Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

ziggy53

f4L-IS is the new f2.8L!
Canon EF 16-35mm, f4L IS USM


Canon added the EF 16-35mm, f4L IS USM to the:

EF 24-70mm, f4L IS USM
EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM
EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM

This makes a pretty complete line of ranges that should handle a number of circumstances and needs.

If you don't need the larger apertures of the f2.8L series zooms, the f4L-IS series is looking pretty good. :thumb:clap

AdamNP

I'm all over this lens when it comes out. The 17-40 is my wide angle for now, but it's getting a bit dated, plus I'd love IS and another mm. From the MTF charts posted, it's far superior to the older lenses as well. The price is pretty reasonable too.

jmphotocraft

I can't seem to find whether it zooms internally or if it extends? Tempting lens, based on MTF.

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I can't seem to find whether it zooms internally or if it extends? Tempting lens, based on MTF.

There's a very good chance that both lenses will have a fixed frontmost barrel piece, even if the frontmost element moves fore / aft just a little bit. Like the existing UWA zooms, basically.

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

There's a very good chance that both lenses will have a fixed frontmost barrel piece, even if the frontmost element moves fore / aft just a little bit. Like the existing UWA zooms, basically.

=Matt=

That much is guaranteed, no L lens has a rotating front element, afaik.

puzzledpaul

jmphotocraft wrote: »

...no L lens has a rotating front element, afaik.

EF 100-300 f5.6L

Yes - old, unlikely to be on anyone's Xmas list these days, but decent IQ in spite of various negatives

pp

Brett1000

ziggy53 wrote: »

f4L-IS is the new f2.8L!
Canon EF 16-35mm, f4L IS USM


Canon added the EF 16-35mm, f4L IS USM to the:

EF 24-70mm, f4L IS USM
EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM
EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM

This makes a pretty complete line of ranges that should handle a number of circumstances and needs.

If you don't need the larger apertures of the f2.8L series zooms, the f4L-IS series is looking pretty good. clap

looking good but still a limited focal range

Matthew Saville

Brett1000 wrote: »

looking good but still a limited focal range

how is 16-200mm in just 3 lightweight lenses "limited"?? Toss in the 300mm f/4 L IS or 400mm f/5.6 L and you're really talkin'!!!

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

puzzledpaul wrote: »

EF 100-300 f5.6L

Yes - old, unlikely to be on anyone's Xmas list these days, but decent IQ in spite of various negatives

pp

Also, not an UWA zoom. ;-)

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

how is 16-200mm in just 3 lightweight lenses "limited"?? Toss in the 300mm f/4 L IS or 400mm f/5.6 L and you're really talkin'!!!

=Matt=

He might be wishing it was 16-55 f/4. Which isn't really outrageous when you consider the 17-55/2.8 for APS-C. It's the same size, and only 30g heavier. However Canon knows that if you buy a 16-55 and a 70-200, you could get away with not also buying a 24-70.

Hopefully the fact that this lens is basically only 2x means its corner performance is greatly improved.

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

He might be wishing it was 16-55 f/4. Which isn't really outrageous when you consider the 17-55/2.8 for APS-C. It's the same size, and only 30g heavier. However Canon knows that if you buy a 16-55 and a 70-200, you could get away with not also buying a 24-70.

Hopefully the fact that this lens is basically only 2x means its corner performance is greatly improved.

I don't think that a 16-55mm is ever going to happen for full-frame. I've tested multiple 16/17-XX crop-sensor lenses on full-frame cameras, and let me tell you there is a HUGE vignette that would take a massive amount of added glass to cover, especially at ~16mm.

In other words, there's a reason that no lens that ever went wider than 20mm on full-frame has ever gone longer than 35mm, as far as I know. The 17-40 L is it.

Regarding losing sales of other lenses, well, I think Canon would still be better off simply offering people with options. They know that people are simply going to spend as much money as they can, period, and so offering more lenses to choose from, period, is a good thing 99.9% of the time.

Besides, if they could indeed pull of the optical design of a 16-55mm f/4 full-frame, it would probably cost about as much as the 24-70 mk2, or more!!!

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

The 17-40L is relatively small and light. I wouldn't think extending it 15 or maybe just 10mm on the long end would add a ton, but I don't know. Pros would still need a 24-70/2.8, but the rest of us could get along without it. I only ever use mine for important events.

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

The 17-40L is relatively small and light. I wouldn't think extending it 15 or maybe just 10mm on the long end would add a ton, but I don't know. Pros would still need a 24-70/2.8, but the rest of us could get along without it. I only ever use mine for important events.

You're probably right, it's probably a bit more possible than I have personally been assuming. However based on the sharpness graphs of the Canon 17-40 L, I think they're already cutting it pretty close with that optical design.

The new 16-35 f/4 L is a better gauge, in my opinion, of what is possible if you want paramount sharpness. And for that lens, they'd be adding 20mm to the long end. Which, as I said, would probably make it weigh about as much as the Nikon 14-24, and cost almost as much as the Canon 24-70 mk2...

Besides, in the real world? I've just never needed that range between 35mm and 70mm in a zoom, not for landscapes and adventure. A 16-35 f/4, 50mm f/1.8, and 70-200 f/4 (for Nikon at least) is currently a flawless offering that most any landscape shooter would never need to expand beyond. (Of course an astro-landscape shooter would want a 14 2.8 and a 24 1.4, but that's another genre altogether IMO, and irrelevant to the f/4 ultrawide market)

=Matt=