (particularly at 24) where it's weak. Extend center IQ further out to the corners, reduce distortion at 24 and you've got a winner. 

I'd LOVE to see IQ improved to that of the 24-70 2.8 but something tells me that that's not a realistic expectation to have, and I think those expecting that kind of improvement may be disappointed...then again, what do I know.


----------



## monsieur_elegante (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> FramerMCB said:
> 
> 
> > A few have mentioned the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC lens. It is a stellar performer based on all the reviews with accompanying photos I have read. The one major drawback is the lack of front filter threading...however, Fotodiox's Wonderpana system works well with it based on Dustin Abbott's review. And is an option. And while it is very true that Canon's hold their resale value much better than 3-party lenses. I'm not sure why one would sell this type of lens after buying and owning it. (Other than to get a newer/better version.)
> ...



+1

This is exactly the case for me. Was contemplating buying the Tamron recently because of the great reviews regarding its image quality (especially w.r.t. low coma for astrophotography), image stabilization, and f/2.8 aperture.

Rented it for 10 days to try it out, and immediately decided not to buy it. The IQ, suitability for astrophotography, and IS were all as great as the reviews said -- but because of its lack of front filtering, I found myself reaching for my wide primes most of the time even for landscape, simply because it's significantly less of a hassle. Its hefty size & weight + lack of front filter thread add up to significantly diminish this lens' versatility IMO. I ultimately concluded that if I were to buy this lens, I would really only use it for milky way photography and the very rare occasions where I absolutely need the 15mm...not exactly the best use of money.


----------



## douglaurent (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Shooting good quality 4K video with the 5D4 most likely means - looking at the 30MP - the crop factor is around 1.7x, so these new lenses do have equivalent 27-59mm and 40-178mm focal lengths.

Which brings us to the extremely stupid fact that in the 5D4 - unlike ANY other manufacturer - will still not allow to attach Canon crop sensor lenses!

This means shooting even moderate wide angle 4K videos on the 5D4 with a Canon lens would require an investment of 3000 bucks. Luckily there are some options like the Sigma 8-16 or Tokina 11-20 that will help out.

For 4K video on the 5D4, the sharp wide open Sigma 16-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 will be the much better alternatives than the new 16-35/2.8 and 24-105/4.

Canon, it is time to open your full frame EF mount to AF-S lenses, or people will buy third party products!!! The limitation is extremely annoying!!!


----------



## applecider (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Does anyone make an EF-s to EF lens converter esp one with electronics?


----------



## weixing (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Hi,


applecider said:


> Does anyone make an EF-s to EF lens converter esp one with electronics?


 Why you need this for?? EF-S image circle won't cover the whole FF sensor. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> applecider said:
> ...



The reason was just mentioned above. Because when using video on Canon FF cameras, the image gets cropped to APS-C size. Therefore there are many convenient EF-S lenses we can't use because the EF-S lenses cannot be mounted on EF bodies. (Talking about 4K, Canon 1DC, 1DXII, and 5D IV likely) 

-As for adapter: It cannot be physically achieved unless you lose infinity focus. You can actually use any Macro extention tube as an adapter and put EF-S lenses on EF bodies. But you lose infinity and get a closer MMD. 

-The two mounts are identical on the cameras. The only difference is that EF-S lenses have a little 2mm-ish protrusion inside the camera body, which risks hitting the larger FF mirror. This protrusion was made because it allows canon to get closer to the sensor with the glass, therefore make better lenses, not just a safety measurement as commonly known. Many EF-S lenses have actual lens elements in that protrusion. 

-The lenses that do not have glass in the protrusion can be modified (simply cut the protruded plastic) to fit on EF cameras. Not something I encourage doing. 

-Third Party lenses (Sigma/tokina/Tamron) lenses that are designed for APS-C Canon have an EF mount, not an EF-S mount (as the EF-S mount is patented). So you can mount say an APS-C Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on a 5D without issues, or a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, etc. These are very helpful lenses when shooting 4K on Canon 1DC/1Dx/5DIV.


----------



## George D. (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Sorry to say all these UWA-WA zooms are entirely not my game. I mean 8-15, 11-24. Remember we're in a stills-video market now and everybody is selling "multipurpose" stuff to cover the likes of both. I have the EF 15/2.8 and I'm very happy with and envious of the 17mm TSE. One dime advice, please consider your exact needs before spending hard-earned cash.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Sad they went with 9 blades on the new 16-35 III. 

The old 7 blade design produced the best sun stars of any lens ever made, seriously. This was a golden treat for people shooting landscapes with the version II. 

On a side note: I get the feeling some of the folks here need to update their understanding of what landscape photography has become in the last few years. 

1. Lens filters are becoming very passé. They are a relic from the film era. Besides a number of die-hard holdouts in the UK, most of the world has moved away from filters. New sensors and editing techniques have mostly eliminated their necessity. They are more of a fun-to-have item these days for tinkering and special FX. 

