EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

[William W]

Just announced.

WW

[Colin Southern]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...4-5-5-6-lenses

[Colin Southern]

Just announced.

WW

And on the same page (bit further down) (you sly devil you Bill!) Canon announce the Bill White edition camera:

Canon Broadens Its Imaging Lineup with Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Camera

[inkista]

Hmm... Wonder if this means the 17-40/4L USM is discontinued...

[JR1]

Yawn.... another new lens

Barely a week passes without one, or a camera or flash or......

Also 16-35 16 isn't ultra wide and 35 no great shakes, limited appeal

[William W]

Hmm... Wonder if this means the 17-40/4L USM is discontinued...

That was my thought. One line of thinking (guessing) is an end game of having two sets of L Series Zooms:
“IS F/4 L” set of zooms || “non IS F/2.8” set of zooms”
Which of course means the 17 to 40/4 goes.
That means oddment is the 24 to 105/4L IS, but Canon has oddments all through the range.

WW

[Colin Southern]

Yawn.... another new lens

Barely a week passes without one, or a camera or flash or......

Also 16-35 16 isn't ultra wide and 35 no great shakes, limited appeal

16 isn't ultra wide? Are you kidding me?

[DanK]

Wonder if this means the 17-40/4L USM is discontinued

If the new lens is really going to list for $1199, and the 17-40 lists for $840, it's hard to see why they would keep both. Speaking personally, as someone who bought a 17-40 not all that long ago, the IS is not particularly appealing to me. I don't find it necessary at short focal lengths, and it adds weight (the difference between the two lenses is 140g). The issue that might have swayed me is the MTF charts:

Old 17-40
New 16-35

This seems like a big difference, particularly in the corners at the wide end.

[FootLoose]

You can already pre-order it:
http://www.digidirect.com.au/camera_lenses/canon

[inkista]

16 isn't ultra wide? Are you kidding me?

My thought, too, but to someone who shoots crop, or is used to a Nikon 14-24, maybe 16 isn't that impressive. But yes, on a full frame, 16 is definitely ultrawide.

If the new lens is really going to list for $1199, and the 17-40 lists for $840, it's hard to see why they would keep both. Speaking personally, as someone who bought a 17-40 not all that long ago, the IS is not particularly appealing to me. I don't find it necessary at short focal lengths, and it adds weight (the difference between the two lenses is 140g).

I have a feeling it's to entice video shooters and those who use an ultrawide for environmental portraits, rather than landscape shooters. Ditto on the EF-S 10-18 IS STM vs. the EF-S 10-22 (although the $300 pricetag on the 10-18 is definitely going to make it an easier sale).

The issue that might have swayed me is the MTF charts...

Yeah. I assumed this would be the main reason for the lens--the complaints about the 17-40's performance are pretty common, and it's showing its design age (2003). Making a more expensive, but better-performing replacement makes sense. This strikes me as a very similar update to the EF 35 f/2 IS USM. A nicer lens for the stills shooters that's stabilized for video.

[JR1]

16 isn't ultra wide? Are you kidding me?

I use this, = to 12-24mm, that is ultra wide,

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/8-16mm.htm

Not a bad review in NPhoto though

[DanK]

I use this, = to 12-24mm, that is ultra wide,

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/8-16mm.htm

Not a bad review in NPhoto though

I assume that means you are using a crop-sensor camera. 8mm will give you the same FOV as 13mm on a full frame, which I think is what Colin was thinking. In the Canon world, the EF-S 10-22 is sold as the crop-sensor alternative to the EF 17-40 and 16-35.

So you only seem to be disagreeing

[loosecanon]

So how long before canon produce a full frame camera with autofocus optimised for f4 lenses. I recently bought the 16-35 f2.8 and focus is fast and smooth, and quite precise, which can be a problem with wide angle zooms, much better than the 17-40.
Now the stablised 10-18 will be good, I use crop sensor cameras for walking, hand holding, and there would be an advantage.
We shall have to see how Canon's technology works in practice, in the past IS not on wide angles due to the technology involved. Have Canon cracked it.

[Colin Southern]

I assume that means you are using a crop-sensor camera. 8mm will give you the same FOV as 13mm on a full frame, which I think is what Colin was thinking. In the Canon world, the EF-S 10-22 is sold as the crop-sensor alternative to the EF 17-40 and 16-35.

So you only seem to be disagreeing

Yes. Thanks Dan.

If one was wanting the widest possible angle then using an EF lens on a crop-factor camera would be using the wrong tool for the job.

In reality, the 16-35 is pretty darn wide; I do have the 14mm prime too, but it's not THAT much wider, and it's not often that I have to pull it out of the bag.

If folks are REALLY keen then they can use the 8-15mm zoom fisheye, and correct the distortion - that'll give a full 180 degrees.