Canon 16-35 F4L IS

Messages
761
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Newly announced a nice landscape lens with IS to replace the old 17-40 F4

Priced at the equivalent of around £700-800 in the USA

Announced by a few camera shops over here at a pre-order price of £1199 ???

Really ? £1200 for a lens which does not really need IS as it would spend a lot of time on a tripod for most people , can pick the 17-40L up for 400-500 new

Is this price just a teaser or do we think it will come in at that ?
 
Same with every other release, it seems we have to pay the same figure as US disregarding the sign change and exchange rate.
But remember US price tag doesn't include their state tax.

I do love the idea of the lens. It'll allow me to replace both 17-40mm and 24-105mm. I only kept 24-105 for filming with my 5D, and it spends most of its time at 24mm with IS turned on. My kit would then be 16-35, 50 70-200.

However, it is slightly too expensive to be a replacement, when 17-40 works very well for a lot less.
 
Newly announced a nice landscape lens with IS to replace the old 17-40 F4

Priced at the equivalent of around £700-800 in the USA

Announced by a few camera shops over here at a pre-order price of £1199 ???

Really ? £1200 for a lens which does not really need IS as it would spend a lot of time on a tripod for most people , can pick the 17-40L up for 400-500 new

Is this price just a teaser or do we think it will come in at that ?

Usual introductory price situation with Canon bodies and lenses, for the first few months they set the price high, then it drops to a more realistic figure, doesn't happen in the states to the same extent, it'll be down to around £900 in 6 months.
 
As mentioned, not everybody goes - oo, wide angle, I best stick that on a tripod and take photos of fields. I wish every lens had the option of IS.

Which is why i said 'most people' not everybody. Its fairly obvious that not everyone uses it for that. However landscapes will be the major chunk of this lenses work , the question would then be is the IS going to be better turned off for tripod work as with most other lenses ( in which case its just a 16-35 F4 ) or will it be the IS system that recognizes tripods in which case will it be any use ? For my own uses it doesn't offer me anything for Landscapes over the 24 2.8 IS apart from a bit of width which is probably in the bad distortion range anyway and for weddings the 2.8 is much more useful.

How many people are interested in this lens at the right price and what do you see its uses as ?
 
hand holding at f11-16
also if you want every lens to have is buy a sony or pentax :)
 
Announced by a few camera shops over here at a pre-order price of £1199 ???
...
Is this price just a teaser or do we think it will come in at that ?

Canon are playing their usual game of launching in the UK and the USA at the same numerical price: £1199 here and $1199 there. (The UK price includes VAT and the US price doesn't include sales tax, but still.) However, experience suggests that the US price will be sticky whereas the UK price will fall once the must-have-it-now-at-any-price brigade have filled their boots. The US price equates to £715 at current exchange rates, so I'd expect the UK price to eventually settle on £715+VAT=£858 or thereabouts.

I really don't understand why the US and UK markets behave like this, but I've been observing it professionally for over 5 years and it happens every time. Maybe there isn't a must-have-it-now-at-any-price brigade over there? But if not, why not?
 
Which is why i said 'most people' not everybody. Its fairly obvious that not everyone uses it for that. However landscapes will be the major chunk of this lenses work , the question would then be is the IS going to be better turned off for tripod work as with most other lenses ( in which case its just a 16-35 F4 ) or will it be the IS system that recognizes tripods in which case will it be any use ? For my own uses it doesn't offer me anything for Landscapes over the 24 2.8 IS apart from a bit of width which is probably in the bad distortion range anyway and for weddings the 2.8 is much more useful.

How many people are interested in this lens at the right price and what do you see its uses as ?

I have a 17-40L (that still continues I believe) but am wanting this new lens already - for what promises to be high edge/corner sharpness and IS. And I prefer it over the 16-35/2.8 L. I don't need f/2.8, or the weight, and don't have 82mm filters - I prefer the lighter f/4, plus IS, plus 77mm filters, plus a lower price coming soon, and probably better sharpness too.

And if I was using it for landscapes, which I probably wouldn't very much, I wouldn't be using it on a tripod (never understood the rationale behind landscape=tripod mantra). IS will be tripod-sensing, and as Stewart says, the UK price will fall in a couple of months. It's just a game that UK subsidiaries seem to play, but the price must fall quite soon or it'll only encourage grey imports.

Edit: on the UK vs US price thing, I know it's a nightmare for everyone in the sales chain now we live in a global market and while countries differ I guess it's a case of sticking with what seems to work. In the UK, extra profit from early sales vs lost sales for those that wait for the price to drop. And also, bear in mind that it's the retailer that sets the selling price, not the UK distributor, and it would be illegal for it to be otherwise - though I guess there's a bit of chicken-and-egg in that scenario ;)
 
Last edited:
...as Stewart says, the UK price will fall in a couple of months.
I didn't say that. It will definitely fall, but I wouldn't want to predict the timescale. Sometimes (e.g. 70-300L) the price tumbles quite fast; sometimes (e.g. 70-200 Mk II) it's slow. I haven't noticed any obvious pattern, unfortunately.
 
