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

Scott M wrote in post #16903480
Sorry, but that is just not true. While I use a tripod most of the time for landscapes, there are times where I want to travel light on a hike, or will be hiking through an area where using a tripod is not practical (Watkins Glen comes to mind). Also, shots from boats I've been on in Hawaii and Alaska where a tripod does not work.

While I will be upgrading my 17-40L to this lens mostly for the improved optics, it's nice to have image stabilization available for those times I've mentioned above.

Yes, there are cases where I am sure you want to travel light, I typically do not take DSLR then Yes, I also agree there are applications for this lens without the tripod. As a general rule, landscape photographers use a tripod and do not use IS.

Repeat again, I am not against IS. It is just sharpness and resolutions is why I would want to have a lens, not IS I would not purchase a "portrait" lens without IS though...

yeah, we get it - no landscaper worth their salt would use IS over a tripod. Not really sure why you're continuing to harp on this? No one here can tell you the exact reason they added IS to this lens. What they can tell you is situations in which they would use that IS, and that doesn't satisfy you as you can't see from the stated perspective.

Meanwhile, the data we have so far points to a better lens than the existing 17-40 for an extremely reasonable price relative to many of Canon's releases. It is also a lens that has added capability over all existing UWA options. I guess you just need something to complain about?

I'm going to jump on this lens.

Hand held pano.. at say 20mm, 100 iso, f16 at 1/13. IS will be great here.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #16903244
This is beyond ridiculous. Maybe for Night Photography but in the daytime most people run and gun. Why on earth would you setup a Tripod in the daytime for a Landscape shot? The IS can come in handy after sunset and you still want a Decent shot without a Tripod.

I always use a tripod for my landscape work, even in the day. I use live view for precise focus and a handheld meter to get precise metering. There are many benefits to always using a tripod. What is the rush that you need to run and gun shooting a landscape?

The really cool thing about IS on this lens is that it will automatically switch off when mounting the camera to a tripod.

So the anti-IS landscape bunny huggers won't even have to move muscle.

timbop wrote in post #16903496
Meanwhile, the data we have so far points to a better lens than the existing 17-40 for an extremely reasonable price relative to many of Canon's releases. It is also a lens that has added capability over all existing UWA options. I guess you just need something to complain about?

Where do you see me being even remotely complaining? Where exactly?
I am trying to understand how is Canon positioning this lens...
1. Ultimate UWA lens
2. 17-40 replacement

That is all.

If this is #2, then Canon is still going to release something to match 14-24 of Nikon.

Funny how not too long ago there was a raging debate on the need for IS on wide angle glass. I believe one of the Sigma wide zoom came out with OS and it was poopoo'd. Many people put down the OS on a wide angle basically saying it's not needed. Now with Canon releasing a wide zoom with IS, somehow it becomes the best thing since sliced bread. Funny how things look when you put rose coloured glasses on.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16903519
I am trying to understand how is Canon positioning this lens...

According to Canon;

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16903495
Yes, there are cases where I am sure you want to travel light, I typically do not take DSLR then Yes, I also agree there are applications for this lens without the tripod. As a general rule, landscape photographers use a tripod and do not use IS.

Repeat again, I am not against IS. It is just sharpness and resolutions is why I would want to have a lens, not IS I would not purchase a "portrait" lens without IS though...

I'm sure you've experienced this before:

sun going down near sunset, and your trying different combinations, and before you can even get your tripod setup, the moment is gone. It's not uncommon for me to remove the camera from tripod and start snapping away some handheld shots.

this shot could have easily been done with 4 stop IS:

1/4 second shutter to contain texture in the water

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mdAd​S8

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/kMnT​ni

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/icdT​SL

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/jKBC​sU

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16903326
It really depends what you do and why you do it. No landscape photographer will plan a shot with IS and no tripod. If you need ultimate quality, you need to ensure that you stick to ISO 100 and use a tripod so that there is no shake whatsoever.

I am not saying IS is bad. I am saying it has no use for Landscape or Architecture. Only casual shots on a trip.

I LOVE IS on my 70-200 but because I use it for portraits and always hand held.

Yours is a rigid, if not stale definition of "landscape". Many have called you on it, yet you persist.

What do you guys think this lens will do to the price/value of the 16-35 II 2.8?

I still like the 2.8 because it also allows you to do stars/milky way shots.

When I am out with the sole purpose of shooting landscapes, I always have a tripod. But, if I'm backpacking for a couple days with non-photographer friends, on a walk with my dogs after work or something similar, I'm not hauling a tripod with me...photography is a secondary activity at that point but those scenarios have good opportunity for nice shots. No, having IS will not allow me to shoot f11 ISO 100 just after sunset handheld but it will indeed allow me to shoot these "incidental landscapes" with less light, bottom line. So, I'm very pleased with having the option. I also like the possibility of using it in museums, churches, etc when traveling - no tripods allowed, less light and more DOF thanks to IS.

Of course, the IQ remains to be proven beyond the theoretical Canon MTF charts. I for one will be impatiently waiting for the first samples and reviews.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16903538
Yours is a rigid, if not stale definition of "landscape". Many have called you on it, yet you persist.

I wouldn't call it stale, just different. I actually follow a lot of what he talks about. When I go out to purposely shoot landscapes, I always bring my tripod, setup the composition I want and then wait for the right light before determining my exposure. Nothing stale about this approach. If I come back with that one shot that captures the image I had in my mind...I am very happy with the outing.

This is how I learned with large format film and I still enjoy the process...very purposeful photography with a vision in mind.

I know there are plenty that do landscapes with a run and gun fashion, rattling off hundreds of photos and that is fine, but for some it's the slow methodical process that engulfs you into nature that is most satisfying.

Calling it stale is very ignorant on your behalf. Possibly a better word could be different.

Hogloff wrote in post #16903559
I wouldn't call it stale, just different. I actually follow a lot of what he talks about. When I go out to purposely shoot landscapes, I always bring my tripod, setup the composition I want and then wait for the right light before determining my exposure. Nothing stale about this approach. If I come back with that one shot that captures the image I had in my mind...I am very happy with the outing.

This is how I learned with large format film and I still enjoy the process...very purposeful photography with a vision in mind.

I know there are plenty that do landscapes with a run and gun fashion, rattling off hundreds of photos and that is fine, but for some it's the slow methodical process that engulfs you into nature that is most satisfying.

Calling it stale is very ignorant on your behalf. Possibly a better word could be different.

+1 - I don't think that it's any coincidence that the bulk of my favorite shots were taken with a tripod and a more methodical approach.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16903519
Where do you see me being even remotely complaining? Where exactly?
I am trying to understand how is Canon positioning this lens...
1. Ultimate UWA lens
2. 17-40 replacement

That is all.

If this is #2, then Canon is still going to release something to match 14-24 of Nikon.

17-40 mm replacement ? Wrong move from Canon, then

I like having 5mm more reach than 1mm wide,
Canon should think something like 17-50mm or 16-50mm f/4 is good,
because you don't need f/2.8 for UWA especially using flash