Canon 16-35 f/4 IS EF and 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS EF-S lenses announced

[arthurking83]

DPR news link

Good to see IS featuring even on these UWA lenses.

While most of the time it's not all that useful, when it is useful at least it's there.

I've always said; better to have a feature and not use it, than to not have it and then be left wanting it.



... enjoy.

[Tannin]

Wonderful news!

For years I have retained my old APS-C bodies and the trusty EF-S 10-22 for wide angle work because I couldn't find a full-frame wide I really wanted.

• Sigma 12-24. Super wide, but optically poorish - sufficiently so as to offer no special advantage over a good APS-C body with a 10-22.
• Canon 17-40/4L. Very good price for a well-built lens, good focal length range (just slightly less wide than a 10-22, but close enough), standard 77mm filter, optically middling.
• Canon 16-35/2.8L. Very expensive, big and heavy, optically decent (especially the Mark II), annoying oversize filter thread.
• Tokina 16-28/2.8. Reasonable price, optics said to be pretty OK, short zoom range, very bulky and heavy, can't take filters.
• Tokina 17-35/4. Very reasonable price, optics only fair, good zoom range, standard 77m filter.

The ancient 17-40 seemed the best of an unimpressive lot, but I held off because it really didn't thrill me. Wait a bit longer and see what turns up, I thought. Well, my dream has been answered! A sensible price (around $1200 US apparently), good zoom range, no lightweight but at least in the acceptable range, outstanding optics (at least according to Canon's blurb), standard 77mm filter thread, and the very welcome bonus of IS. I think I can feel some credit card abuse in my future.

Now, if only someone would make a nice full-frame fisheye zoom!

[arthurking83]

.....
[*] Sigma 12-24. Super wide, but optically poorish .....

Actually, it's not quite as bad as the interweb makes it out to be.

It isn't Nikon 14-24 brilliant, and the way it renders really restricts it to landscape usage (at least on full frame).
Once you set it to f/11 or beyond, in almost any image you'd be hard pressed to see the poorish nature of the optical performance(ie. way way out in the corners that no other lens can generate anyhow!)

Took me forever and a day to finally decide that it's cons outweighed what it could do .. that is cheap, w-i-d-e and easy to use.
For closed in event type stuff, it'd be nigh on useless due to the slow aperture and hohum optic performance anywhere but the absolute centre.

Also played with Andrew's Tokina 16-28, and this was also a consideration way back then too.

FWIW too I will one day acquire a Nikon 16-35/4 as a general purpose UWA lens for any of those times when I know the 12-24 would be an incorrect choice of lens.

People say refer to lenses as a good portrait lens or landscape lens, which in general I think is basically rubbish(even tho I use those same generalisations myself! ) as any lens could really be used for just about any purpose .. but I think the case of the Sigma 12-24 it really is a landscape lens .. as for almost any other purpose it could be used for, I reckon you'd do better with any other lens.

[Tannin]

Once you set it to f/11 or beyond, in almost any image you'd be hard pressed to see the poorish nature of the optical performance

Um. Once you set a coke bottle to f/11 or beyond, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from a Zeiss, an L, or a top-class Nikkor. Any old lens is pretty good at f/11. I'm not sure that I can tell the difference between my old $100 kit lens and the 24-105/4L at f/11. At (say) f/5.6, though, it's a different story. I did consider a 12-24 Arthur, would happily use one if you gave it to me, but decided I'd rather something a bit sharper, or else just stick with the inferior sensor on my APS-C bodies but with the nice sharp glass of the excellent EF-S 10-22.

And yes, portraits at 24mm tend to be a little ... strange.

[dolina]

MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?

1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The EF 16-35 f/4L IS supplants the 2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM.

While we're on the topic where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?

I'm angling on a revised 135 & 100-400 or 400/5.6.

[dknife]

*Please read the site rules. Especially rules 3-7. Members with less than 30 days membership and 50 posts cannot post complaints about products/services/companies etc: Admin*

[basketballfreak6]

the 16-35 IS is definitely an interesting lens, looks like it's gonna be much sharper than any of the canon UWA zooms, i can see IS being useful say in a church or something, and the 77mm filter thread is great for those already invested in filter kit...i can see myself upgrading to that lens from my 17-40 eventually...

[Wynny]

It's good timing for me. I am in the process of upgrading to a 6D from a 600D so the 16-35mm might be just the lens I need to replace my trusty 10-22mm.

[Tannin]

An interesting list, Dolina.

"but when will they update these older L lenses?"

