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

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16899825
^ Agreed. I want a 35L II f1.2

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

I think a 135 f/1.2 IS would be a tad larger and heavier than a 70-200 2.8 II. And certainly more expensive.

whiteflyer wrote in post #16899831
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.

My main point isn't that this lens will be bad, it's just super boring as the beginning of the 'year of the lens'

next up 60-210 f3.5L IS

Not sure what to think about the new 16-35... We'll just have to wait to see first reviews and price. And then, there are rumors of Sigma 16-20 F/2... I'll wait to see if this one becomes reality.

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?

theoretically, yes. But the whole idea is to not have to do major surgery in post to get a workable image. Thats why so many Canon users are going nuts for the Sony A7R. It allows them to use their Canon lenses (with adapter, of course) and get a 36mp sensor that has a (2??) stop dynamic range advantage over the Canon sensors so they dont have to HDR the landscape. Same applies here. Might as well get it right in camera, and if the lens has corner performance to match the asking price then its a win-win.

Jerobean wrote in post #16899814
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.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and just assume you aren't a landscape photographer. Although the current options are quite sharp in the center and midframe, they muddy up pretty badly in the corners - even stopped down.

Sure, there are primes available that solve this problem but I do much of my landscape shooting while backbacking and a zoom that covers more focal ranges with similar IQ is appealing so I can leave a bag of primes at home while still getting the IQ I want.

Give me a zoom that allows me to forgo the expense of several primes but maintain the same IQ in the same focal range and I'll still come out ahead even if it is $2k.

I think both of these new lenses are good news. My guess is that in time the 16-35/4 IS will replace the 17-40. Maybe there are plans for a 16-35/2.8 III to complement it?

The 10-18 STM is clearly meant to accompany the 18-55 and 55-250 STM consumer lenses so will likely slot in below the 10-22. I would guess at maybe 2/3 the price? There are many, many Rebel/XXXD owners who would like a wide-angle option but aren't willing to pay more than they spent on the body. If they get the price right, they'll sell a boatload of these.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16899833
I think a 135 f/1.2 IS would be a tad larger and heavier than a 70-200 2.8 II. And certainly more expensive.

Ok, a compromise 135L f1.4 IS with a 72mm filter size.

Scott_online wrote in post #16899858
I think both of these new lenses are good news. My guess is that in time the 16-35/4 IS will replace the 17-40. Maybe there are plans for a 16-35/2.8 III to complement it?

The 10-18 STM is clearly meant to accompany the 18-55 and 55-250 STM consumer lenses so will likely slot in below the 10-22. I would guess at maybe 2/3 the price? There are many, many Rebel/XXXD owners who would like a wide-angle option but aren't willing to pay more than they spent on the body. If they get the price right, they'll sell a boatload of these.

I guess I'm really out of touch or something, because that 10-18 also strikes me as a who asked for this lens. 2/3 stop and less reach in exchange for IS compared to the already great 10-22?

I can't see this lens being cheaper than the 10-22 with how canon prices IS.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16899892
Ok, a compromise 135L f1.4 IS with a 72mm filter size.

Wishful thinking. What is the filter size difference between the 35L and the 35 IS? 5mm, or about 12%. A 135 f/1.4 would be at least 77mm, more likely 82mm. Possibly larger.

Jerobean wrote in post #16899901
I can't see this lens being cheaper than the 10-22 with how canon prices IS.

The 18-55 and 55-250 both have IS and are amongst Canon's least expensive lenses.

Scott_online wrote in post #16899858
I think both of these new lenses are good news. My guess is that in time the 16-35/4 IS will replace the 17-40. Maybe there are plans for a 16-35/2.8 III to complement it?

The 10-18 STM is clearly meant to accompany the 18-55 and 55-250 STM consumer lenses so will likely slot in below the 10-22. I would guess at maybe 2/3 the price? There are many, many Rebel/XXXD owners who would like a wide-angle option but aren't willing to pay more than they spent on the body. If they get the price right, they'll sell a boatload of these.

well the 10-22 isnt exactly fast to start with, so if the 10-18 has modern canon optics and costs 2/3 less, expect it to sell really well. I wouldnt mind a 16-35 F5.6 as long as optics really good and costs a lot less.

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?

Or just take one image with a good lens and be done with it. Many scenes don't lend themselves to multiple image stitching.

Jerobean wrote in post #16899814
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.

I have the 17-40 and it sucks in the corners, even stopped down. I've used the Nikon 14-24 and it is a dream lens, until you want to use filters. If the 16-35 f4 has the iq of the 14-24 and can take filters then in my books it is a winner. I have never shot with the 16-35II, but the reviews I've see put it at just an ok lens with not the greatest corners. For me, the corners are just as important as the center. The 16-35 is an event lens where typically corners don't matter.

Scott_online wrote in post #16899905
The 18-55 and 55-250 both have IS and are amongst Canon's least expensive lenses.

I mean, you aren't wrong...I guess I should have said non kit new release lenses.

All newer IS lenses have been pretty expensive. The IS primes, the 24-70 f4 IS, 15-85, 17-55, etc.

Jerobean wrote in post #16899946
I mean, you aren't wrong...I guess I should have said non kit new release lenses.

All newer IS lenses have been pretty expensive. The IS primes, the 24-70 f4 IS, 15-85, 17-55, etc.

The 24-70 f/4 IS is a case in point. My guess is that in time, this will replace the 24-105 but it will be a gradual transition. If they launched the 24-70 at the same price as the 24-105 then they would never sell whatever inventory is in the channel and they would devalue the 24-105. So instead, they let both lenses co-exist for a few years, gradually reducing the price of the newer one. The 24-70 started out at £1500 in the UK. It's down to £935.

I suspect the same will happen with the 16-35 f/4 IS. It will be expensive to start with but reduce towards the 17-40 over time.