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

I don't think this is the replacement for the 16-35L II canon needs to make an f2.8 in this range for photojournalists. still if the optics are stellar I'd be interested

ed rader wrote in post #16899395
I don't think this is the replacement for the 16-35L II canon needs to make an f2.8 in this range for photojournalists. still if the optics are stellar I'd be interested

Same here, would let my 17-40 go.

DreDaze wrote in post #16899328
who wants to venture a guess on the prices of these bad boys?

mine are $1200 for the 16-35f4ISL, and $900 for the 10-18IS


an f4 with like 3-4 stops of IS would be better than an f2.8 without IS for hand holding

Only for static subjects.

kevinstinks wrote in post #16899344
Wheres the 35L II? Thats all I care about.

It's called the Sigma 35 art.

ed rader wrote in post #16899356
IS is great for landscapes without tripod -- especially in golden or blue hour -- but this lens would have to be more like the 24-70L f2.II than the 24-70L f4 IS for me to be interested because I love my 16-35L II

My landscapes in the golden or blue hour tend to go into the 10 second plus range so IS would be useless. Tripod is the only way I shoot under those conditions. I think the IS would be helpful for day shots if you want to stop down.

Qlayer2 wrote in post #16899373
The 10-18 is a weird choice- the 10-22 Ef-S is optically very good. Wide angle video seems to be the target market here- I'm guessing $699.

It makes sense to give it an STM motor and IS for Video. The USM in the 10-22 would make some noise as it focuses. It will probably be pretty cheap and have build quality like the 18-55 series.

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.

to preorder or not, that is the question

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.

14-24.... would be really nice, but if I honestly wanted that lens for landscapes, I'de buy the nikon one and adapt it.

I have no interest in dealing with ridiculous 150mm filters, and samyang offers a wonderful 14mm as is. hopefully the new lens is priced well, or I'll look at people dumping their 16-35's as an alternative.

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.

I tend to agree with you, but I will start hating when I see real MTF charts, vs Canons theoretical ones. If this 16-35 f4 brings the business in the corners, then we might have a contender (price point is up in the air, but knowing Canon it will be horrendously over priced). As it stands, I dont see this f4 taking over the f2.8 16-35mm. The photojournalists need that extra stop, and usually are not concerned with poorer performing corners.

Charlie wrote in post #16899587
14-24.... would be really nice, but if I honestly wanted that lens for landscapes, I'de buy the nikon one and adapt it.

I have no interest in dealing with ridiculous 150mm filters, and samyang offers a wonderful 14mm as is. hopefully the new lens is priced well, or I'll look at people dumping their 16-35's as an alternative.

14mm = bulbous front element unless you are tokina

gnome chompski wrote in post #16899592
I tend to agree with you, but I will start hating when I see real MTF charts, vs Canons theoretical ones. If this 16-35 f4 brings the business in the corners, then we might have a contender (price point is up in the air, but knowing Canon it will be horrendously over priced). As it stands, I dont see this f4 taking over the f2.8 16-35mm. The photojournalists need that extra stop, and usually are not concerned with poorer performing corners.

"poorer corners" is really overblown. in the real world anyways.

Hogloff wrote in post #16899473
Only for static subjects.

Obviously...if you're taking shots of moving subjects at those focal lengths, and you've got a fast enough shutter to stop their motion I don't think hand shake is a concern

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.

oh stop it. not everyone wants 14mm or a super huge, expensive lens with bulbous front element.

Hogloff wrote in post #16899477
My landscapes in the golden or blue hour tend to go into the 10 second plus range so IS would be useless. Tripod is the only way I shoot under those conditions. I think the IS would be helpful for day shots if you want to stop down.

everyone aint you. if you were on the top of the bay bridge or in a helicopter over a volcano you won't have a tripod .