Two new EF lenses?

If the rumors hold, next week is going to be a good week for announcements. In addition to the 5DIV, we will be looking at an EF 16-35 f/2.8 III and a EF 24-105 f/4 IS II.

Personally, I am pretty set on lenses for awhile. But I am happy to hear about these two. Hopefully they are inline with all the other recent zoom lenses (11-22, 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, etc) that have been announced with top notch construction and IQ. I will say, again if the rumor holds, this also continues the trend of bigger heavier zoom lenses.

But, I expect these to be great and I imagine they will find their way into many photographers kits, just not mine unless I decide to shake something up next winter.

Honestly, I was hoping for more mid-priced primes with IS. A 50, 85, 135 & 200 IS primes would make me very happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manofmayo66

Honestly, I was hoping for more mid-priced primes with IS. A 50, 85, 135 & 200 IS primes would make me very happy.

---

I hope I am wrong, but I think the response to 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, and 35 f/2 IS release really hurt the potential for future "mid-priced" primes. Canon introduced those at ~$800-$850 and within 6 months to a year had to drop the prices by $200-$300 dollars (20-35%).

It looks like the 35 f/1.4 L II has held its price for about a year. Hopefully that will encourage Canon to release a 135 f/2 II (or 135 f/2 IS), 24 f/1.4 III, etc.

With all the recent releases, it certainly seems like a zoom centric strategy. Best hope is that with these last two zooms, most of the zooms are pretty current, or even if slightly older, still elite (70-200 f/4 IS, etc), perhaps Canon will turn their attention to primes in 2017.

Perhaps, but in a shrinking market, I wonder if Canon will focus on something that is currently non-existent. Some sort of new angle to drive sales. Such as a EF version of Nikons 105 f/1.4? Prosumer zoom out to 600 mm? Of course, I do not know. But it is encouraging that Canon continues to release 3-5 lenses a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Personally, I am pretty set on lenses for awhile.

---

Blasphemy! ;)

In fact, I thought was in a similar place regarding gear, at least for major purchases (i.e. not counting the new EF-M 28mm macro that I picked up a few weeks ago). The 1D X II looks great, but I'm not feeling limited by my 1D X, so I'm not planning on switching.

But...GAS is incurable. I could see myself being tempted by the 24-105 II if the IQ comes close to the 24-70/2.8 II (I am skeptical that will be the case, but hopeful).

I'm not at all tempted by the 16-35/2.8 III. Had the MkII, only rarely used it wide open. Admittedly, though...one other reason I'm not tempted by the new 16-35 is that I plan on picking up the 11-24L very soon, prior to a trip to the Loire Valley next month.

Ha!

I'll evaluate any lens that comes out. I am actually looking forward to it. I am going to be more optimistic and assume the 24-105 II rivals the 24-70 II and 16-35 IS in IQ. Larger zoom ratio, but Canon has been on a win streak and seems to be designing lenses with future generations of the 5DsR in mind. If true, I'll be a little tempted to use it as a travel lens but likely not enough to add it to my kit. In the end, having 70-105 mm would decrease the frequency I switch lenses but ultimately not change the fact I am traveling with a minimum of 2 lenses.

I could see the 16-35 III. Use it as a replacement to the 16-35 f4 IS and 14f/2.8. But I think size, weight and price will keep me from doing that. But we'll see. That switch could happen eventually.

Look forward to seeing some shots of your feet. ;)

Waiting to see how that 24-104 II performs. Tempted to have it to replace my 24-70 tamron, which is bit of a let down in my experience.

A new 24-105 is needed. It is soft on the long end on the std resolution bodies.

If it hits the new res stds and around $1,200 or less it will snapped up.

I'm waiting for some test results and reviews on the new 24-105. My current one is by far my most used lens and I've been very happy with it. The new one will have to have some serious advantages to get me to buy it, though. On the rare occasions when I've been disappointed with the sharpness of a 24-105 pic, it's usually due to user error. Improved IS and focus speed would be tempting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Perhaps, but in a shrinking market, I wonder if Canon will focus on something that is currently non-existent. Some sort of new angle to drive sales. Such as a EF version of Nikons 105 f/1.4? Prosumer zoom out to 600 mm? Of course, I do not know. But it is encouraging that Canon continues to release 3-5 lenses a year.

