Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: New UWA Lenses

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,536

    New UWA Lenses

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



    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.
    Last edited by Kayaker72; 05-13-2014 at 10:29 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716
    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).

  3. #3
    Administrator Sean Setters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    3,345
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
    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.?
    We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,334
    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.
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    1DsII | 7D | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 18-135mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,536
    Quote Originally Posted by peety3 View Post
    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 View Post
    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

    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.
    Last edited by Kayaker72; 05-13-2014 at 05:55 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,334
    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.
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    1DsII | 7D | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 18-135mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L

  8. #8
    Administrator Sean Setters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    3,345
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    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!

  9. #9
    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...
    Last edited by apersson850; 05-15-2014 at 08:19 AM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,334
    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.
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    1DsII | 7D | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 18-135mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •