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!

 
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
51,860 posts
Gallery: 190 photos
Likes: 8729
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 18, 2014 13:07 |  #691

Nick3434 wrote in post #16912350 (external link)
it is funny how hobbies and hobbiests reach a point that becomes insanely unnecessary, not just a little overboard. The best part is that most of the insanity is being concerned about subjective nothingness(see...this thread:lol:).

What,. you don;t pay $40.00 each for the hockey pucks to put under each of your stereo componenets legs? No solid silver braided wire? Can't you hear the difference??? Philistine! :)

Anyway on that note, the correct answer is:

Stone>metal>wood>plastic


I have a marble company and am really sad no one mentioned stone as a possible ideal housing. It would be heavy as crap and crack easily, but totally solve this heat expansion problem lenses apparently have to deal with:lol:

Make it Stone>Wood>metal>plastic and I'm on board.

My father was a Stone carver, one of the foremost worldwide, .. and nothing is more pleasing to me than the work of his I have on display.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
doc.paradox
Member
222 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
May 18, 2014 13:09 |  #692

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16912790 (external link)
I wait for 14-24 to answer the question....

HA! true that pilgrim ;)

. . that's where I was at until this potentially bad*ss F4 IS surfaced.

I'm an event shooter limping along using a tokina 11-16 (16 2.8 "prime) on a 5D MK III for the rare times I need to go wide. Since the 24-70 MK II covers "most" of my wide needs it's been easy to patiently wait for the 12-24 to finish the 2.8 my zoom trilogy. Now with this option of 16-35 for events I could see myself banging this around and it getting more body time then a 14-24 at weddings. If I already owned a EF 14, or other killer wide prime I would be able to chill like you, but at $1200 to fill this hole in my kit, I am compelled to take the jump now. I'm thinking there might be a permanent place for this f4 IS in my kit even after the 12-14 2.8 arrives.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
51,860 posts
Gallery: 190 photos
Likes: 8729
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 18, 2014 13:11 |  #693

WhyFi wrote in post #16912425 (external link)
Just depends on your definition of "fortune." ;) I spent quite a bit of time in the ultra high-end market, working with a couple of the more notable shops in the US. My old "office" (taken with the 17-40, naturally) -

QUOTED IMAGE

Sorry, those speakers look plastic, they must sound awful! :p

I did once make a pair where the baffle was a beautiful dark blue/black slate. No vibration or contributing resonance..

Speakers need to be Wood, ( or Stone ) :)


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,826 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 4483
Joined Oct 2012
Location: GA Mountains
     
May 18, 2014 13:17 |  #694

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16912932 (external link)
Sorry, those speakers look plastic, they must sound awful! :p

I did once make a pair where the baffle was a beautiful dark blue/black slate. No vibration or contributing resonance..

Speakers need to be Wood, ( or Stone ) :)

They also need to be painted white to keep the heat down ;)


Fuji X-T3 // Fuji X-Pro2 (Full Spectrum) // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
doc.paradox
Member
222 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
May 18, 2014 13:20 |  #695

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16912946 (external link)
They also need to be painted white to keep the heat down ;)

bw!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WhyFi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,774 posts
Gallery: 246 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 843
Joined Apr 2008
Location: I got a castle in Brooklyn, that's where I dwell.
     
May 18, 2014 13:30 |  #696

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16912932 (external link)
Sorry, those speakers look plastic, they must sound awful! :p

I did once make a pair where the baffle was a beautiful dark blue/black slate. No vibration or contributing resonance..

Speakers need to be Wood, ( or Stone ) :)

I forget what the baffles are made out of with there... either wood with lots of lacquer or a inert stone-like composite. Either way, no resonance (not surprisingly, they weigh several hundred pounds, each). One of my friends, a speaker manufacturer, makes some of his baffles out of a laminate of many layers of cloth and some kind of epoxy, if I remember right. It ends up being *very* stone-like and he said that was the only real difference in the treble extension between his "regular" and upper-tier speakers - just being bedded to that material vs wood/MDF means a huge difference in clean treble extension.


Bill is my name - I'm the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
Senior Member
Avatar
922 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 149
Joined Jan 2012
     
May 18, 2014 15:06 |  #697

To be very honest, a lot of users do not spend time on forums....at all. Many people are now waiting for real performance of this lens against 14-24 of Nikon and if it will be as sharp, they will take it. 90% of landscape photographers do not need F/2.8 and it is only needed to night sky photographs.