---

How about a 400 f/5.6 IS? I would think that updating old lenses would be a potentially profitable market. I can't image someone at Canon thinking.....hmmm the Sigma 50 Art is really kicking our collective asses, let's give up on a good fast prime that isn't a f/1.2. But hey what do I know.... :p

I picked up the 24-70/2.8 II recently and have a few days left of my return period. I like the f/2.8, focus speed and IQ. But I also like the range of the 24-105, IS, and 77mm thread. Tough choice if the 24-105 f/4 IS II is going to improve IQ. I just need to decide which side is more important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricPvpi

I picked up the 24-70/2.8 II recently and have a few days left of my return period. I like the f/2.8, focus speed and IQ. But I also like the range of the 24-105, IS, and 77mm thread. Tough choice if the 24-105 f/4 IS II is going to improve IQ. I just need to decide which side is more important.

---

True, it is a tough choice. I would not fault anyone for either choice.

As for me, I will say my 24-105 f/4 essentially sat on a shelf after I bought my 24-70 II. I intentionally took it on a trip just to use it. But could have just as easily taken the 24-70 II.

For me it gots down to the extra dof control, extra light while maintaining shutter speed, distortion, and more pics that "pop" IMO. I do think there is an AF advantage as well.

I already have a complete set of 82 mm filters. So that is moot for me.

But both good if not great lenses. I am looking forward to see what the 24-105 II offers in terms of IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricPvpi

I picked up the 24-70/2.8 II recently and have a few days left of my return period. I like the f/2.8, focus speed and IQ. But I also like the range of the 24-105, IS, and 77mm thread. Tough choice if the 24-105 f/4 IS II is going to improve IQ. I just need to decide which side is more important.

---

24-70/2.8 II is twice the price, without IS, less zoom range. My estimation says the 24-105 II won't have the IQ to dethrone the 24-70/2.8 II if it's half the price with IS and more zoom range. I'd bet it'll be in the neighborhood of the $899 24-70/4IS with respect to IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I'm not at all tempted by the 16-35/2.8 III. Had the MkII, only rarely used it wide open. Admittedly, though...one other reason I'm not tempted by the new 16-35 is that I plan on picking up the 11-24L very soon, prior to a trip to the Loire Valley next month.

---

So, as a former owner of the EF-S 10-22 and the 16-35/2.8 II, and a present owner of the 16-35/4IS, 14/2.8II, and 11-24/4, the 11-24 stays home a lot. The 16-35/4IS is my "first-alarm" lens on a 5DsR, and if I'm not shooting but my wife is, she takes it as her wide alongside a 24-105. If we're both shooting, I tend to consider whether 14mm prime is OK alongside a 24-70/2.8 II, and if so she gets the 16-35 (I tend to be a little more flexible with lens choice, plus I don't let her use the 5DsR except under well-controlled circumstances, so I feel comfortable "composing to crop" with the 14). The 11-24 is huge (quite a struggle to get it into a Shootsac, probably needs to be upside-down when in adjacent "lens slots" in our Lowepro backpacks or Pelican case, with adjacent lenses right-side up, extremely hard to get in/out of a Lowepro LensExchange case, etc.), heavy, just plain awkward, and seems to be a bit distorted at 11mm.