2. The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture, great clarity, wide AOV, virtually non-existent vignetting, durability, etc - all make for an incredibly versatile lens. To imply that the 14-24 is some sort of crippled and idiotic design shows a complete lack of understanding of the current landscape market. The lack of filtering options does not matter at all really. The vast majority of the world's top landscape photographers are using this lens. I would also be using this lens, but I decided to go with the smaller Sigma 8-16 equivalent on an APS-C body. For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree. 

3. New-school landscape photography is fast-paced and no longer the old "set up an 8x10 camera and take one shot per day" type of pace. Ocean photography can be very fast paced and require quick thinking and actions to get the best shots. Even taking a sunset shot of some wildflowers with a mountain in the BG can require a frantic process of focus stacking, exposure bracketing, panning, and changing shot locations. It can be just as hectic as what any sports photographer would have to go through in getting shots, keeping an eye on their surroundings, cataloging shots and taking notes in real-time, quality control, and so on.


----------



## nightscape123 (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Pretty sure every landscape photographer in existence carries a cpl. It's just silly to suggest otherwise. There were multiple filter systems designed just for the 14-24 but they are bulky hard to set up and can cause flare and reelection issues. But canon is fixing that problem. When you are hiking 40 miles into the wilderness carrying a 2 pound filter system with giant glass filters is unreasonable. This is why I plan on selling my tamron 15-30 if the canon has well controlled coma. 

A little disappointed in the aperture blades on both lenses but it looks like an improvement over the old 24-105 at least which was just terrible. All that's left are the mtf curves which are the most important part. 

Edit: what does ef12 and ef25 mean?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



nightscape123 said:


> Pretty sure every landscape photographer in existence carries a cpl. It's just silly to suggest otherwise. There were multiple filter systems designed just for the 14-24 but they are bulky hard to set up and can cause flare and reelection issues. But canon is fixing that problem. When you are hiking 40 miles into the wilderness carrying a 2 pound filter system with giant glass filters is unreasonable. This is why I plan on selling my tamron 15-30 if the canon has well controlled coma.
> 
> A little disappointed in the aperture blades on both lenses but it looks like an improvement over the old 24-105 at least which was just terrible. All that's left are the mtf curves which are the most important part.
> 
> Edit: what does ef12 and ef25 mean?


Extension tubes. They always list reproduction ratio with the two extension tubes if the lens can use them.


----------



## George D. (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> Sad they went with 9 blades on the new 16-35 III.
> 
> The old 7 blade design produced the best sun stars of any lens ever made, seriously. This was a golden treat for people shooting landscapes with the version II.
> 
> ...



What has happened to photography in general is that with the advent of Digital SLR almost everything has been photographed again and again. That's why we get drones, "extreme" lenses, etc.: to get a different angle of the same old stuff. Personally speaking I don't fall for it nor the hype surrounding it.

Nevertheless, thanks for sharing what a pro goes though to get that "different" shot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> .............
> 
> 1. Lens filters are becoming very passé. They are a relic from the film era. Besides a number of die-hard holdouts in the UK, most of the world has moved away from filters. New sensors and editing techniques have mostly eliminated their necessity. They are more of a fun-to-have item these days for tinkering and special FX.
> 
> 2. The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture, great clarity, wide AOV, virtually non-existent vignetting, durability, etc - all make for an incredibly versatile lens. To imply that the 14-24 is some sort of crippled and idiotic design shows a complete lack of understanding of the current landscape market. The lack of filtering options does not matter at all really. The vast majority of the world's top landscape photographers are using this lens. I would also be using this lens, but I decided to go with the smaller Sigma 8-16 equivalent on an APS-C body. For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree. ............



1. Until somebody comes up with a post process that comes close to emulating reflection control a CPL gives you filter solutions will be popular. Same with heavy ND filters to give much longer exposures.

2. The Nikon 14-24 was king of the hill for years because nobody else tried to take the hill. The 11-24 pisses all over the 14-24 and shows it to be the comparatively modest performer it always has been. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king......

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## George D. (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Re everything photographed: I didn't even mention smartphones, selfie sticks, selfie videos, etc. image information overload.

As regards the 16-35/2.8L III this makes a good travelling lens that will therefore compete with the stellar 24-70/2.8L II. Very interesting to see how the two IQ compare.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

- エスクテンションチューブ*EF12II*使用時の撮影倍率：*0.60x-0.12x*
- エクステンションチューブ*EF25II*使用時の撮影倍率：*0.61x-0.27x*

The red marked reproduction ratio for one of the extension tubes seems a little bit odd to me - there should be a factor of (very) roughly two between them.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> 2. The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture, great clarity, wide AOV, virtually non-existent vignetting, durability, etc - all make for an incredibly versatile lens. *To imply that the 14-24 is some sort of crippled and idiotic design* shows a complete lack of understanding of the current landscape market. The lack of filtering options does not matter at all really. The vast majority of the world's top landscape photographers are using this lens. I would also be using this lens, but I decided to go with the smaller Sigma 8-16 equivalent on an APS-C body. For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree.



Fair points, but I did not specifically say that. I said Tamron's decision to walk up to the cliff of not being able to front filter their lens, stare down the cliff long and hard -- and then jump over the cliff anyway -- was idiotic. No one's doubting the 14-24's credentials for landscapes, but_ that is all it can do_. The lack of convenient/fast/low-profile front filtering relegates it to landscape or astro (and possibly concert) work. 

