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

I for one am excited for a cheap UWA with IS for crop.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16900909
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?

Are you seriously incapable of understanding my post or are you being deliberately obtuse and trolling for fun?

My example was specifically pointed out in my post as being just that: an example.

Substitute any lens, real or made up, you want, and any variation of prices you want. My point remains the same.
For example:
Canon EF 10-1200mm f1.0 released in 1928: $100 on TODAY
Canon EF 10-1200mm f1.0 IS released yesterday: $200 on TODAY

Difference: double.

Heck, if you want another real world example as opposed to a hypothetical one, just look at the 35/2 and 35/2 IS.

Can't you just accept that I am not saying what you are so desperately trying to convince yourself that I am saying?

For the very last time:
I am not saying Canon increased their prices compared to the old version of lenses at their respective release dates. I am saying the prices of their recent new lenses have been double what you can get the older alternative for. That is it. I am not saying anything more than that. Price of lens A on date X is half the price of lens B on date X.

Do I say that this is unfair? Do I say that this is bad? Do I say this doesn't make sense? Do I say Canon is wrong? No. I said this is the reason why people expected the 16-35 IS to cost so much.

Now good day to you and don't misinterpret any more of my posts please.

On topic:

Does anyone know the release date of the 16-35 yet? And further to the MTFs posted above, can anyone interpret them in comparison to the existing UWAs?

Sirrith wrote in post #16900940
Are you seriously incapable of understanding my post or are you being deliberately obtuse and trolling for fun?

My example was specifically pointed out in my post as being just that: an example.

Substitute any lens, real or made up, you want, and any variation of prices you want. My point remains the same.
For example:
Canon EF 10-1200mm f1.0 released in 1928: $100 on TODAY
Canon EF 10-1200mm f1.0 IS released yesterday: $200 on TODAY

Difference: double.

Heck, if you want another real world example as opposed to a hypothetical one, just look at the 35/2 and 35/2 IS.

Can't you just accept that I am not saying what you are so desperately trying to convince yourself that I am saying?

For the very last time:
I am not saying Canon increased their prices compared to the old version of lenses at their respective release dates. I am saying the prices of their recent new lenses have been double what you can get the older alternative for. That is it. I am not saying anything more than that. Price of lens A on date X is half the price of lens B on date X.

Do I say that this is unfair? Do I say that this is bad? Do I say this doesn't make sense? Do I say Canon is wrong? No. I said this is the reason why people expected the 16-35 IS to cost so much.

Now good day to you and don't misinterpret any more of my posts please.

On topic:

Does anyone know the release date of the 16-35 yet? And further to the MTFs posted above, can anyone interpret them in comparison to the existing UWAs?

Look dude, idk why you're getting so bent out of shape, you're clearly having just as much an issue understanding my point.

Availability of a lens used compared to a new lens makes absolutely no sense. Any lens that was replaced by Canon with a newer model was then discontinued. So no, you could not just buy the older version unless you found one used and that's really not a fair comparison, is it?

All my original point was is that if you want to get an idea of what a new Canon lens' price will be you need not look further than their past releases, which I was clearly right about in this case btw. I'm sorry you want to substitute the reality of their pricing with your imagining of it, but the proof is in the pudding.

And post #105 said it's release date is the 30th of June.

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. .

I asked for it! The 24-70mm is a better lens than the 24-105mm. Sharper, lighter and better IS. These features are all more valuable to me than reach to 105mm.

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

If you want 14mm, get the prime. It's awesome, sharp and compact.
And the 24-70mm II blows away any wide angle zoom at 24mm including even Nikon's. I say pair a 14mm prime with a 24-70mm II and you effectively have everything a 14-24mm can do.

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

CollegeKid wrote in post #16899904
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.

135mm / 1.4 = 96.5mm and that's the opening of the aperture.

I would expect a >100mm filter size.

Wow! At $500 less than the current 16-35mm I may have my first UWA full frame lens.
While I am alway seeking a fast lens, I do most of my work hand held, and the IS could help without a tripod.
And at less than half of the retail price of the 10-22mm i think it will get a lot of attention; if the optics inside it are 80% of the 10-22mm Canon will put its own lens out of demand.

Well not worth an upgrade from my 16-35Lii. IS is nice but f/4, meh...

davidfarina wrote in post #16900964
Well not worth an upgrade from my 16-35Lii. IS is nice but f/4, meh...

The important thing will be the image quality of the lens. Colour, contrast, sharpness, distortion etc. 2.8 is not a big deal on a UWA.
The 16-35mm II and 17-40mm perform about the same, both mediocre. Hopefully the 16-35mm f4 will be a big leap.

I'll have to say the prices are not bad at all.

$1199 for the 16-35 f/4L IS
and
$299 for the EF-S 10-18mm

Pretty, pretty pretty good...

Lets see, Canon's own published MTF charts.

davidfarina wrote in post #16900964
Well not worth an upgrade from my 16-35Lii. IS is nice but f/4, meh...

What if the corners are sharp?

And as someone who has the 17-40, it has IS and if IQ is better at the edges especially, in a similarly sized package with 77mm filter threads and 2 extra aperture blades, I'm finding it very interesting.

Great looking mtf, IS, good coatings, funky glass, 9 blade round diaphragm - light and 77mm filters.

Looks fantastic, $1200 is a decent price too, unless it has some fatal flaw, unlikely given canons recent record I will be upgrading the 17-40.

HAHAHAHA, "The EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM will be available from June 2014 with an SRP of £1,199.99/€1,399.99" which makes this more than double the price of the 17-40 over here . Also makes it more expensive than the 16-35 f 2.8II, which I think will be the next lens since such a wide angle really does not require IS for 99.9999% of the shots I will use it for.

Mornnb wrote in post #16900983
Lets see, Canon's own published MTF charts.

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

17-40mm

16-35mm II 2.8

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

The 16-35mm f4 does seem to significantly out perform both.

Based on the comparison of the Canon MTF charts of all three lenses, it appears the new 16-35 f4 will have sharper corners. I can't wait to see what the actual images will be like!

DBNissan wrote in post #16901044
Based on the comparison of the Canon MTF charts of all three lenses, it appears the new 16-35 f4 will have sharper corners. I can't wait to see what the actual images will be like!

Impressively, it does well against the 14mm II prime too.