I didn't say that. It will definitely fall, but I wouldn't want to predict the timescale. Sometimes (e.g. 70-300L) the price tumbles quite fast; sometimes (e.g. 70-200 Mk II) it's slow. I haven't noticed any obvious pattern, unfortunately.

I guess there's a bit of suck-it-and-see going on, according to demand? The excellent 70-300L seems to be one of Canon's more under-rated lenses, dropping quite quickly to £1k but now creeping up again to £1200 - still a v good buy IMHO.

For anyone interested in this stuff, the price-track graphs on CameraPriceBuster always make interesting reading, eg Canon 70-300L http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Canon/Canon-EF-lenses/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f4-5.6L-IS-USM-Lens
 
Why would it spend most of its time on a tripod?

I never shoot my landscapes on a tripod unless I'm taking night shots. IS is the perfect accompaniment to this lens IMO.
 
Hi everybody, Im new to the site and this is my first post.

I'm in two minds about this lens. I stuck with a T90 for which all but one if my lenses were primes until 2007 when I got an Eos 5D with a 24-105 IS f4 L and a 70-300 IS DO f4.5-5.6 and stuck with those two until just over a year ago when I got an 85 f1.8, a lens I really liked on the T90 (and on an A1 before it - I'm clocking on a bit!). I recently decided I was missing something wider than 24mm (I used to have a Vivitar 17mm FD mount) and had decided on a 20mm f2.8 on grounds of weight, cost and aperture - the 16-35 was too heavy and too expensive and the 17-40 fairly heavy and expensive and I didn't fancy f4 with no IS. But this new one is tempting if I can justify the cost. But it's still heavier. And bigger than the 20mm...

Does anyone have any thought about the 20mm in this discussion?
 
It looks to be sharp, and so is on my shopping list. The IS will be really useful so this means I may be able to take more images without a tripod at marginal situations.
I'm rather glad I got rid of the 17-40mm that was a real headache more than anything else. Good luck to everyone still clinging to one and claiming that new one is nonsense. Edge sharpness (or complete lack of it) clearly doesn't matter to some people...
 
How many people are interested in this lens at the right price and what do you see its uses as ?

How many people are interested? No idea, I'm sure Canon's market research department would have a decent idea though.

Uses; video is the obvious one, as with a lot of lenses Canon brought out recently. The 2.8 IS primes for example which were panned by people whom they weren't aimed at - and snapped up by people who were in the target market.

IS gives you more options for slow shutterspeeds at events, weddings, PJ stuff, documentary shooting, landscapes sans tripod, environmental portraits, lots of things.

I'm assuming the optics are improved over the 16-35 2.8 and the 17-40 as well.
 
I'm assuming the optics are improved over the 16-35 2.8 and the 17-40 as well.

Look at the MTF http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is_usm, then compare with 17-40 http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_17_40mm_f_4l_usm (horrific!) and Zeiss 21mm http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/zf/distagon_28_21_en.pdf

I'd say the new canon is at least on par with Zeiss as long as build quality doesn't let it down
 
Actually read the press release and impressed both new lenses are ef lenses. The 10-18 and this new 16-35 look great for various uses, street especially, and actually fills a gap that sigma were exploiting.
 
Actually read the press release and impressed both new lenses are ef lenses. The 10-18 and this new 16-35 look great for various uses, street especially, and actually fills a gap that sigma were exploiting.
The 10-18 is EFS unfortunately, I'd have loved one of those on an FF body!
 
Yup - definitely a shame. The 16-35 is too much of a crossover to the 24-105 for me. Looks like its just 14mm prime then as the 8-15 is fisheye
 
I've been wanting something wider since going FF, so will most likely wait for this to drop in price a bit then pick one up. Interested in the rumours of a 14-24 2.8 though, as I have a 24-70 2.8, would pair nicely. However 16-35 would be a nice walk around for events where things are pretty tight, depending on how distortion is controlled.
 
I've been wanting something wider since going FF, so will most likely wait for this to drop in price a bit then pick one up. Interested in the rumours of a 14-24 2.8 though, as I have a 24-70 2.8, would pair nicely. However 16-35 would be a nice walk around for events where things are pretty tight, depending on how distortion is controlled.

The reviews should hopefully come pretty soon. Non-distorted 16mm is already extremely wide and 35mm on the long end with a nice filter thread may prove a lot more useful than bulbous 14mm. I suppose there are uses for both. I know which one I would rather buy if they were priced similarly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Got the new 16-35 and it's immense! Upgraded from a 17-40, corners are so sharp; even wide open.

Buy from Panamoz and save £500 versus UK rip off prices
 
Got the new 16-35 and it's immense! Upgraded from a 17-40, corners are so sharp; even wide open.

Buy from Panamoz and save £500 versus UK rip off prices

was going to ask you how you were finding it, I'm seriously considering selling my 17-40 for this now :)
 
Back
Top