But trust me, my horrible case of GAS is about to flare up something fierce with annual bonuses getting paid out on the 15th. I've got my eye on some Profoto stuff, perhaps a Canon printer, maybe a 24/1.4II, and if Santa is really nice, just maybe a 200/2...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

So, as a former owner of the EF-S 10-22 and the 16-35/2.8 II, and a present owner of the 16-35/4IS, 14/2.8II, and 11-24/4, the 11-24 stays home a lot. The 16-35/4IS is my "first-alarm" lens on a 5DsR, and if I'm not shooting but my wife is, she takes it as her wide alongside a 24-105. If we're both shooting, I tend to consider whether 14mm prime is OK alongside a 24-70/2.8 II, and if so she gets the 16-35 (I tend to be a little more flexible with lens choice, plus I don't let her use the 5DsR except under well-controlled circumstances, so I feel comfortable "composing to crop" with the 14). The 11-24 is huge (quite a struggle to get it into a Shootsac, probably needs to be upside-down when in adjacent "lens slots" in our Lowepro backpacks or Pelican case, with adjacent lenses right-side up, extremely hard to get in/out of a Lowepro LensExchange case, etc.), heavy, just plain awkward, and seems to be a bit distorted at 11mm.

---

Too late...the 11-24L is on order and should ship out today. :D

I also previously owned the EF-S 10-22 and 16-35/2.8 II, and sold the latter intending to buy the 16-35/4 IS...but went with the TS-E 17 instead. Since I have excellent 17mm prime and the 24-70/2.8 II, and almost all of my travel shooting is done on a tripod, I'm not feeling like the 16-35/4 IS would add much to my capabilities. OTOH, I'm thinking the 11-24 will provide a rather unique perspective.

If I really need to 'run-and-gun' with a stabilized UWA, I've got the M2 and M11-22 (admittedly, a much slower 'gun' than my 1D X). I bring that combo for daytime walkabouts during business travel (the 1D X kit comes out at blue hour), along with the EF mount adapter so the M2 can serve as an emergency backup.

I'm not too fussed about the size and weight of the 11-24 – it may seem big and heavy, but it's tiny and light next to the 600/4 IS II that I carry around on briding walks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I'm not too fussed about the size and weight of the 11-24 – it may seem big and heavy, but it's tiny and light next to the 600/4 IS II that I carry around on briding walks.

---

Congrats on the new lens purchase! A new lens is always fun!

Don't want to hijack the thread, but you mention carrying around the 600 on birding walks. Just curious how you (and others) would use these large lenses on-the-go. Do you bring a tripod or monopod? Shoot any handheld as birds present themselves or do you have to take the time to setup a tripod every time a bird is spotted? For perspective, the largest lens I have is the 100-400 II so I'm curious about the logistics of the larger lenses. It would seem to me that if you are walking and looking for birds, that by the time you could setup a tripod to get a good shot, most birds would be moving again...?

Stephen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFLD Stephen

Congrats on the new lens purchase! A new lens is always fun!

Don't want to hijack the thread, but you mention carrying around the 600 on birding walks. Just curious how you (and others) would use these large lenses on-the-go. Do you bring a tripod or monopod? Shoot any handheld as birds present themselves or do you have to take the time to setup a tripod every time a bird is spotted? For perspective, the largest lens I have is the 100-400 II so I'm curious about the logistics of the larger lenses. It would seem to me that if you are walking and looking for birds, that by the time you could setup a tripod to get a good shot, most birds would be moving again...?

---

How I carry/use the 600 II depends on the season. I really only use a tripod/gimbal in winter, when shooting eagles or snowy owls – in those cases, I'm heading to a spot, setting up, and waiting...and waiting...and waiting. Outside of winter raptor shooting, I walk/hike and carry the lens on a BlackRapid strap (the left handed one, ever understood the point of a lefty strap for a camera, but it makes perfect sense for a supertele where you need to lift/hold with the left hand to shoot with the right). I have a monopod along in case I'll be staying in one spot for a while. This is me, from a while back on a blustery day at Sachuest Point in Rhode Island...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/ind...h=126416;image

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFLD Stephen

Don't want to hijack the thread, but you mention carrying around the 600 on birding walks. Just curious how you (and others) would use these large lenses on-the-go. Do you bring a tripod or monopod? Shoot any handheld as birds present themselves or do you have to take the time to setup a tripod every time a bird is spotted? For perspective, the largest lens I have is the 100-400 II so I'm curious about the logistics of the larger lenses. It would seem to me that if you are walking and looking for birds, that by the time you could setup a tripod to get a good shot, most birds would be moving again...?

