New UWA Lenses

It's been awhile, but two new lenses released:

• EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM
• EFS 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

No reviews yet, but the MTF chart for the new 16-35 ($1,199) is very impressive (prime rivaling) and much improved over the 17-40 and even the 16-35 II. Add in IS to the sharpness and contrast shown in the MTF charts, I think this could be a heckuva landscape lens. I wouldn't necessarily call it a bargain, but that is reasonable price if the IQ matches the MTF charts compared to other lenses.

BTW, the 16-35 f/4 has 77 mm threads just like the 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 f/4. The 16-35 II and 24-70 II both have 82 mm threads. Seems like Canon is letting you choose, f/4 and 77 mm or f/2.8 and 82 mm threads. While I am impressed with this entry, a 16-35 f/2.8 IS and MTF charts similar to the 16-35 f/4 would have blown me away. It would have been >$600 more, but still. That would open up the potential for nightscapes/low light/dof a lot more and reduced the need for primes in this range.

I have to say I was shocked at the price of the EFS 10-18 - $299. Pretty darn good MTF charts, plastic mount, but based on that price, it should still find its way into a lot of bags.

I look forward to the reviews, but my initial impression is that these are two very solid lens entries.

Interesting offerings! If I still used an APS-C dSLR, I'd be quite interested in the 10-18 IS. For the EOS M, I'd prefer the EF-M 11-22 IS (ordered from overseas) over the 10-18 with the adapter. The EF-M 11-22 looks to be optically better (based on MTF charts), has a metal mount, etc.

The MTF curves of the 16-35/4 IS are impressive for a UWA zoom, particularly compared to the 16-35/2.8 II (even af f/8). Looking over my library, less than 15% of my 16-35/2.8 shots are wider than f/4, and many of those are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than the extra stop of light. I suspect the 16-35/4 IS would be a viable replacement for the 16-35/2.8 II, for me (although given that I have the 24-70 II and TS-E 24, the 82mm filter diameter of the f/2.8 lens is more convenient).

NOTE: I initially reversed the WIDE/TELE charts for the EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM. I had to overlay them onto a previous chart and simply mixed them up in the photoshop file.

We've corrected the issue, but you might want to take another gander at the MFT charts to get a fair comparison (you may need to refresh the page). I apologize for the error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

No reviews yet,

---

With all due respect (and I do mean that), NO DUH!!!! I respect the reality that review sites are (translation: have become) businesses, and that the first reviews get the most traffic/revenue/etc., but there is a natural sequence to things and the announcements do normally precede the initial ship date. If both lenses are pre-order only, I wouldn't expect a review yet.

I also question if the review sites should snap up "all" of the early sale copies when there are people ready to buy them "sight/review unseen" - whether it's the professional who "needs" to spend the money by year-end for tax reasons, the hobbyist with a major trip where they're willing to gamble on a lens just based on how it'd mesh with the rest of their kit, or John Q Public who wants to buy it for whatever reason, it can be frustrating to read a review that says "all three of my test copies (purchased retail) are..." when they're waiting to buy ONE. Isn't there a way to make a partnership with the rental houses such that the first copies go to reviewers, etc.?

For most ultra-wide purposes you're either attempting to get in a wide landscape, or a subject with a lot of background, and the larger DOF of either of these lenses isn't going to hurt at all, which makes them compelling options. Shooting that wide, and shooting with small aperture, means you aren't going to miss the f/2.8 focus point accuracy either, making these great options for most uses of UWA.

You could pick up the new 10-18mm AND a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 to get a great landscape lens and a UWA with thin DOF for less than any of the 10-22mm, the 17-40mm, or the 16-35mm. The manual focus on the Rokinon rules out using it for thin DOF action, but I doubt many people would care about that scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

With all due respect (and I do mean that), NO DUH!!!!

---

:)

I haven't had the same feelings regarding review sites. With a few exceptions, I am not typically an early adopter, or at least I don't want to buy something until I've seen the reviews. So this consumer is typically happy when quality reviews come out shortly after a lens is released. I also wonder how many lenses are "consumed" by review sites compared to the early production volumes. If the allotment to the USA is 100 lenses and 15 of those go to review sites, I think you have a very valid point. But if the allotment to the USA is 10,000 and 15 of those go to review sites, I see more benefit to getting the reviews out as soon as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

For most ultra-wide purposes you're either attempting to get in a wide landscape, or a subject with a lot of background, and the larger DOF of either of these lenses isn't going to hurt at all, which makes them compelling options. Shooting that wide, and shooting with small aperture, means you aren't going to miss the f/2.8 focus point accuracy either, making these great options for most uses of UWA.

