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

ed rader wrote in post #16899604
"poorer corners" is really overblown. in the real world anyways.

of course, but being the internet I need to swing to the extreme.

So guess who bought a 17-40 f4 two weeks ago then.

do you think this will cause a price drop in the new/used market for the 16-35 2.8L and 17-40L?

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.

Are you prepared to anti up for a 14-24 2.8 lens? My guess it is north of $2,200. Since I use my ultra wide angles stopped down to at least f8, I really don't see the need for a 2.8 zoom in a ultra wide. Also, most likely a filter will be a challenge on the 14-24 and lets not forget the bulk. Personally, I'd take a 16-35 f4 that is good in the corners over a 14-24 2.8 any day. If I really want to go to 14mm, I'd pick up a Samyang 14mm.

ed rader wrote in post #16899604
"poorer corners" is really overblown. in the real world anyways.

Depends if you shoot detailed landscapes. In a landscape, the corners or just as important as the center so "overblown" is up for interpretation.

ed rader wrote in post #16899614
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 .

Might not have been in a helicopter hovering over a volcano...but I've been next to a lava flow during twilight with my trusty tripod.

Hogloff wrote in post #16899697
Depends if you shoot detailed landscapes. In a landscape, the corners or just as important as the center so "overblown" is up for interpretation.

I'm new to this kind of photography, so correct me if I'm wrong...Can't you solve this problem by taking a 2-shot panorama and crop the 'bad parts' out of it so you keep one clean image without the borders?

Salvation may be at hand! I've been searching for a UWA zoom for my 6D that is as good as the 10-22 on my cropper. If this is it, I'll be selling some well-maintained EFs stuff.

ed rader wrote in post #16899608
oh stop it. not everyone wants 14mm or a super huge, expensive lens with bulbous front element.

yeah, for them you have 16-35 and a 17-40 already. This lens will already be super expensive, so that is irrelevant.

Being a owner of a 16-35mm II, this one sounds great, but as some, i'm waiting for the 14-24mm 2.8 equivalent from canon to come if not this year, the next, but the 16-35mm with IS will be a great lens for video shoters and those of us who like to do some landscapes without tripod, have the ability to stop down a bit more with the IS at night or interiors such as churchs and some museums were they don't allow tripods to be used, let's hope in cames in great price.

Hogloff wrote in post #16899690
Are you prepared to anti up for a 14-24 2.8 lens? My guess it is north of $2,200. Since I use my ultra wide angles stopped down to at least f8, I really don't see the need for a 2.8 zoom in a ultra wide. Also, most likely a filter will be a challenge on the 14-24 and lets not forget the bulk. Personally, I'd take a 16-35 f4 that is good in the corners over a 14-24 2.8 any day. If I really want to go to 14mm, I'd pick up a Samyang 14mm.

1: this new lens will be already absurdly priced. If you use ultra wide stopped down, then you already have 2 options. Which leads me to my 2nd point...

2: there are already 2 great lenses that compete directly with this lens. you have a 17-40 f4, which is inexpensive and a great lens, and a 16-35 2.8 which is a great lens. So we needed another lens in the mix here? You really argue that we need another version of something we already have 2 of instead of something new?

3: I don't care if it's 14-24 2.8 or 4, but something not the same would be somewhat refreshing here.

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

^ Agreed. I want a 35L II f1.2

I think a 135L f1.2 IS would be too much to hope for?

Somedude18 wrote in post #16899712
I'm new to this kind of photography, so correct me if I'm wrong...Can't you solve this problem by taking a 2-shot panorama and crop the 'bad parts' out of it so you keep one clean image without the borders?

technically, you can, but there's a whole lot of complexity involved by doing that.

1. You dont get to see and frame the image before hand
2. stitching wide angle shots may not work well since perspective can swing wildly.
3. bad corners arent that bad unless they're ridiculously bad, and even then you might be able to clone it out.

As for the 16-35L IS I am hoping to an amazing lens because of the IS and being slower,
it is priced the same as the current f2.8 model.
Or it is on par with the current model and self-competition floods the market with used 16-35L II for < $1,000

Jerobean wrote in post #16899814
2: there are already 2 great lenses that compete directly with this lens. you have a 17-40 f4, which is inexpensive and a great lens, and a 16-35 2.8 which is a great lens. So we needed another lens in the mix here? You really argue that we need another version of something we already have 2 of instead of something new?

Don't you think Canons marketing men have looked at the 70-200 range and thought we can do that with all our zooms, 4 models in every focal length, that's what the punters want, choice.