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

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.

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.

Jerobean wrote in post #16899561
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.

Mornnb wrote in post #16901075
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?

Scott_online wrote in post #16900162
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.

Charlie wrote in post #16900667
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.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16901105
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.

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

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

17-40mm

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.

Scott_online wrote in post #16901111
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.

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.

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

HTTP response: 404 | Byte size: ZERO

Mornnb wrote in post #16901075
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!

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

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

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.

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

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16901109
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.