In order, and assuming that Mr Canon is reading my posts and hurrying to obey my smallest wish:

• 1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. Way past due! What are they thinking over there?
• 1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM. Well and truly due. Past due, really. Where is the 180/2.8 IS Macro done in the same style as the outstanding 100/2.8 IS macro?
• 1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. In one sense, ridiculously way past replacement date. In another sense, perhaps they will be smart enough to release a modern 4-stop IS 400/5.6 IS and keep this one on a bit longer, just like the non-IS 70-200s.
• 1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM. Same deal as the 35/1.4: it's already a lens of legendary quality, is it a priority to replace? Perhaps there is a better case to be made for this one as it is long enough to be a prime candidate for an IS makeover.
• 1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM. Where is the hurry? It's a superb lens, well-liked and apparently still selling well. Good for another five years at least.
• 1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM. Yep, could well be upgraded, though perhaps not a #1 priority. Needs doing at some point though.
• 1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM. Don't know anything about this one, never seen one , let alone used one.
• 2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM. A bit of a strange lens which seems a bit lost in this modern digital world. I'd be interested to see their sales volume on this one as I suspect it's fairly poor. They may not think it's worth replacing at all.
• 1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM. Long since replaced by the 70-200 f/4L IS USM. They keep this old one in production as well simply because it's quite cheap (development costs well and truly amortised now) and still has fine optical qualities. Their assumption is that if you want a newer version of this lens you will buy the excellent newer 70-200/4 with IS. If you don't like IS you can switch it off.
• 1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. Not only replaced by the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM years ago, even the replacement has been replaced by the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM II. Like the 70-200/4 non-IS, they just keep it on because it's cheap.
• 1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM. Will never be replaced. Or, rather, has been replaced by the 800/5.6 IS, which they see as more suitable for this role.

[wideangle]

It will be interesting to see how the Canon 10-18mm lens EF-S lens compares to the Canon 10-22mm lens.

[Bennymiata]

About 5 months ago, I was busting to get a UWA for my 5D3, and considered lots of different lenses.
Then in early January, I got a notice that a camera retailer in Bondi junction was having a big sale, and all Canon lenses were 10% off their already discounted prices so I went there with the full intention of buying the 17-40, but they offered me the 16-35 for just over $1500, so I couldn't refuse.
To be frank with you, I find it to be an amazing lens and use it lots for my work and the images are really good either indoors or outdoors.
However, if the new 16-35 F4IS had been out then, I would certainly have considered that, but I haven't found the need for IS in a wide angle lens (although I do like and use it on the lenses I have that do have IS).
If the rumoured 12-24 or whatever comes out, I would need to consider buying another UWA too if it's as good as the Nikon equivalent.

And stop bagging the 100-400!
I've had mine for years and it takes great shots!
True, it's probably time for an update, but hey, it still does a great job.

[darylcheshire]

I recently got the 16-35mm f/2.8L II I use it on a 5DIII

Main reason is available light photography indoors or landscapes at night.

I wanted to replace the 24-70mm f/2.8L as it's too heavy at 950g but I was loath to just get an identical lens at f/4, I wanted to get a different focal length and I was always interested in the 16mm wide angle.

Weight is a factor and it is 620g and I tried it out and it is nice to hold, also the f/4 version is also the same weight so I opted for the f/2.8

I read the criticisms that it is soft under f/4 and at the 16mm end.

So far I have not found this to be the case.

In my opinion it is a great lens and does not have the problems that people complain about.

One thing is that I have to be careful about exposure metering as a wide angle can have a lot of light differences and can under expose, sometimes I just compensate at 1 1/3.

On a personal level it has prompted me to consider the tradeoff against motion blur and high ISO graininess. I got a lot of motion blur with my night shots and now I have upped the auto ISO to 12400 and set minimum shutter speed to 125. I haven't yet tweaked the high ISO noise reduction but I'm pretty happy with the results so far.

[Blackberner]

17-40 F4L is also still a great lens...and great value......

[basketballfreak6]

sold my 17-40 and picking up my copy of 16-35 f4 IS on Friday (Digi Direct's 10% off sale got me again) probably will be out Saturday morning for sunrise, can't wait

[basketballfreak6]

picked up my copy last night, took it out this morning:

Manly Sunrise by basketballfreak6, on Flickr

i am loving the lens so much

[Ahyao17]

I heard that the new F4 version has better picture quality than the older version.

On the other places I read, that the only advantage for the old 16-35 is the F2.8 that's all

- - - Updated - - -

Manly sunrise

Awesome picture, which part of Manly is this? (Manly Sydney or Manly Bris?)

[Tannin]

Bryan's review is up at The Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...-USM-Lens.aspx

Executive summary: he cannot fault it. Just a wonderful lens.

Trouble is, if I get one of these (to replace the 10-22), I'll need a 5D III as well, and now we are into scary serious dollar territory. (I'd replace the 50D with my existing 5D II for wide work, and replace the 5D II with a 5D III coz the 5D II's AF system is frankly terrible but that won't worry me so much using it with an ultra-wide. Anyone want to buy a nice grandmother? One owner, fair-to-good condition, low mileage. Best offer.

[basketballfreak6]

which part of Manly is this? (Manly Sydney or Manly Bris?)

Brisbane

i haven't had too much chance to use the lens but IQ wise definitely no complaints, very good contrast and full frame sharpness, i read a comparison review even for astrophotography compared to the 16-35 2.8 II the new lens might even be better despite the fact that it is only f4 mainly due to better corner resolution, less vignetting and better dealing with astigmatism, hoping to go out sometimes soon to try it for astro myself

and IS works well, if i am really steady i can get sharp 1 second shutter shots