But +1 on the role of the D800 -- it was a huge reason why that lens's popularity took off. Landscapers on FF budgets wanted MF resolution and they flocked to Nikon when they went with 36 MP and Canon went with the 5D3's 22 MP. It was the only serviceable UWA zoom Nikon offered, so everywhere you went, you'd see D800/D800E/D810 + 14-24. It was the one lens + body combo Canon could not compete against, at least until the 5DS + 16-35 f/4L IS + 11-24 f/4L showed up.

- A


----------



## xps (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

rumored prices:
2199$ for the 16-35mm 
and 1099$ for the 24-105

What will the price in € be?
16-35 2199€? 2400-2500€??? an big jump upwards
24-105 too....

http://nokishita-camera.blogspot.co.at/2016/08/ef16-35mm-f28l-iii-usmef24-105mm-f4l-is.html


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Detailed specs updated on the story header on the CR home page! 

Here's the original link, I believe:
http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-specs-price/

Of note:

24-105L II: $1,099 US 

16-35 f/2.8L III: $2,199 US (yowza, they went for 24-70 f/2.8L II like money!)


24-105L II:


No macro mode like the 24-70 f/4L IS
*10* blades (interesting, Canon's been putting _odd_ numbers of blades in of late for 2x the points on sunstars, this is a change)
Ring USM with no mention of power zoom functionality
4 stop IS

Nothing particularly noteworthy on the 16-35 other than that price.

- A


----------



## xps (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> Detailed specs updated on the story header on the CR home page!
> 
> Here's the original link, I believe:
> http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-specs-price/
> ...


You come from America? Lucky guy. We will have to pay 1,2-1,3 times the price in €


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> Sad they went with 9 blades on the new 16-35 III.
> 
> The old 7 blade design produced the best sun stars of any lens ever made, seriously. This was a golden treat for people shooting landscapes with the version II.
> 
> ...



Point 1, I regularly use Polarisers and Solid density ND filters. Often with a waterscape, I need one shutter speed for the sky and a very different shutter speed for water flow. If I have to shoot at iso 100 for max quality, and I'm forced to use f16 for depth of field...and I need a 2 second exposure for water and a 20 second exposure for the sky...then I have filter my exposure down. I then blend these two images using a soft brush in Photoshop. It takes less that 2 mins in my workflow and the results are excellent and natural looking. I think that ND grads are redundant in the DSLR world. But solid ND's will always have a place in serious landscape work. Regardless of what the current trend is among photographers.
Here is an example: 






Point 2, I'm not sure it is the best selling ff wide lens at the moment. If you take into consideration just how many 16-35IIL or 17-40L have been sold over the years it makes the Nikon 14-24 sales figures pale in perspective. As I look back on the many photography landscape workshops I've been on, I can honestly say I've only ever seen one user with a 14-24 lens and he really struggled with it. Its very rare to need a 14mm angle of view and i would never sacrifice the long end of 35mm for it. The lack of filtration for it make it a dead duck as far as I'm concerned. 

Point 3, In the fast world of landscape workshops, a 14-24 is a liability not an asset, so is the D800. Fast set up, quick analysis of composition, exposure and mood are essential. Juggling with crass filter hoods and over-sized filters are a recipe of disaster on a blustery sunset on the Cornish or Dorset coast. The 14-24 is the only Nikon lens choice, the others are far worse than the 16-35IIL...so is it any surprise that Nikon users flock to it and brag about it. The next best choice is either an ancient worm drive 17-35 or a 1st gen IF 17-35. Most of Nikon's lens catalog is ancient. Most serious landscapers that i've seen use Canon 5D2/3's over the Nikon D800 because of the disaster of the Nikon live view mode. The D800's min iso is 200 iso for some bizarre reason, which is another Nikon issue. These days, the 5Dsr has more resolution, but I still see a lot of 5D3 users. A well shot and executed 100 iso image with either HDR or layered exposure combined method will have far more detail and lower noise than a pushed shadows Nikon image, regardless of how good the claimed DR is. So for the "drive by" shooters, yes a Nikon is probably better. But for serious work where the absolute best available from the sensor, most seem to choose Canon. 

Here's another example, one shot for the sky and another shot for the foreground. Two images taken on a tripod and blended. You won't get this type of shot in a hurry and hand held, certainly not when scrutinized at 100%.


----------



## George D. (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Awesome stuff GMC.

edit: On second thought first shot perilous for UWA curved front element with all the saltwater and sand in the air...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



George D. said:


> Awesome stuff GMC.
> 
> edit: On second thought first shot perilous for UWA curved front element with all the saltwater and sand in the air...



I worry about that even with a flat front element! My Lee stack on a 16-35 f/4L IS is:

Naked front element + Lee adaptor ring + Lee holder and slot filters + large 105 CPL

Which means the sides of my 16-35 are open to bad news: splash, wind + sand, etc. I refuse to UV/clear my front element with all that landscape junk in front, so my 'sealed' lens is very much _not_ sealed when the Lee kit comes out.

