Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #7 · Announced: EF 16-35mm f/4L IS and EF-S 10-18mm lenses |
mohamed alfari wrote:
Do you guess there will be 16-35 f2.8 with much improved performance, something similar to the 24-70II performance and weight also?
because if not I will buy 16-35IS since it mostly will be used for landscape, but 2.8 with reasonable weight would be more practical.
I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a 14-24/2.8 style lens replace the 16-35/2.8 II. With newer cameras performing better at higher ISOs, f/4, especially in a wide lens, isn't the handicap it used to be. Canon could also keep the current 2.8 in the lineup alongside a 14-24.
I have the 16-35/2.8 II and rarely shoot it wide open anyway (have had a lot of problems with it and quite unhappy with its edge/corner performance), therefore I'm quite interested in this lens if it lives up to the MTFs.
I was also interested in the 24-70/4 when it was announced because I just can't convince myself I want to lug around the huge 2.8 version. But the f/4 was one of the few recent Canon lenses that I felt was underwhelming. At least from my tests with it, images felt kind of dull and left me wanting.
Having recently gone full frame, I'll agree a 16-50, or even an 18/20-50 would have really intrigued me a lot, as that's roughly what the 16-35 was on APS-H. Now I find 35mm a bit too wide sometimes.
One thing that bothers me about the MTFs is the massive divergence of the higher lp/mm sagittal and tangential plots at 16mm, but it does look better than the 2.8 II, and nice to see that the 35mm end is very promising too.