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

I am excited about the 9-blade aperture as well... The 24-70 II is so nice for that with sunstars for night exposures. Hopefully the addition of IS does not cause coma issues or anything like that.

Ohh I do love how the overall tone of this thread has changed from incessant whining and complaining, to overall a mildly positive (if hesitant) acceptance as soon as the pricing and MTF charts appear.

Perhaps people could use this thread as a good lesson in "Keep your thoughts to yourself until you actually have a little more information to hand"

I am personally quite interested in the EF-S 10-18. I simply don't have the budget (nor the justification) for one of the uber-expensive UWAs, so this looks like it might fit the bill for me. However, unlike some in this thread, I intend to wait until a bunch of reviews and sample images are available before I make any decisions!

Invertalon wrote in post #16901212
I am excited about the 9-blade aperture as well... The 24-70 II is so nice for that with sunstars for night exposures. Hopefully the addition of IS does not cause coma issues or anything like that.

Coma issues would show up in the dashed lines in the MTF chart as bokeh exaggerates coma (compare to the 14mm II which is really sharp but has some coma issues). They look pretty good.

Pre-sale is now available on Adorama via the main page.

Note: Remember to use mr. rebates or something for 1% off

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.

It doesn't make sense (to me) that Canon would take away a more expensive f/2.8 option. Many photogs want 2.8, IS or not. What does make sense to me is the 17-40L slowly being phased out and moving forward with the 16-35 f/4L IS and 16-35 f/2.8L II. The precedence for this can be seen in the two newly-minted 24-70 L-series options (one f/4 IS, the other f/2.8).

WhyFi wrote in post #16901231
It doesn't make sense (to me) that Canon would take away a more expensive f/2.8 option. Many photogs want 2.8, IS or not. What does make sense to me is the 17-40L slowly being phased out and moving forward with the 16-35 f/4L IS and 16-35 f/2.8L II. The precedence for this can be seen in the two newly-minted 24-70 L-series options (one f/4 IS, the other f/2.8).

I am not talking about them removing a f/2.8 option... Just making the f/2.8 option a lens that hopefully is to be announced, a 14-24mm f/2.8 or something.

How I see it, the 16-35 f/4 IS is "replacing" the 17-40 and 16-35. Meanwhile, a f/2.8 UWA zoom to be announced will still offer f/2.8, just not be 16-35mm... Likely wider. That is what I am thinking.

So I expect 16-35mm f/4L IS and something like a 14-24mm f/2.8L as the new UWA options, with both the 17-40 and 16-35 being phased out once they both are available.

What do you think this will do to the 17-40 pricing? Been in the market for an UWA for awhile and I was going to pick up the 17-40, but now this released, the IS option has me rethinking it. Wondering of the 17-40 would drop below the $500 mark?

cory1848 wrote in post #16901248
What do you think this will do to the 17-40 pricing? Been in the market for an UWA for awhile and I was going to pick up the 17-40, but now this released, the IS option has me rethinking it. Wondering of the 17-40 would drop below the $500 mark?

It likely won't change the new pricing at all... However, the used market may drop a little bit as people unload them for the new lens. I don't see much drop though there, as the new lens is still about double in cost. Relatively different price points, but it all depends!

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.

Having completed an f/4 L IS "Family" is a good thing. With the stellar 70-200 f/4 L IS on the market for years, why not complete the offering. Lighter weight, less money and less cost from the f/2.8 Family.
And of course, more sales.
I like it.

MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?

1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The EF 16-35 f/4L IS supplants the 2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM.

While we're on the topic where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?

I'm angling on a revised 135 & 100-400 or 400/5.6.

Nick5 wrote in post #16901305
Having completed an f/4 L IS "Family" is a good thing. With the stellar 70-200 f/4 L IS on the market for years, why not complete the offering. Lighter weight, less money and less cost from the f/2.8 Family.
And of course, more sales.
I like it.

Only speculation on my part, but I think much of the reason Canon has been coming out with top quality f/4 lenses is because (1) their 2.8 counterparts have become insanely expensive and they need lower cost alternatives, and (2) the newer Canon bodies have very high ISO capability which makes 2.8 less relevant from a light-gathering point of view.

That said, f/2.8 remains important if you are after good bokeh and soft backgrounds. f/4 has a harder time with this, especially for portrait shooters.

dolina wrote in post #16901318
While we're on the topic where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?

I can't imagine a compelling reason to update the 90 - I have a hard time believing that they could improve it much optically, so what does that leave? Weather sealing? Independent tilt and shift axis? It'd be nice, but I think that, ideally, you want a real improvement so as to encourage current owners to upgrade. To me, this puts the 90, along with some other old(er), but still excellent lenses (like the 135L - sure, you could add IS... but other than that?) on the low-priority back burner.

Personally, I now see the most glaring need for an makeover at 50mm. Then again, I would have said that even before the announcement of a new f/4 UWA zoom.

tgara wrote in post #16901391
Only speculation on my part, but I think much of the reason Canon has been coming out with top quality f/4 lenses is because (1) their 2.8 counterparts have become insanely expensive and they need lower cost alternatives, and (2) the newer Canon bodies have very high ISO capability which makes 2.8 less relevant from a light-gathering point of view.

That said, f/2.8 remains important if you are after good bokeh and soft backgrounds. f/4 has a harder time with this, especially for portrait shooters.

Im on the same page with this thinking. That being said, Im in way too many reception rooms trying to capture dance images at F/2.5 @ 1/50 at 6400 ISO so this is not a lens that i would consider.....also....B​okeh on W/A generally sucks anyway. My 35L and F/2.0 is soft but no where near what the 85 and 135 produce at F/2.0

Coming from a 17-40 it may seem trivial but I like that it goes just a bit wider and the IS is nice to have so later this year I will probably upgrade my 17-40. I typically use an UW as a standard zoom when I travel.

I was even looking at going to Fuji's 10-24 for UW so not I am really confused. :-}.

So @ 1199 price point; this could actually find its way into my travel bag. 17-40+50L would nicely change to 16-35IS+50L if optical characteristics live up to the hype..