Side note: I got my ears boxed by a filter designer who occasionally comes to this forum to discuss his products. He insisted that I (if I recall correctly) put CPL directly on the lens and _then_ stack up the Lee hardware or my sharpness would suffer. I've seen too many pros give tutorial videos the way I do it to want to change, but he seemed utterly convinced he was right.

- A


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > Awesome stuff GMC.
> ...



It's good to worry about it in those conditions. Rain isn't too much of a problem, the water is clean and free from salt and easy to wipe down with a clean tissue. But salt water is a disaster to most things photographic. I use circular screw in filters from the Heliopan range. They do a great range of 82mm and 77mm filters. Their slim CPL is excellent and I usually carry 3/5/9 stop ND's and a polariser in both 77mm and 82mm options, with step rings in case of a problem. I don't bother using a UV or protection filters. It just adds needless glass to my lens. In direct sunlight, I need as little internal reflections as possible and most filters aren't as well coated as the lens. 
The problem I have with the lee holders system is the filter stands away from the front of the lens more than with screw in filters. So there's more internal reflections, side reflections and if it's raining...rain drops between the filters. 

My 16-35IIL is on it's second front element after it got beat up after 4 years of weddings. A number of scuffs and big scratch across the glass. It was Ok for most stuff, but for landscapes it was getting tricky with flare and ghosts. To date, it's the only lens I've had that's been in a bad shape. But that's because I use a hood with all my other lenses. The 16-35IIL's hood is a bit of a joke really. The front element cost a few hundred pounds to replace but it's not that much more than a complete lee holder rig and set of filters. 

A mate of mine uses a coast rig of an old bashed up 5DII and a rather old 17-40L...which is a really nice lens in this context. Stopped down to f16...it'll give any lens a run for it's money. 

I think in my situation, I'll be keeping my 16-35IIL for sunstars and coastal work. But getting a mk III once the price has come down a bit. I suspect that it'll be crazy priced initially.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> I think in my situation, I'll be keeping my 16-35IIL for sunstars and coastal work. But getting a mk III once the price has come down a bit. I suspect that it'll be crazy priced initially.



Pan up in this thread: it will be $2,199 in the US.

- A


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I think in my situation, I'll be keeping my 16-35IIL for sunstars and coastal work. But getting a mk III once the price has come down a bit. I suspect that it'll be crazy priced initially.
> ...



Ouch...in the uk...that's about £2K once we add VAT.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



bholliman said:


> I'm really looking forward to the reviews for the 24-105 II. I've always felt the zoom range of the 24-70 lenses was too short, so almost always carry either my 100L or 135L along with my 24-70 for reach. I owned a 24-105 I several years ago but was unhappy with its sharpness and distortion at the wide end. With a good 24-105, I can finally have a single lens solution for many outings. I fully expect the new version to be excellent, as all other recent lenses released by Canon have been, and for one to reside on my 5DsR within a few months.



Personally 100mm is way short anyway so I always pair with a 70-300L so I prefer smaller size, weight and better optics of a lesser range 24-70 type lens to a 24-105.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



jeffa4444 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



The CA and LoCA were way better as you say, but come on, don't forget how much vastly better the edge and corner sharpness was than the mush dog 24-105L anywhere near 24mm so it was vastly better as a landscape lens than the disappointing 24-105.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> Sad they went with 9 blades on the new 16-35 III.
> 
> The old 7 blade design produced the best sun stars of any lens ever made, seriously. This was a golden treat for people shooting landscapes with the version II.
> 
> ...



but polarizer filters can still have their use and you simply can't replicate a polarized in PP



> 3. New-school landscape photography is fast-paced and no longer the old "set up an 8x10 camera and take one shot per day" type of pace. Ocean photography can be very fast paced and require quick thinking and actions to get the best shots. Even taking a sunset shot of some wildflowers with a mountain in the BG can require a frantic process of focus stacking, exposure bracketing, panning, and changing shot locations. It can be just as hectic as what any sports photographer would have to go through in getting shots, keeping an eye on their surroundings, cataloging shots and taking notes in real-time, quality control, and so on.



yes


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> Point 3, In the fast world of landscape workshops, a 14-24 is a liability not an asset, so is the D800.



so is the D800??????? :



> Most serious landscapers that i've seen use Canon 5D2/3's over the Nikon D800 because of the disaster of the Nikon live view mode. The D800's min iso is 200 iso for some bizarre reason, which is another Nikon issue. These days, the 5Dsr has more resolution, but I still see a lot of 5D3 users. A well shot and executed 100 iso image with either HDR or layered exposure combined method will have far more detail and lower noise than a pushed shadows Nikon image, regardless of how good the claimed DR is. So for the "drive by" shooters, yes a Nikon is probably better. But for serious work where the absolute best available from the sensor, most seem to choose Canon.



hah


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Point 3, In the fast world of landscape workshops, a 14-24 is a liability not an asset, so is the D800.
> ...



Sure, the added resolution was great, but I believe he was harping on the liveview implementation of the D800.