Stephen

---

I walk around with my Sigma 150-600S either holding it by the foot or cradling it. I've yet to shoot it off a tripod or monopod. Everything has been hand held.

It is a big lens. It does take some technique, and looking at John's set up, I might try something similar. But it is doable.

Interesting...thanks for the insight Neuro and Kayaker. I always thought (and to some degree read on-line) that most people only shot the superteles on tripods/monopods. That wouldn't suit my photo-habits as I like to hike and wouldn't particularly like to wait around in one place hoping something interesting would happen by. My wildlife/bird shots are generally opportunistic when I am travelling or hiking or just doing something else with my family. Only on special occasions am I able to predict a time or location to try for a wildlife shot (ie on whale watching tours or looking for puffins).

To avoid completely hijacking the thread...I'm going to be watching the release and reviews of both these lenses. I have the current 24-105L and 16-35L 2.8 II so I would consider upgrades to both to be welcome. Not sure I could justify any price premium, but definitely would consider. I also have the 5dIII so the camera upgrade will be watched as well. Potentially I would consider upgrading the camera and getting the new 24-105 as a bundle and selling my current versions. As for the 16-35 I would consider the upgrade or potentially changing to the f4 version depending on reviews (and of course new cost vs resale value of my current lens).

Stephen

Good point on the bundle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

The 11-24 is huge

---

Have to say...you're right. This is one hulking chunk of glass!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Have to say...you're right. This is one hulking chunk of glass!

---

Back when my wife and I were "just dating", she said to me about 6 or 9 months in that "you REALLY don't exaggerate". When I say that's how it is, that's often EXACTLY how it is. Best tale of that was when she got "serious" about bicycling, so she wanted to know what to have for breakfast before a longer ride. She knew what I'd eat but wanted more opinions. I said "ask around, but odds are, the answer you'll get will go like this: I have a whole wheat bagel with peanut butter. Actually, I have half a whole wheat bagel with the peanut butter on it." Sure enough, at least 70% of those she asked gave their answer EXACTLY like that, phrased exactly like that. ;)

But yes, it's monstrous. It's a chore to pack because it's just so much bigger than so many other lenses.

Oops so much for a deal on a bundle.

Agree with brant. Was hoping for better charts. Will see what it does in the real world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

But yes, it's monstrous. It's a chore to pack because it's just so much bigger than so many other lenses.

---

Really, it's not that bad. In fact, it's a perfect fit in the Lowepro Lens Case 11x14 that I found in my storage closet (with the tags still attached!). IIRC, I bought it for the 70-300L but found the Lens Exchange 100 AW takes that lens with the collar/plate.

This is an older thread, but here's a good question for Bryan....

Bryan, you exchanged the 24-105 f/4 L for the 24-70 f/4 as your preferred walk around lens, I believe.

If the second gen 24-104 f/4 turns out to be as good, optically, are you going to switch back?

Definitely!!! :) I'm anxious to get my hands on this one.

Looks like the 24-105 II sacrificed sharpness in the center for slightly better edge performance. I will also say, I see less CA, and better distortion control. While both can be corrected in Post, I am a believer that everything done in post has some affect on IQ. Also, I was never impressed with the IS on V1. If that is truly up to 4 stops, that would be a huge improvement.

All that said, my 24-70 II isn't going anywhere. That is my general purpose zoom and I am loving the images I get from it.

Total disappointment, I don't see any reason to modernize - it isn't an upgrade in my opinion. Perhaps Bryan got a bad copy but the MTF charts suggest the non-event optically. Heavier, perhaps better IS, but.... Not much of an envelope improvement for the $$$.

I bought the new EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS II USM, but mainly because my ten year old EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS USM is broken. Now when there's a new model around, I thought I could just as well upgrade as trying to repair the old one, or get another of the same version.