You could pick up the new 10-18mm AND a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 to get a great landscape lens and a UWA with thin DOF for less than any of the 10-22mm, the 17-40mm, or the 16-35mm. The manual focus on the Rokinon rules out using it for thin DOF action, but I doubt many people would care about that scenario.

---

The EFS 10-18 seems like a potentially good lens. Similar to what John said, if I still shot my 7D, I'd be tempted. I didn't mention above, but really the cost is nice, but the IS on that lens will be great for stills (hand held 1-2 sec exposures?) and the IS and STM for video (but I don't shoot much video). This hasn't been mentioned much, but Canon has really increased the quality of their affordable lens lineup. I am assuming the EFS 10-18 is similar to the new EFS 55-250 STM. The optics are really pretty impressive. Unfortunately for my bank account, I am enjoying FF. But it is a lot of extra cost to get that extra enjoyment :confused:

Regarding the EF 16-35 f/4 IS, I agree, the more I think about it the less I am concerned about f/2.8. Having IS and great IQ would make this lens a great addition. I will want fast landscape lens for night/star scapes that isn't as wide as the Rokinon 14 f/2.8. But most of the shots I see that are good night/star scapes at 24 mm are either shot at f/2 or wider or on some sort of equatorial mount. So, I am not sure f/2.8 prevents me from someday buying a dedicated night/star scape lens (Canon 24 f/1.4, Zeiss 21 f/2.8 or the rumored Sigma 24 f/1.4 A). Then when evaluating the EF 16-35 f/4 IS cost, size, weight, optics and thread size all come into play. Right now I am set up for 77 mm threads. So this is a tempting lens.

I read the actual press release now, and down in the UK section of the release they give some extra details. Most UWA lenses seem to have a MFD of ~11", while the new 10-18, is ~8.5", which should help anyone going for an ultra distorted look.

Can hardly wait to see some reviews when June rolls around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Most UWA lenses seem to have a MFD of ~11", while the new 10-18, is ~8.5", which should help anyone going for an ultra distorted look.

---

Lol!

On the EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM the closest distance is 0.28 m. If you want to compare.
In case you really want to distort, then I recommend the EF 8-15 mm f/4L fisheye USM. The closest range is 0.15 m... :o

Early comments I've seen on the web indicate that the 10-18mm is similar optically to the 10-22mm, just a bit shorter range, and half the price... people are happy with it. It's not a lens I'd expect to use often, so the budget price and decent image quality are a good match for me... Ordered Sunday, shipped today, along with some other B&H Father's Day Sale goodies (batteries, memory cards.)

I'll be sure to post some pics shortly after I get to play with it.

David,

Glad someone hear is trying out the lens. But, this made me realize you still had your 7D. How do you like alternating between two bodies?

It's not as painful as you'd expect because the controls and wildly different. I don't shoot regularly enough to have developed the intuitive 'I can change settings without looking at the buttons, and looking through the viewfinder' sense... I still need to take a quick peek at the labels by the buttons. I can see it being annoying having two body types if you're used to having such a sense, but I had never developed it with the T1i, or the 7D, so it's not a big deal. Perhaps if the controls were more similar I'd find myself running into inconsistencies, and it would drive me nuts, but the interfaces are entirely different. At an agility trial a bit over a week ago Magda and I would swap between the 7D and 1Ds, shooting different perspectives of the same thing, so we're both capable of switching bodies mid-shoot and it being okay, so it's probably not a fluke that it doesn't bother me.

We tend to use the 7D when we need reach and there is plenty of light, or could benefit from the burst rate. We use the 1Ds2 when it's getting darker, for indoors, for thin DOF portraits, etc.

10-18mm arrived yesterday, but it's been dark, rainy and gloomy. I had to take my daughter to Taekwon-do, and then there was the provincial election... so yeah, I don't have sample shots to share yet. By the time I got to play around it was very dark... 1/80s @ f/4.5, ISO6400 kind of dark. With this level of light, it has a hard time focussing on a dark-brown dog.

I can verify that at 10mm, wide open, there is noticeable vignetting, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
A ceiling bounced flash (600EX-RT) does a fairly good job of lighting the subject, even at 10mm, which is nice to see.
I wasn't sure if the silent STM focusing would be fast or slow. Not only is it speedy, but it is truly silent.
I can reaffirm that dogs do not appreciate lenses right in their faces.
Zuni's fur looked sharp in the center (using flash). Not prime, or 70-300L sharp, but quite good. Corners are softer, as expected, but didn't seem terrible. I'll have to check expected DOF at 10mm, at MFD. Some loss of sharpness could be DOF related.