The most common set up for landscape is super simple: Camera on a tripod, a remote shutter release, Manual mode, focus via Live View to ensure that everything is in focus. The only thing that is needed from this lens is corner to corner sharpness at all apertures. That's it. And very soon we will find out. Everything else will not matter.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
freitz
Senior Member
Avatar
733 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
May 18, 2014 17:31 |  #698

sol95 wrote in post #16911661 (external link)
so much informative discussion about the 16-35/4L...especially the last few pages! :P

Im considering this lens and or the 16-35 f2.8 Not sure if I would ever use the DOF but both seem like they will be ok in low light. esp. with 4 stop IS


Camera: Leica M240 - Summilux 35mm 1.4 FLE
PC: I7 3930k // EVGA GTX TITAN SC // 16GB RAM 1866 // ASUS RAMPAGE IV EXTREME // All Watercooled // CASELABS SM8
NAS/Server: Synology DS213air // 2x 2TB WD Red NAS drives

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eriet30
Goldmember
Avatar
2,852 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3098
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Phoenix AZ
     
May 18, 2014 20:43 as a reply to  @ freitz's post |  #699

So est ship in June is Canon ever early


"Vision is the art of seeing that which is invisible"
http:// … flickr (external link) www.paulvanderveen.net (external link)

A9 / A7R4 -CV10, Tam 17-28, Loxia 21, FE35GM, Sigma 105 Macro, FE 100-400GM, FE 200-600 G, Rok 8mm Fish, Sony 1.4x
Legacy Glass: Canon FD 55 1.2 / Jupiter 9 85mm 1.4 FOR SALE: CV40, Tam 70-180, A6000InfraRed, Viv S1 90 2.5 macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paulstw
Senior Member
827 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2012
     
May 19, 2014 03:20 |  #700

This is priced at not a lot less than the 2.8 version. Canon obviously think that IS is more of a selling point than a stop of extra light these days.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CollegeKid
Senior Member
475 posts
Joined Mar 2014
     
May 19, 2014 03:40 |  #701
bannedPermanent ban

Paulstw wrote in post #16914263 (external link)
This is priced at not a lot less than the 2.8 version. Canon obviously think that IS is more of a selling point than a stop of extra light these days.

Kinda the same as the 24-70 f/2.8 II vs the 24-70 f/4 IS. Choice is nice. But, getting f/2.8 and IS together isn't a bad idea. I think if the 16-35 f/4 IS is optically superior to the 16-35 f/2.8 II, it will sell. Then again, I don't think the 24-70 f/4 IS is selling much, and it is better (optically) than the 24-70 I, 24-105 and the Tamron 24-70 VC.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
May 19, 2014 04:32 |  #702

It really comes down to price. If it's cheaper than the 16-35mm II 2.8 and optically better it'll sell well.
The problem with the 24-70mm f4 is that people complain about the lack of 105mm and the higher price over the 24-105mm. But it's a much better lens.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16913119 (external link)
To be very honest, a lot of users do not spend time on forums....at all. Many people are now waiting for real performance of this lens against 14-24 of Nikon and if it will be as sharp, they will take it. 90% of landscape photographers do not need F/2.8 and it is only needed to night sky photographs.

Yes but there are plenty of people who do need 2.8, such as live music, event photographers, wedding photographers... The 16-35mm II 2.8 has been the go to lens for these people and the 16-35mm f4 is not going to replace it.
But for landscape photographers, it's exactly what we've been asking for. A super-sharp lens that can take affordably small filters. If this performs as well as the Nikon 14-24mm and takes 77mm filters, then we have a real winner for landscape.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,583 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6539
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 19, 2014 09:43 |  #703

Mornnb wrote in post #16914319 (external link)
The problem with the 24-70mm f4 is that people complain about the lack of 105mm and the higher price over the 24-105mm. But it's a much better lens.

better lens != better photography. I'de never consider a 24-70 to do the work of an ultrawide, and vice versa. It's like comparing a corvette to a diesel truck. Considerably different tools, both vehicles.

people in the market for a slowish zoom expect range in exchange. If you want super optics, sigma also offers a 24-105. Anyhow, a 24-70 simply cant be compared to an ultrawide zoom like 16-35/17-40. Great optics is not a replacement for great perspective.


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
freitz
Senior Member
Avatar
733 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
May 19, 2014 09:51 |  #704

Charlie wrote in post #16914765 (external link)
better lens != better photography. I'de never consider a 24-70 to do the work of an ultrawide, and vice versa. It's like comparing a corvette to a diesel truck. Considerably different tools, both vehicles.

people in the market for a slowish zoom expect range in exchange. If you want super optics, sigma also offers a 24-105. Anyhow, a 24-70 simply cant be compared to an ultrawide zoom like 16-35/17-40. Great optics is not a replacement for great perspective.

Well Said.


Camera: Leica M240 - Summilux 35mm 1.4 FLE
PC: I7 3930k // EVGA GTX TITAN SC // 16GB RAM 1866 // ASUS RAMPAGE IV EXTREME // All Watercooled // CASELABS SM8
NAS/Server: Synology DS213air // 2x 2TB WD Red NAS drives

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
May 19, 2014 09:53 |  #705

Mornnb wrote in post #16914319 (external link)
The problem with the 24-70mm f4 is that people complain about the lack of 105mm and the higher price over the 24-105mm. But it's a much better lens.

It is definitely better optically (I wouldn't go as far as saying MUCH better), but I would not call it a better lens. To me, the 24-105 is a better lens, even though it is optically weaker than the 24-70 because all things considered, the 24-105 is more useful for me.


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

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

276,889 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 lindahaynesss
781 guests, 197 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.