- A


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



privatebydesign said:
 

> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > .............
> ...



The 11-24 is an incredible lens with outstanding image quality. No argument there. Although it is f4 and extremely heavy, which doesn't lend well to versatility. 14mm is already pushing what is looking good for landscapes. I have seen very few 11mm shots that look good in 3:2 ratio. Would work well for cropping to 3:1 or so though. 

I am not here to convince you guys you need to change the way you take landscape shots, as the process is more fun than the results. Use whatever makes you have fun. I am just here to give a little direction to those who feel the landscape market hasn't changed drastically in the last 4 years. The professional landscape photographers here in the Pacific Northwest USA have been on the forefront of modern landscape imaging techniques for a few years now. I see the rest of the world following suit as the years go by.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Sad they went with 9 blades on the new 16-35 III.
> ...



Actually, for many water shots, you can get away with not using a CPL. I actually showed how to do this in my last round of imaging tutorials for landscape photography. It's a bit of work, but the results actually look very similar, and there are no problems when working with UWA lenses, as you might have with a CPL. The CPL "look" is also becoming a little "old-school". It just isn't natural to our uncovered eyes to see things through a polarizing lens. I've stopped using the CPL in many places I used to use it, as going without it makes for more natural looking images. 

Once again, I stress that I am talking about necessities here. a CPL is not a necessity for many people.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> Once again, I stress that I am talking about necessities here. a CPL is not a necessity for many people.



It is for me. I shoot architecture and real estate and need a cpl to control reflections on worktops, stainless steel appliances etc etc.

I have a CPL for unobstructed use on my TS-E17 and will probably get one for the 11-24 too.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > 2. The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture, great clarity, wide AOV, virtually non-existent vignetting, durability, etc - all make for an incredibly versatile lens. *To imply that the 14-24 is some sort of crippled and idiotic design* shows a complete lack of understanding of the current landscape market. The lack of filtering options does not matter at all really. The vast majority of the world's top landscape photographers are using this lens. I would also be using this lens, but I decided to go with the smaller Sigma 8-16 equivalent on an APS-C body. For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree.
> ...


Actually, there were a few people who were mounting the 14-24 on their Canon cameras long before the D800 came around. The D800, just made it easier to use the lens. I had a 14-24 and a D800E. Beside the crackerjack box internals that felt like cardboard compared to the Canon lenses, it was a fantastic lens. I would miss the f2.8 on my Sigma if I didn't have plans on mounting an ultralight weight barn door tracking device integrated into my tripod. I will be able to astro track manually and not have as much need for f2.8. Foreground shots can take as much time as they need. 

The 16-35 IS and 11-24 are great lenses, but I think the landscape astro shooting has become popular enough that f2.8 is actually very appealing. With that said, the new Canon UWA lenses have sold well to Canon users looking to have a nice landscaping lens. The 16-35 F4 may very well level out the playing field against the sales of the 14-24.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



privatebydesign said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I stress that I am talking about necessities here. a CPL is not a necessity for many people.
> ...



Landscape photography topic here! 

I was only referencing landscape photography, as that is all I know. Of course a CPL is pretty much a required item for architecture. 

I do appreciate your knowledge and expertise though. Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...



Yeah, as we all know, there's never anything reflective in a landscape. :


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



douglaurent said:


> Canon, it is time to open your full frame EF mount to AF-S lenses, or people will buy third party products!!! The limitation is extremely annoying!!!



Which AF-S lenses would you like to use with the 5D IV?


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



nightscape123 said:


> A little disappointed in the aperture blades on both lenses but it looks like an improvement over the old 24-105 at least which was just terrible.



How is that?


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



Our metrics for judging a lens might be skewed??? Maybe? 

I agree. Take the 17-40L that I own. It's a very good lens and is capable of capturing some awesome images. Especially stopped down to f/8, f/11, heck f/22 gets some solid sunstars. However if one just read this forum you'd think it's total garbage.

I agree on the Tamron on filters. The Tamron appears to be an awesome lens, checks lots of boxes, not accepting filters is a big one. Same issue ruled out the Tokina 16-28 for me as well.

ahsanford, I don't "need" anything. I'm just a lowly amateur so it's all about "want" and $2k for a single piece of camera equipment is tough to justify. I shoot mostly wide so I appreciated what this lens could possible offer, especially the faster f/2.8. In the same way that $2k is a lot for a lens, the $1k for the upgrade is tough to justify as well. I'd probably own the 16-35 f/4L IS if the opportunity to pick up the 17-40L for $400 didn't occur.

Just for fun, here's a sunstar from the other week. Could have done without the flare, ahhh well.



Sunstar by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr


----------



## George D. (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> I am not here to convince you guys you need to change the way you take landscape shots, as the process is more fun than the results. Use whatever makes you have fun. I am just here to give a little direction to those who feel the landscape market hasn't changed drastically in the last 4 years. The professional landscape photographers here in the Pacific Northwest USA have been on the forefront of modern landscape imaging techniques for a few years now. I see the rest of the world following suit as the years go by.