I'll have to wait for the weekend to get enough light to be able to really test the lens properly, but my initial impression is good.

I am seeing some nice images show up from the EFS 10-18.....here is an example from someone I follow on Flickr....

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2919/...5ff74a12_b.jpgMy! What a big nose you have. by repete7 (back), on Flickr

Here's a few samples, including my own version of My, what a big nose you have. ;)

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5568/...a90ce5a9_b.jpg
Bobble Head by namethatnobodyelsetook, on Flickr

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3903/...8dfb0be2_c.jpg
My, what a big nose you have by namethatnobodyelsetook, on Flickr

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3848/...83a9df2e_c.jpg
Green Fields by namethatnobodyelsetook, on Flickr

10-18mm, 100% crop, ISO 1600 on a 7D so there's more detail to be had than what you see here:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3903/...77765e9a_o.jpg
100% crop. by namethatnobodyelsetook, on Flickr

So, the EF 16-35 f/4 IS is shipping from B&H. I hope some folks will be getting copies and able to provide us a review. I canceled my preorder after I ran the numbers on my photography budget :rolleyes:. Plus, I wouldn't have received it in time for either of the trips I had planned where I would have wanted it. I'll wait a bit longer or sell some gear before I pick this lens up. But it looks like a great lens that would fit nicely in my lineup.

Still debating this. I can likely sell my 16-35/2.8 II for around the cost of the 16-35/4 IS...

Looks like mine will be here Monday! I had been wanting to replace my EF-S 10-22 since getting the 5D3, so I placed a pre-order for the 16-35 f/4 when it was announced, thinking I could decide later on it. It shipped today, so I'll take that as a sign. Earlier date fits in nice with summer vacations as well.

I think it will fit nice with my kit and my filters are 77mm. I'll use it mainly for landscape and sightseeing so the IS is more useful to me than f/2.8 would be. I have the 35mm f/1.4L if I need wider.

I'll try to get some test shots this week.

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Still debating this. I can likely sell my 16-35/2.8 II for around the cost of the 16-35/4 IS...

---

...and so it goes on ;-) I'm invested in 82mm filters now for the 16-35 & 24-70 so I'm sticking with my current pair

I strongly suspect that if I sell my 16-35, it would be for a 15mm or less prime, as I mostly shoot wide on my 16-35 and 24 is generally wide enough for general use

Got my lens yesterday and took a few shots outside the office. I don't have enough experience to judge, but wanted to share. All taken on 5D3, handheld, ISO 100. Nothing done to them in Lightroom, just exported to Flickr.

You can view the set here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericpv...7645347775424/

Here are few views of 1 building for reference. Notice the corners at 16mm f/4. [Edit - I see the shading at 35mm f/4 as well now, but it was less apparent in raw within Lightroom.] I am happy with the first set.

16mm, f/4
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3892/...3dd58d01_z.jpg2M3A3068.jpg by EricPvpi2, on Flickr

16mm f/8
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2899/...ca5cffe3_z.jpg2M3A3069.jpg by EricPvpi2, on Flickr

16mm f/11
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2901/...bd9d9058_z.jpg2M3A3070.jpg by EricPvpi2, on Flickr

35mm f/4
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5588/...e61516eb_z.jpg2M3A3065.jpg by EricPvpi2, on Flickr

35mm f/8
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3840/...8843d74e_z.jpg2M3A3066.jpg by EricPvpi2, on Flickr

35mm f/11
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2926/...736cdc1e_z.jpg2M3A3067.jpg by EricPvpi2, on Flickr

Thanks for the test shots Eric.

Bryan has posted his IQ test results.

It is looking like the 16-35 f/4 will be on my short list for my next purchase. Sharp at f/4 from 16-35, excellent at f/5.6-f/11. While Bryan hasn't posted this specific test results yet, based on the Bryan's IQ and Eric's shots, it is looking like vignetting and distortion are minimal.

I am very happy so far. Seems like the vignetting I saw was small and should be easy to correct. Note that I did have a B+W XS-Pro UV filter on the lens when I took the shots. Look forward to reading the review and taking some more shots.

Eric

Just in case someone missed it, Bryan posted his review of the EF 16-35 f/4 IS. Sounds like a very impressive lens.