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

$299 for the EF-S 10-18? I'm so gonna buy one! Small and light just the way I like it. Hope the IQ is as good as on the 18-55 STM. And I thought Canon gave up on making affordable lenses for crop sensors. I'm glad I was wrong

Specs are out by the way: http://www.usa.canon.c​om …_10_18mm_f_4_5_​5_6_is_stm

FEChariot wrote in post #16900770
I'd expect the IQ of the 10-18 to equal that of the 18-55 lenses and this be a step below the 10-22 which isn't going anywhere. So the 10-18 is to the 18-55 as the 10-22 is to the 17-55. Plenty of room for all.

optically the 18-55 stm is fine, it's just a slowish lens. 10-18 vs 10-22 are both slowish lenses. Expect the 10-18 to cannibalize 10-22 sales unless canon intentionally dumbs down the IQ (no evidence leading to this)

Charlie wrote in post #16900796
optically the 18-55 stm is fine, it's just a slowish lens. 10-18 vs 10-22 are both slowish lenses. Expect the 10-18 to cannibalize 10-22 sales unless canon intentionally dumbs down the IQ (no evidence leading to this)

but why would they want to cannibalize their own sales...i mean i'd expect the IQ to not be close to the 10-22mm, otherwise the price wouldn't make much sense...taking sales away from one of their popular EF-S lenses

Tommydigi wrote in post #16900654
Price is out 1199 for the 16-35 and 299 for the 10-18. Actually not bad assuming they are good lenses.

That is absolutely great!

Now to wait for reviews of the 16-35.

DreDaze wrote in post #16900798
but why would they want to cannibalize their own sales...i mean i'd expect the IQ to not be close to the 10-22mm, otherwise the price wouldn't make much sense...taking sales away from one of their popular EF-S lenses

MTF charts are available: http://www.usa.canon.c​om …f_4_5_5_6_is_st​m#Overview (scroll down the page).

Anyone know how to decipher them? Are they any good?

DreDaze wrote in post #16900798
but why would they want to cannibalize their own sales...i mean i'd expect the IQ to not be close to the 10-22mm, otherwise the price wouldn't make much sense...taking sales away from one of their popular EF-S lenses

I don't know, just saying it's a likely outcome.

btw, can someone translate MTF numbers?

10-18
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …_10_18mm_f_4_5_​5_6_is_stm

16-35/4 IS link:
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …up/ef_16_35mm_f​_4l_is_usm

DreDaze wrote in post #16900798
but why would they want to cannibalize their own sales...i mean i'd expect the IQ to not be close to the 10-22mm, otherwise the price wouldn't make much sense...taking sales away from one of their popular EF-S lenses

I wouldn't say it's completely unlikely that they have an updated (probably faster) version of the 10-22mm planned.

welps, no time to wait for reviews, preordered :P

Charlie wrote in post #16900818
welps, no time to wait for reviews, preordered :P

well you held out for 19 minutes

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16900719
It's not Canon's fault if yours or anyone else's train of thought is completely based outside of reality. Canon discontinued the lenses they replaced, again, totally normal practice for any business, people will buy the new product or source the old one used, take a guess what most people are going to do

I did not say Canon is increasing their prices compared to their previous releases. I said they released their new lenses at around double the price of the old version, and that is a simple fact. Your argument is based on something I did not say.

Either way, it is good that Canon have decided not to charge double the price of the 17-40 for the 16-35 IS. I am happy about that. Perhaps they've seen how their past few releases have been quasi-failures on launch and wizened up.

Sirrith wrote in post #16900830
I did not say Canon is increasing their prices compared to their previous releases. I said they released their new lenses at around double the price of the old version, and that is a simple fact. Your argument is based on something I did not say.

Either way, it is good that Canon have decided not to charge double the price of the 17-40 for the 16-35 IS. I am happy about that. Perhaps they've seen how their past few releases have been quasi-failures on launch and wizened up.

Again, they did not double their prices... when a product has been out for a long time it's cost goes down... this isn't just in the camera world. When a lens has been out for over 20 years of course it's going to cost significantly less than a brand new one, it baffles me how anyone is surprised or offended by this... give me a break.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16900880
Again, they did not double their prices... when a product has been out for a long time it's cost goes down... this isn't just in the camera world. When a lens has been out for over 20 years of course it's going to cost significantly less than a brand new one, it baffles me how anyone is surprised or offended by this... give me a break.

And it baffles me how you seem to be actively trying to not understand my post. Why do you insist on acting like I'm accusing Canon of jacking up their prices compared to their previous releases?

I did not say they are doubling their prices. I said their release price for their recent lenses has been double the price of the old model at the same point in time.

Lets just use these numbers and dates as rough examples.
28/1.8 costs $400 on 12/12/13.
28/2.8 IS released at $800 on 12/12/13

Price difference on 12/12/13: double.

Again, let me emphasize: I do not care how much I could have bought it for 20 years ago. I care about how much I can buy a lens for now, like the vast majority of people out there. And the fact in my hypothetical scenario is that the new lens costs exactly double. I can buy 2x 28/1.8 for the price of 1x 28/2.8 IS. That is all there is to it.

If you are incapable of reading my post in the way it is plainly meant to be read, and insist on trying to force some other meaning into it to defend some inflated ego or whatnot, then it is pointless for me to continue replying.

And this is pointless anyway, since the price has now been released and we know it is reasonable.

Sirrith wrote in post #16900895
And it baffles me how you seem to be actively trying to not understand my post. Why do you insist on acting like I'm accusing Canon of jacking up their prices compared to their previous releases?

I did not say they are doubling their prices. I said their release price for their recent lenses has been double the price of the old model at the same point in time.

Lets just use these numbers and dates as rough examples.
28/1.8 costs $400 on 12/12/13.
28/2.8 IS released at $800 on 12/12/13

Price difference on 12/12/13: double.

Again, let me emphasize: I do not care how much I could have bought it for 20 years ago. I care about how much I can buy a lens for now, like the vast majority of people out there. And the fact in my hypothetical scenario is that the new lens costs exactly double. I can buy 2x 28/1.8 for the price of 1x 28/2.8 IS. That is all there is to it.

If you are incapable of reading my post in the way it is plainly meant to be read, and insist on trying to force some other meaning into it to defend some inflated ego or whatnot, then it is pointless for me to continue replying.

And this is pointless anyway, since the price has now been released and we know it is reasonable.

The 28/2.8 IS is NOT the replacement for the 28/1.8, it's the replacement for the 28/2.8 which was discontinued in 2012, the same year the IS version was released... so you want to try another example?

My point is that your point makes no sense because it's false to it's core. So unless you want to give me a real example of what you're talking about, I again fail to see your point, ego has nothing to do with it, facts do.

Charlie wrote in post #16900812
I don't know, just saying it's a likely outcome.

btw, can someone translate MTF numbers?

10-18
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …_10_18mm_f_4_5_​5_6_is_stm

16-35/4 IS link:
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …up/ef_16_35mm_f​_4l_is_usm

If I'm understanding the info correctly that I read in this site: click here, both lenses will be soft at the edges and the bokeh wide open may be a bit harsh