Earlier mentioned Ocean photography can also be yacht racing, surfing and the likes. I'd call this an avant-garde photography area Magnum level but that's another story. Any of the lenses previously mentioned fit in.


----------



## nightscape123 (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



romanr74 said:


> nightscape123 said:
> 
> 
> > A little disappointed in the aperture blades on both lenses but it looks like an improvement over the old 24-105 at least which was just terrible.
> ...



Well I loved the look of the 7 bladed aperature from the version 2, but I will wait and see on what the 9 looks like. 18 points is just a little much imo. 

The old 24-105 had a really ugly star burst imo, worst one of any lens I owned. Hoping it looks better with 10 blades.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



nightscape123 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > nightscape123 said:
> ...



I kind of dig the 9 blades on the 16-35 f/4L IS. It's fun to stop down with lights in the frame, but in fairness, I don't do this for a living and I don't know what is believed to be more appealing.

- A


----------



## bholliman (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> nightscape123 said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



+1 I really like the 18-point stars from the 16-35 f/4L IS!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 19, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...


Thankfully filter sales are healthy and the zest for using them unlike your view is still strong globally (I review sales figures monthly of global sales) Sales of nd grads, nds and cpl filters have actually grown. Can you replicate the affects in PS? To a degree and often more time consuming but many beg to differ to your opinion and like that control on location its part of the creative process and most landscape photographers are not run & gun. 
There is a style of landscape in the Pacific Northwest USA but then again there are styles in Iceland, Scotland, Dorset in England, The Far East, India, Scandinavia and interesting styles in Russia & Czech Republic. 

At the cinema we were told a few years ago film was dead, funny 60% of current big budget films have gone back to film I think that is healthy it gives creatives artistic freedom and that should apply to all the tools in the cabinet.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Again, have to wait for image samples and tests - but based on stat comparisons between the current and yet-to-be-announced varieties, I'm not getting my hopes up on the 24-105 II being much of a bump (if at all) sharpness-wise over the original - although the improved IS system is nice. The 16-35 III, OTOH, should be a notable improvement over version 2 as there appears to be addition of UD element(s).


----------



## james75 (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



nightscape123 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > nightscape123 said:
> ...



Couldn't agree more. I don't own the 16-35ii, but always really like the starburst effect it produced. And I agree on the 24-105's starburst being ugly. Once in a while I'd get one I could live with, but for the most part I don't like it.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Act444 said:


> Again, have to wait for image samples and tests - but based on stat comparisons between the current and yet-to-be-announced varieties, I'm not getting my hopes up on the 24-105 II being much of a bump (if at all) sharpness-wise over the original - although the improved IS system is nice. The 16-35 III, OTOH, should be a notable improvement over version 2 as there appears to be addition of UD element(s).



There is zero chance Canon sh--s the bed on the 16-35 f/2.8L III. They don't update staple pro tools and ask for a healthy markup unless they deliver the goods. It will be formidable.

The one wildcard that takes that lens from _where I think it is_ (sure thing for it's current user base) to _'drop the mic' / homerun_ would be low-coma for astro. They've just never pulled that off on a fast UWA lens before.

- A


----------



## Act444 (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Having owned version 2 of the 16-35 2.8, and as a current owner of the 16-35 f4, expectations are very high. The f4 version (while not perfect) is a SIGNIFICANT jump IQ-wise over the 2.8 version, which I was never satisfied with. I'd expect the III to show even further improvement at 16mm in the corners...

I've been looking forward to this lens for a while now and was thinking about picking one up, but YIKES at the price!


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I must have been really lucky, but my 16-35 Mk2 is good in the corners.
I've done lots of work for a building magazine with it, and never had any problems with corner sharpness.
I do get some ca, but that's easily fixed in PP.

My 24-105 is poor at 24mm, but otherwise it does a great job especially for events.
I've tried the 24-70's a few times, but I really missed the extra fl of the 25-105.
My 24-105 is now 6 years old, and while it looks a bit worn, it still works perfectly.
However, I would like to update it and I'm really looking forward to the new one coming out.

I'll probably update one of my 5D3s, so I'll get the new 24-105s as a kit.


----------



## e_honda (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Act444 said:


> Again, have to wait for image samples and tests - but based on stat comparisons between the current and yet-to-be-announced varieties, I'm not getting my hopes up on the 24-105 II being much of a bump (if at all) sharpness-wise over the original - although the improved IS system is nice. The 16-35 III, OTOH, should be a notable improvement over version 2 as there appears to be addition of UD element(s).



Yeah, kind if like how, sharpness wise, the new 50mm f1.8 STM isn't much different than the 50mm f1.8 ii that it replaced. I'd expect the same thing here.

But perhaps it will have better AF and less distortion on the wide end. The better IS system is pretty much a given.


----------



## Dfunk99 (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Wow - a 3rd re-make of this lens, & still NO image stabilization!!  What's up with that???


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



nightscape123 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > nightscape123 said:
> ...



The sunstars of the mkII are indeed wonderful. The 9 blades should produce nicer bokeh through rounder apertures I guess.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Dfunk99 said:


> Wow - a 3rd re-make of this lens, & still NO image stabilization!!  What's up with that???



