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

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.

Yes, pal, i know all about the tripod, tripod, mirror lockup and the whole shabang. Stale is to think that we, like you, need that rigamarole to get good "landscape" images.

Charlie wrote in post #16903534
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:

Typically in these conditions you have another problem to deal with - dynamic range. Sun going down near sunset will mean that you will need to either use ND Grad filder or you will need to have several exposures and again, you will never be able to do it without the tripod

Hogloff wrote in post #16903522
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.

I wasn't a huge fan of it on the wide end and I can still say that I'm not. By "not a huge fan," I mean that (at FLs wider than 50-ish) I would gladly opt for an identical non-IS version if it would save me 200-300 bucks. I have a feeling, though, that IS has become analogous to the manufacturer jumping in to the high-margin accessory game - something that they can add for a relatively low cost, but is either necessary or high-value to a lot of consumers.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16903586
Yes, pal, i know all about the tripod, tripod, mirror lockup and the whole shabang. Stale is to think that we, like you, need that rigamarole to get good "landscape" images.

You still don't get it. You must have cut your teeth on digital where the run and gun style is the fashion. You call the slow methodical style stale...what do you call the spray and pray approach to landscapes? I know what I call it

Don't worry...you are just the result of the immediate need for gratification tech generation. On the go, no time to smell the roses...click...run...​click...run.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16903586
Yes, pal, i know all about the tripod, tripod, mirror lockup and the whole shabang. Stale is to think that we, like you, need that rigamarole to get good "landscape" images.

Doesn't making claims call for showing the proof in the pudding? I think that a "Handheld Landscapes" thread would be a great addition - can we look forward to you starting it?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16903587
Typically in these conditions you have another problem to deal with - dynamic range. Sun going down near sunset will mean that you will need to either use ND Grad filder or you will need to have several exposures and again, you will never be able to do it without the tripod

I'd say a good 75% of my landscape photos have a GND filter. Majority have a polarizer and quite a few have a ND filter. Most exposures go far beyond 1 second.

Vast majority are taken during the sweet hours of the day. Only deviations from these hours is if there are some atmospheric conditions like fog or beautiful lightening storms.

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.

+2 and....

WhyFi wrote in post #16903567
+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.

+1

I don't understand the beef with including IS. IS ADDS flexibility to the lens and its uses. Why is that a bad thing?

I just wish one of you guys would lend me $1200 so i could order mine.

Well....I don't object to the IS, but if the same lens was available without (even at the same price) Id happily forgo the it.

For me its pointless, Id always use a tripod. But I appreciate others opinions are different.

Architecture photography has been mentioned, and I agree that tilt-shifts represent an ideal tool for that genre. But, I imagine this lens should be a huge hit for many real-estate photographers (an architectural sub-genre). Many real-estate shooters need to maximize their efficiency - get in and get out quick - and I imagine being able to shoot image-stabilized handheld at f/7.1 and up while maintaining sharpness would be fantastic for them. And, thanks to Upright in LR, it's a cinch to quickly process the images with perfect verticals. For many of these architectural photographers - real estate photographers shooting low-fee mid-range housing - this new 16-35mm f/4L IS might be an ideal lens.

One other thought about IS. It used to be true that IS added a lot of cost to a lens, but lately this appears to be much less the case. All the recent non-L wide angle primes (24, 28, and 35mm) all have IS and are very affordably priced. Regarding that, though, I'm not sure why Canon didn't give IS to the 24-70 II.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #16903608
+2 and....

+1

I don't understand the beef with including IS. IS ADDS flexibility to the lens and its uses. Why is that a bad thing?

I agree, I might not use IS on this lens that much but hey when I need it its there.

oh, I ordered mine through best buy and got a email saying June 13 ship date.

MattD wrote in post #16903615
Well....I don't object to the IS, but if the same lens was available without (even at the same price) Id happily forgo the it.

For me its pointless, Id always use a tripod. But I appreciate others opinions are different.

I dont think IS adds much cost to this.

think about the 17-40, it's around 800, and I think the optics improvements ALONE, make this lens worth 1200. IS seems to be a freebie in this case.

Charlie wrote in post #16903655
I dont think IS adds much cost to this.

think about the 17-40, it's around 800, and I think the optics improvements ALONE, make this lens worth 1200. IS seems to be a freebie in this case.

I never thought IS added much cost to any lens...it's just Canon used the IS feature as a money grab.

At first, I thought IS was kind of silly until I thought of it more. For me at least, it is rare that I use a tripod unless I specifically need low ISO, long night exposures. Otherwise, I generally will just hand-hold at higher ISO which does not bother me. However, if we gain 2-3 stops of hand-holdability, along with a high resolution wide open performance… This can be *really* nice.

For example, instead of using something like a 16-35mm f/2.8 II at f/8, 1/50 at ISO 3200 to get a specific shot without a tripod… You can use this new 16-35 f/4 IS at f/4 and still get better sharpness across the frame than the 16-35 II at f/8, and reduce the ISO to 800 by using the larger aperture alone. Add in 2-3 stops of IS, you are now at ISO 200 or even 100. Your end result will be a higher resolution image (from both lower ISO and lens performance, along with better dynamic range).

If you require the same depth of field, you still will reduce down to ISO 800 or 400 with the IS alone over the 16-35 II at the same aperture. Which again, will increase that dynamic range and lower noise.

I don’t use UWA often to stop motion myself, that will generally be left up to faster primes or my 24-70 II or other lenses. I think for many, UWA zooms are for scenic landscape type shooting. We also will no longer have to stop down to f/8, f/11 or even smaller to get high sharpness to the edges/corners… So in one sense, this lens is *much* faster than the existing 16-35 II When I use my 17-40, my “default” aperture is f/7.1 to sharpen the edges up enough. I will use f/5.6 or larger, but it depends. Having a solid f/4 performance better than the current options stopped down to f/11 is just very appealing.

I know people will mention f/2.8 vs f/4 for stopping motion, which is a valid point… But UWA lenses in my experience require less shutter speed anyway to freeze motion, as objects move “slower” across the image circle than say a 70-200. Not to say you still won’t get that benefit, but the more I think about it… This lens could be quite perfect. Even if they came out with a 14-24 f/2.8 later on, I am not sure if I would switch… Especially given you can’t use filters with it most likely and I may rather buy a fisheye of some sort instead of extreme UWA situations.

Charlie wrote in post #16903655
I dont think IS adds much cost to this.

think about the 17-40, it's around 800, and I think the optics improvements ALONE, make this lens worth 1200. IS seems to be a freebie in this case.

And its 16mm instead of 17mm. On the UW end it is a difference. I think its a pretty fair price if the optics are like most of Canon's latest releases. The IS is a bonus.