Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 May 2014 (Monday) 12:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35mm f/4L IS is here!

 
Invertalon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,494 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
May 13, 2014 05:49 |  #136

I already pre-ordered the 16-35 f/4 IS... I know there is probably a f/2.8 in the pipeline of something, but if it *is* in fact a 14mm of some sort and f/2.8, it won't accept standard filters. I do use CPL's quite often so this lens is appealing with the 77mm thread.

I am surprised at the price... I am sure within a year it will drop $100-200 as well. I was expecting $1699 personally.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,762 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 7057
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
May 13, 2014 05:53 |  #137

Pre-ordered =).

Canon is the king of zooms. In need of an UWA lens, and it looks like this is following the footsteps of the 24-70II and 70-200II.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
May 13, 2014 06:06 |  #138
bannedPermanent ban

Jerobean wrote in post #16899561 (external link)
If this is true, what a lackluster beginning to the "year of the lens"

When talking FF UWA, all anyone ever wants is for Canon to release a 14-24 to rival Nikon. Now we get another 16-35 version? This lens likely wont be a clear winner because it will cost a fortune compared to the 17-40. Reminds me of the 24-70 F4 IS, a lens no one asked for because there is already a 24-105 that people like which is super affordable.

that ef-s announcement too, how silly. the 10-22 is already great, now they come out with a lens 2/3 stop slower with less range, but with IS. 4mm is a ton to give up in the UWA spectrum.

You are wrong. A stabilized FF UW zoom is exactly what I've been wanting. I will get the new EF lens as soon as it appears on the shelves.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 34
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
May 13, 2014 06:09 |  #139

Mornnb wrote in post #16901075 (external link)
Note if you don't understand an MTF chart, it's not actually that complicated.
Thick lines = contrast. Thin lines = sharpness.
Blue = f8 Black = wide open
The curve depicts the relative performance across frame, from centre to edge.

That is very useful to know, thanks!
What do the dotted lines mean though?


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
May 13, 2014 06:12 |  #140
bannedPermanent ban

Scott_online wrote in post #16900162 (external link)
Getting back on topic (sort of), it looks like the 10-18mm has a plastic lens mount which would put it in Canon's entry-level range.

So does the 55-250STM, and its optics are great.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
May 13, 2014 06:15 |  #141
bannedPermanent ban

Charlie wrote in post #16900667 (external link)
299 is a hell of a deal, might try it on the M

Do it right. Get the EF-M 11-22. Better optics, smaller, lighter, and greater focal range.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott_online
Senior Member
360 posts
Gallery: 80 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 907
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 13, 2014 06:16 |  #142

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16901105 (external link)
So does the 55-250STM, and its optics are great.

Eh...yes. The point I was making was that I thought it would slot in below the 10-22 in Canon's range. I don't think it's a replacement for the 10-22 as some people do.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
May 13, 2014 06:20 |  #143
bannedPermanent ban

Mornnb wrote in post #16900983 (external link)
Lets see, Canon's own published MTF charts.

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

17-40mm
QUOTED IMAGE

16-35mm II 2.8

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]


The 16-35mm f4 does seem to significantly out perform both.

I'd say the new lens mops the floor with the old ones.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
May 13, 2014 06:22 |  #144
bannedPermanent ban

Scott_online wrote in post #16901111 (external link)
Eh...yes. The point I was making was that I thought it would slot in below the 10-22 in Canon's range. I don't think it's a replacement for the 10-22 as some people do.

Agree.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,494 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
May 13, 2014 06:24 |  #145

The Canon MTF chart looks really nice as well. Of course there is a drop off at the edge of the frame, I have yet to see one that did not for an UWA. Looks like it will be incredibly sharp at the center wide open. However, the edges/corners show some improvement when stopping down according to the MTF, which is expected. But

Looking forward to this! If/when a f/2.8 of something comes out, I may just buy it in addition to this lens versus having one or the other, especially if the 14-24 f/2.8 or whatever they come out with wont accept filters and such.

Looking at the wide end of the MTF against the 17-40 (left). Looks to be a very nice improvement across the entire frame. Should be able to use this lens wide open and still get better performance at the edge of the frame than the 17-40 stopped down.

I don't really see the need for IS, still... Especially given how ineffective it seems to be at wider FL (the 35mm f/2 IS was good for MAYBE 2-stops reliably... Compared to 3 or 4 with the 70-200 II and 300 II). But I guess even if it is only good for 2-stops, will allow me to handhold it down to 1/4 consistently.... Could be useful for my shooting at times for sure.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
May 13, 2014 06:26 |  #146
bannedPermanent ban

Nevertheless, based on the MTF graphs, the EF-M 11-22 still seems to rule them all at wide and at tele.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | Byte size: ZERO



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DBNissan
Senior Member
Avatar
958 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 149
Joined Mar 2010
Location: NorCal's Delta Valley
     
May 13, 2014 06:26 |  #147

Mornnb wrote in post #16901075 (external link)
Impressively, it does well against the 14mm II prime too.

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

Judging by this, it's going to be in a different league to the current UWA zooms.

Note if you don't understand an MTF chart, it's not actually that complicated.
Thick lines = contrast. Thin lines = sharpness.
Blue = f8 Black = wide open
The curve depicts the relative performance across frame, from centre to edge.

Wow, very impressive. Let's hope the actual IQ will match their charts! :lol:

Sirrith wrote in post #16901103 (external link)
That is very useful to know, thanks!
What do the dotted lines mean though?

The solid lines are meridonial while the dotted lines represent sagittal measurements.

One of the areas of image quality that MTF can help determine is bokeh. [...] Some lenses are harsh in this regard, while others produce a much more pleasing out of focus image. This is where the meridonial and sagital lines come in, and as you'll recall are represented by the dotted and dashed lines. The closer these lines are to each other the more pleasing the bokeh of the lens.

I got the quote above from the link I shared on page 8: http://www.luminous-landscape.com …s/understanding​-mtf.shtml (external link)


~Dan 6D | 80D | 50D | S120 | 24-105 f/4L | 17-55mm f/2.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 50mm f/1.8 STM | 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM | Sigma 8mm f/3.5 | Tamron 18-270mm VC | Tamron 70-300mm VC | Tamron C-AF BBAR MC7 2xTC | 580EXII | 430EXII | YN-500EX | YN-622C | Flashpoint RoveLight 600 | Sony a6500 | 18-105mm f/4 G | Sigma MC-11 | Godox TT685S | Godox X1T-S
www.DBNphotography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
Senior Member
Avatar
922 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 143
Joined Jan 2012
     
May 13, 2014 06:27 |  #148

I would expect 14-24 F/2.8 vs 16-35 F/4....
It is an interesting move. Maybe Canon sees the market in cheaper and more broadly used L lenses? Interesting why they are going F/4 IS lately. Probably it is something that will give them more sales, I guess.


www.lightpilgrim.com (external link) ||1x.com (external link) ||500px.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
May 13, 2014 06:31 |  #149

Impressive MTF charts. I preordered one to use on my Sony A7/A7r. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,630 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4915
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 13, 2014 06:36 |  #150

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16901109 (external link)
Do it right. Get the EF-M 11-22. Better optics, smaller, lighter, and greater focal range.

I'de take the extra 1mm on the wide end over the 4 on the long end. Optics elite on either, but ef-m seems like a dead format.... Either way, preordered the 16-35, will only get one.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

238,697 views & 2 likes for this thread
16-35mm f/4L IS is here!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Paulzar
362 guests, 267 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.