In wide zooms and standard zooms, Canon puts IS on f/4 lenses and doesn't on f/2.8 lenses.

One would presume this is weight driven (it doesn't drive weight *that* much), but it also might be the people who buy $2k UWA zooms haven't asked for IS in large enough numbers. If you're working events/reportage/sports with an UWA zoom (i.e. inconsistently moving subjects), IS doesn't do you as much good as on longer FLs.

I love IS and want it on everything, but Canon must have an understanding of the market that implies (a) they won't get more money for offering it, (b) they won't lose business for _not_ offering it, or (c) their principal user base isn't asking for it. Just speculation on my part, though.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



e_honda said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, have to wait for image samples and tests - but based on stat comparisons between the current and yet-to-be-announced varieties, I'm not getting my hopes up on the 24-105 II being much of a bump (if at all) sharpness-wise over the original - although the improved IS system is nice. The 16-35 III, OTOH, should be a notable improvement over version 2 as there appears to be addition of UD element(s).
> ...



I'm sorry, does anyone honestly believe this 24-105L II will not improve fairly dramatically? I know it's only $1,099, but this isn't exactly a slightly tweaked kit EF-S 18-55 that Canon keeps churning out -- this is an L lens, and they typically are not updated for a miniscule improvement.

This new 24-105L II won't set any records resolution-wise, but I expect it's glaring/incontrovertible problems (especially on the wide end) will be well corrected.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



e_honda said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, have to wait for image samples and tests - but based on stat comparisons between the current and yet-to-be-announced varieties, I'm not getting my hopes up on the 24-105 II being much of a bump (if at all) sharpness-wise over the original - although the improved IS system is nice. The 16-35 III, OTOH, should be a notable improvement over version 2 as there appears to be addition of UD element(s).
> ...



the 50mm STM is a 125 USD lens.... :


----------



## x-vision (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> I'm sorry, does anyone honestly believe this 24-105L II will not improve fairly dramatically? I know it's only $1,099 ...



Heh. I'm expecting a noticeable improvement in IQ vs the outgoing lens ... and a price increase to match.

The MSRP of the 24-70/4L is $999. 
I can't imagine that the new 24-105/4L II will be priced at only $100 more - but I've been wrong before 8).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



yeah but at the end of the day the DR matters a lot more and especially for the sort of super fast work style the OP was talking about


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...



how do you look through reflections in PP? how do you remove glare and bring out foliage in PP? even bringing out clouds, etc. you can sort of try to simulate the latter part but not entirely, but.... and barely the next to latter but not really, and not at all the first


----------



## Tim686 (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 21, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Tim686 said:


> Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.


Highly unlikely, it would compete too much with the 100mm LIS macro.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Tim686 said:


> Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.



To quote the all-knowing M8B, signs point to no. Specifically, the lack of a yellow line on the depth scale.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 21, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



Tim686 said:


> Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.



Max magnification in the 24-105L II rumored spec list would pretty clearly imply that a 'macro mode' like the 24-70 f/4L IS is not going to happen.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 21, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



neuroanatomist said:


> Tim686 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.
> ...



Neuro, unless there are new pictures, that line wouldn't have been visible in the digicame pics that were originally posted. Ref my prior post -- we don't know there is no macro from the pics we've seen so far. But I think we know _from the reported max mag specs_: 0.24x max mag = no macro mode.

- A


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 21, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

so...?
...? no blue goo? on 16-35 or 24-105?...


but for sure
i need good coma ..... and good edges....
on either lens...

we need a test ....like 10 mins after ordering starts...ha!

I feel I will go for the 24-105...sell the old one or give it and 5d3 to grandson


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 21, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

do we get blue goo with either of these?


----------



## Zv (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



x-vision said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, does anyone honestly believe this 24-105L II will not improve fairly dramatically? I know it's only $1,099 ...
> ...



Comparing old and new version 

Old had 18 elements in 13 groups (3 aspherical)
New has 17 elements in 12 groups (4 aspherical) 

Old has 8 aperture blades
New has 10

Old has max magnification 0.23x
New has 0.24x

Old weighs 670g
New weighs 795g

New one also has better coatings and better IS

So, physically quite different therefore I'd expect there to be a difference in optical performance. How different is the question. 

I doubt Canon would go to the trouble of making a new L lens for it to have the exact same performance as the old one. (Except 50 STM, because I know someone will throw that in my face)


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



TommyLee said:


> do we get blue goo with either of these?



We do not know. It was not listed on either new lenses' spec sheet, but I don't think the BR stuff was listed as a bullet point on the 35L II spec sheet when it was leaked last summer. I don't recall hearing anything about it until the announcement (someone please correct me if I'm off on this -- I did a brief August 2015 Google search on this and the old leaks over that time didn't have it).

So it _may_ surface in the announcement. I give it a very small likelihood it will be on the 16-35 f/2.8L III as it's a pricier / wider max aperture lens, but I'd be altogether stunned if it was on a $1,099 24-105 f/4L II. 

- A


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



ahsanford said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.
> ...




