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

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16901129
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.

14-24 would likely mean bulb element and won't natively take filters...... Aka royal pain in the buttox. Been waiting for a super optic lens that takes filters. This is it!

It only makes sense (to me) that Canon is shifting the UWA segment... They are combining the 16-35 and 17-40 into this new 16-35 f/4 IS... I fully expect a 14-24 f/2.8 or similar to come out in the future for those who want even wider and faster. That would be a perfect complimentary UWA zoom combo Canon would offer to customers.

I would not see the point in having a 17-40 II, 16-35 III and a new 14-24 f/2.8 (if/when). The 2-lens combo makes more sense and still offers a lower-cost option and a more exotic, high end one.

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

Solid line = in focus. Dashed line = bokeh.

Don't ask me how they measure the resolution performance of bokeh. But it shows the amount of astigmatism present in the bokeh. Generally, when the dash lines are near the straight lines, it means the lens will have pleasing bokeh. They're correlated, it shows you how well the lens handles out of focus elements.

Not especially important for an UWA though, they're not engineered for bokeh.

TheNewLegend wrote in post #16899325
Great...
Now I'll have to upgrade my 17-40

+1 ....SIGH ....

Maxdave

Charlie wrote in post #16901146
Been waiting for a super optic lens that takes filters. This is it!

Do you think it is the same quality as 14-24 of Nikon, 21 mm Zeiss and 24 TSE?

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16901125
Nevertheless, based on the MTF graphs, the EF-M 11-22 still seems to rule them all at wide and at tele.

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

Remember it's only showing you the relative performance compared to the centre of the lens, hence a crop lens always has an advantage in MTF charts. This ignores that you generally get sharper performance out of FF lenses due to the larger sensor.
That is to say, you really can't fairly compare crop and FF lenses this way.

Invertalon wrote in post #16901167
It only makes sense (to me) that Canon is shifting the UWA segment... They are combining the 16-35 and 17-40 into this new 16-35 f/4 IS... I fully expect a 14-24 f/2.8 or similar to come out in the future for those who want even wider and faster. That would be a perfect complimentary UWA zoom combo Canon would offer to customers.

I would not see the point in having a 17-40 II, 16-35 III and a new 14-24 f/2.8 (if/when). The 2-lens combo makes more sense and still offers a lower-cost option and a more exotic, high end one.

Nope. The new lens is the "landscape" lens. An upcoming lens, if it comes, would be a fast "reportage", "photojournalism" akin to the 17-40, an EF 17-40 F2.8.

Taking a look at the Nikon 14-24 MTF and comparing against the 16-35 f/4 IS, the center of the frame wide open is sharper than the Nikon and the corner performance looks similar. But not sure if you can directly compare MTF's from different manufacturers.

This lens is temping to use on my canon but I already have the nikon 14-24mm to use on my d800e. I might pass unless I find one cheaper down the road. Looks like a nice piece of glass though!

Invertalon wrote in post #16901185
Taking a look at the Nikon 14-24 MTF and comparing against the 16-35 f/4 IS, the center of the frame wide open is sharper than the Nikon and the corner performance looks similar. But not sure if you can directly compare MTF's from different manufacturers.

You can not, every manufacturer has their own methodology. Hence you are better off waiting for dxomark, lens rental, photozone etc to do tests. These MTF charts are only useful for comparing Canons with Canons.

That is what I thought!

welp, i was way off on the 10-18 pricing.

Seems like the old 2.8 version will still be better for those wanting to shoot stars/milky way shots?

barrett14 wrote in post #16901204
Seems like the old 2.8 version will still be better for those wanting to shoot stars/milky way shots?

Yes, but quite frankly, i'de rather have the samyang 14 for that task. Sharper and wider, makes a difference when it comes to astro

This is interesting, compared to the 24-70mm II.