Fearless prediction: A new 16-35L III by the end of the Year

[andrikos]

So I was working on the Excel spreadsheet for the thread in my signature and I saw an extremely interesting trend...

The Canon UWA Zoom in all its variations since the FD days in the '70s has been updated every 5-6 years like clockwork:

FD -> new FD = 6.2 years
new FD -> EF = 5.5 years
EF -> EF USM = 6.5 years
17-35 -> 16-35 = 5.7 years
16-35 -> 16-35 II = 5.3 years

As of today (August 2012) we are 5.4 years from the release of the 16-35L II

If history is any indication here (and it looks strong) expect a new 16-35L III to be released by the end of the year.

Also, given the pricing history of the lens (230,000 Yen same as the 24-70L II) I expect it to remain the same for the new model.
Of course, given the crappy exchange rate for the USD, expect the US price to be around the same as that of the 24-70L II ($2,300)

To summarize:
Release date: by Dec 2012
Price: 230,000 Yen or $2,300.

You heard it here first!

[boingy]

or they may come out with a 14-24 f/2.8L that will take filters!

[tkbslc]

I've already seen rumor of 14-24 f2.8 coming soon.

[Shadowblade]

We've all seen that rumour for years. I'm not holding my breath.

But a corner-to-corner sharp, distortion-free 14-24 with no purple fringing would be a godsend.

Even if it were a smaller lens and f/4 rather than f/2.8 so that it would be able to take regular-sized filters rather than super-sized ones.

[andrikos]

So, you are all suggesting that the 16-35 will be replaced by the 14-24?
Interesting...

Nikon has both and I'm sure Canon will have both also if they (hopefully) release a 14-24. And f/4 makes a lot of sense too to keep costs down.

But that will be independent of the 16-35 release in my opinion.
Maybe they'll release both by the end of the year?

[tkbslc]

Maybe they will keep both, but I don't know about a NEW 16-35. I could see them kicking the 16-35 II down the road like they have the non-IS 70-200L's.

If they can make a 14-24 that does filters, then there wouldn't be much need for both.

[Shadowblade]

Originally Posted by andrikos

So, you are all suggesting that the 16-35 will be replaced by the 14-24?
Interesting...

Nikon has both and I'm sure Canon will have both also if they (hopefully) release a 14-24. And f/4 makes a lot of sense too to keep costs down.

But that will be independent of the 16-35 release in my opinion.
Maybe they'll release both by the end of the year?

Not replaced.

A 14-24 and a 16-35 serve very different purposes, and are likely to be used by very different types of photographers.

A 14-24 is a specialised lens, likely to be used by landscape photographers and artistic types to achieve effects which can't be done using longer lenses. Corner-to-corner sharpness on high-resolution sensors (looking to future 50MP-or-higher sensors), minimal distortion and minimal chromatic aberration are paramount. Focus speed, etc. is not. Even f/2.8 may not be essential, although it is nice to have when shooting landscapes at night.

A 16-35 is a photojournalist's lens. Focus speed and central sharpness is vital. F/2.8 or don't bother. Corner sharpness and distortion don't matter so much. Due to its less stringent optical design requirements, it is likely to be much cheaper than a 14-24.

[andrikos]

Originally Posted by Shadowblade

Not replaced.

A 14-24 and a 16-35 serve very different purposes, and are likely to be used by very different types of photographers.

A 14-24 is a specialised lens, likely to be used by landscape photographers and artistic types to achieve effects which can't be done using longer lenses. Corner-to-corner sharpness on high-resolution sensors (looking to future 50MP-or-higher sensors), minimal distortion and minimal chromatic aberration are paramount. Focus speed, etc. is not. Even f/2.8 may not be essential, although it is nice to have when shooting landscapes at night.

A 16-35 is a photojournalist's lens. Focus speed and central sharpness is vital. F/2.8 or don't bother. Corner sharpness and distortion don't matter so much. Due to its less stringent optical design requirements, it is likely to be much cheaper than a 14-24.

Excellent explanation Shadowblade.
Now I can see why landscapists are clamoring for a 14-24 and don't find the 16-35 to perfectly suit them.

Given that journalism is a waning profession, I wonder how that affected the sales of a photojournalist's UWA lens... Maybe that will slow down the update as tkbslc has suggested...

[David Arbogast]

Originally Posted by Shadowblade

Not replaced.

A 14-24 and a 16-35 serve very different purposes, and are likely to be used by very different types of photographers.

A 14-24 is a specialised lens, likely to be used by landscape photographers and artistic types to achieve effects which can't be done using longer lenses. Corner-to-corner sharpness on high-resolution sensors (looking to future 50MP-or-higher sensors), minimal distortion and minimal chromatic aberration are paramount. Focus speed, etc. is not. Even f/2.8 may not be essential, although it is nice to have when shooting landscapes at night.

A 16-35 is a photojournalist's lens. Focus speed and central sharpness is vital. F/2.8 or don't bother. Corner sharpness and distortion don't matter so much. Due to its less stringent optical design requirements, it is likely to be much cheaper than a 14-24.

Shadowblade, I enjoy reading your thoughts about lenses. And I agree: a corner-to-corner ultra-sharp well-corrected 14-24mm f/4 would be ideal in a lot of ways. I suspect we're just going to get a Canonized Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, though. In any case, it will likely be better/sharper than the Nikon out of the necessity you referenced: upcoming 50MP+ cameras. Speaking of which, I hope a high MP camera gets announced sooner rather than later.

Congrats Andrikos on this thread being today's news on CanonRumors.com. It's a little role reversal as usually anything posted on Canon Rumors gets parroted here at POTN multiple times!

[nuffi]

Originally Posted by andrikos

Excellent explanation Shadowblade.
Now I can see why landscapists are clamoring for a 14-24 and don't find the 16-35 to perfectly suit them.

Given that journalism is a waning profession, I wonder how that affected the sales of a photojournalist's UWA lens... Maybe that will slow down the update as tkbslc has suggested...

Journalism isn't a waning profession really; it's just print media that's dying.

Journalistic photograpy will be going as strong as ever.

[smorter]

You guys are famous you made Canonrumors.com!

[andrikos]

Originally Posted by David Arbogast

Congrats Andrikos on this thread being today's news on CanonRumors.com. It's a little role reversal as usually anything posted on Canon Rumors gets parroted here at POTN multiple times!

Originally Posted by smorter

You guys are famous you made Canonrumors.com!

Haha, that's pretty funny. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I'm going to link it here so we can create a post-apocalyptic infinite loop that will short circuit the internet and send us back to the dark ages!

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/08/n...ssion-opinion/

[andrikos]

Originally Posted by nuffi

Journalism isn't a waning profession really; it's just print media that's dying.

Journalistic photograpy will be going as strong as ever.

I hope you are right, I don't pretend to know much about it. Print media is dead as we all know, hopefully photojournalism will not follow suit while being replaced by a bunch of hipster paparazzi armed with iPhones!

[watt100]

Originally Posted by andrikos

Haha, that's pretty funny. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I'm going to link it here so we can create a post-apocalyptic infinite loop that will short circuit the internet and send us back to the dark ages!

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/08/n...ssion-opinion/

rumors feeding on rumors - it is an infinite loop !

[w0m]

One of the most interesting things about the OP chart; how little lens pricing has changed over the years. o.0