I hope so. I bought mine for 1200 years ago. its was great on my xsi, so-so on my t2i, non-impressive on my 7d, unreliable on my 6d, got fixed in singapore, and now banned from important shoots on my 5d3. It stayed home today.

Now with the fixed lemon refurb 35 f/2 IS, its really not leaving the house until it's fixed. Ill bring it to the canon booth at the photo expo show- and pray.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...


Charlie Waite
Ross Hoddinott
Adam Burton
Vincent Favre
Simon Beedle
Patrick Smith
Helen Dixon
Wesley Picotte
Tony Prower
Joe Cornish 

The list could go on & on. Guess they must all be getting it wrong using filters!


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

OK, I get that this is a breading ground for people who like to argue for the sake of arguing, but geez. At least argue things that are actually being discussed. 

Landscape photography = architectural photography
Not needing filters = People took nice photos with filters before so you are wrong
The polarizing effect can be done on some water surfaces without a filter = everything in the universe can be done without a polarizing filter. 
The last 4 years = the last 100 years

So now is the time to reply to this post that toast is better buttered side down, and not better butter side up. I am clearly wrong to think toast can be buttered side up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



PhotographyFirst said:


> The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture...



Without any doubt in _your_ mind, perhaps. What's your evidence for that? You and a few of your buddies use one? Gee, that's convincing. I'd bet a lot more Canon 17-40L lenses have been and are currently being sold that Nikon 14-24G lenses. One bit of evidence for that is that the Canon 17-40 is #109 on Amazon's best selling lenses list, while the Nikon 14-24 is #186 (the Nikon 16-35/4 VR beats the 14-24, too). Another bit of evidence is simple logic – cheaper lenses sell better. So much for 'without any doubt'. :

Do you find f/2.8 gets a a lot of use in landscape photography?




PhotographyFirst said:


> For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree.



Yes, the D800 changed things. For example, with its high resolution sensor, it showed quite clearly that the 14-24G was indeed just barely a decent UWA landscape lens, for all that it was Nikon's best one. When I looked at the corners of the full resolution sample image with the combo that Nikon put up on their website, my first thought was 'wow that's mushy…how did they put a Canon 17-40Lon a Nikon body?'


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



George D. said:


> What has happened to photography in general is that with the advent of Digital SLR almost everything has been photographed again and again. That's why we get drones, "extreme" lenses, etc.: to get a different angle of the same old stuff. Personally speaking I don't fall for it nor the hype surrounding it.
> 
> Nevertheless, thanks for sharing what a pro goes though to get that "different" shot.



It's not so much a phenomenon intrinsic to digital photography. If everything seems to have been photographed 'again and again', it's due to a combination of more of everything - more cameras, more people, more travel - and the ease and speed of sharing pictures and information about how and where to take them.

But then, if you looked at large numbers of photographs in the past, you'd likely have the same impression - because at its heart, it's down to people seeing the world in similar ways, being drawn to the same things.

One thing the digital revolution has brought us is new ways of processing and combining images, which for me is where most of the innovation lies (panorama stitching, focus stacking, stacking for noise reduction and sharpness, HDR, Brenizer, etc).

A man who is tired of photographs is tired of life...


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



GMCPhotographics said:


> Here is an example:



A really strong image, and I'd never have imagined it was two exposures blended (a good example of what I mention above, how digital manipulation can allow us to create new types of image). Thanks for sharing!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



dilbert said:


> Depends on what looks natural to you. I wear polarizing sunglasses exclusively in summer so to me deep rich blue skies are natural and normal. However at least you get why putting a CPL on a UWA lens can be bad



Heh, you must live somewhere nice! I could wear whatever glasses I wanted, the summer skies would still be grey :-\


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



jeffa4444 said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I would add Guy Edwardes to that list, mainly because he's a 35mm / DSLR photographer rather than a medium or large format photographer. It makes his work far more applicable to me. Yes, he uses filters where necessary.


----------



## gpp (Aug 31, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*



adventureous said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > I've been using the 24-105mm F/4 L IS as a video lens for ages and it's just a workhorse of a lens. This lens has been a de-facto standard for video shooters on the 5D series era and on the C100/C300 as an all rounder ''doc'' lens.
> ...


I recommend that you take what he posts with a very large grain of salt. Ebrahim never owned 24-105mm F/4 L IS, 18-135mm IS, 5D II, 60D...
Links: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20260-how-i-got-scammed-through-one-of-this-sites-highest-rated-accounts/
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20396-cannot-post-ebrahim-saadawi/?page=1
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20475-life-vs-film/?page=2

ES's current gear: https://www.dpreview.com/members/9734214696/gearlist


----------



## sinphoto (Sep 5, 2016)

*Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications*

I use 16-35/2.8II a lot, this is my all time favorite lens 8), i use it exclusively for my nightscape pictures, on 5d/5dii resolution is enough at any aperture for 20*30cm picture and sometimes for 60*90cm spread, i am really interested in wide open porformance of the 16-35/2.8L III, could anyone send couple wide open (focused on infinity) raw files to my email?

My email: [email protected]

Also please check my instagram: https://www.instagram.com/andriy_sinchuk/


----------

