Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens Press Release

[Michael Kraus]

Looks pretty nifty. I would think it could make a gnarly lens to hand hold with a 5D/6D/C100/C300 etc.

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_cano...01e02480beda0d


The 10-18mm is pretty affordable at $299. Although I imagine most people will stick with their Tokinas unless they just really dig STM.

[Brian David Melnyk]

I was excited until I saw the f4.
I put this lens with the 24-70 f4 in the "I would buy this if it was 2.8 IS" bin.
Is it not possible to somehow add IS to the 2.8 versions? Am I missing some technical information, or is this purely a business decision?
16-35 f2.8 IS + 24-70 2.8 IS + 70-200 f2.8 IS = DONE.
Well.... Maybe not completely done... But a pretty freaking nice set of glass to cover 99% of my needs...
Canon? Hello? Come in Canon? This is Bowie to Canon, can you see me on your freaky LSD screen?

[Michael Kraus]

Originally Posted by Brian David Melnyk

Is it not possible to somehow add IS to the 2.8 versions? Am I missing some technical information, or is this purely a business decision?

I think they've had issues in keeping the 24-70 f/2.8 from becoming too bulky with IS. At least that's the general consensus from peoples on the interwebs. Tamron managed to do it but I think Canon's system requires more space or something. I'm sure Canon has at least put some time and effort into the idea considering the amount of public interest in the notion.

[Chris Hurd]

Plus the cost. The "good" IS (that is, not the "cheap" IS) which is needed by that lens would add five or six hundred dollars to what is already a pretty hefty price tag.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

controlling DOF on wide angle lenses is not that important for most users, so I think the addition of IS is good enough. And vastly cheaper. Could be interesting choice for video.

[Jon Fairhurst]

IMO, the two best uses of this lens are:
1) Shooting deep focus stills where a tripod is not available or allowed, and
2) Shooting handheld video in daylight.

For photos, IS allows you to "drag the shutter" for longer exposures and smaller aperture and/or lower ISO.

For video, we're stuck with 1/50 or 1/60 for normal shooting, regardless of IS, so IS doesn't help with low light and f/4 is tough indoors without a good lighting setup. And if you have the time and budget to provide lighting, you probably have the time and budget for a tripod/dolly/jib/Steadicam/stabilizer. But for daylight shooting, we're often on the run and don't need to setup lights.

But I have another concern about the IS in this lens for video... When things are far away, we don't generally need IS for ultrawide shots. However, one might push the camera close to an item for forced perspective. The close object is large and small camera movements turn into large image movements for that object. The problem is that the camera motion isn't just angular. It's translational (x-y) as well. My understanding is that the IS in this camera is angular only. AFAIK, only the 100/2.8L IS Macro has hybrid (angle + x-y) IS.

So I really question the usefulness of this lens for video. But for photos, it should rock. We generally stop down the lens for landscapes anyway. And when shooting in a cathedral or other indoor location without a tripod, the (up to) four stop improvement offered by IS beats the one stop of f/2.8 - especially where deep focus - and the potential added sharpness of smaller apertures - is desired.

[Brian David Melnyk]

I'm interested to see how this would sell against the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (though it is not for FF)...
I like having the option of a faster lens for low light video, even if I would mostly use deep DOF with wide angle, and using a wide fast lens with IS in dimly lit, small spaces with 70D's auto focus would be pretty handy.
I don't feel stuck at 60fps, Jon, and pretty regularly shoot at 30fps in low light with 70d and 5dmii. If I had a c100 I might be thinking differently... actually, I remember reading that Vincent Laforet says that shooting shutter speed at 50 or slower is more filmic (whatever that means...).

[Jon Fairhurst]

In a general rule of thumb, one can shoot handheld on a full frame camera without motion blur due to camera movement at 1/focal_length. So, when shooting at 35mm, I can shoot a photo handheld at 1/35 without blur. At 16mm, I can shoot at 1/16. (Of course, this is for shooting reasonably distant objects. Get within a few inches of your subject and it's another story.) So, you don't really need IS for shooting 1/50 video with this lens.

That said, handheld video with a wide lens won't look like it's on a tripod or a jib and dolly. But because the camera-driven motion blur is small, one can shoot wide and stabilize in post with good results. And guess what? Adding IS won't make wide handheld video look like it's on a tripod or dolly either, but it might reduce the time spent in post.

But let's say you're shooting stills in a candle-lit room. With another four stops, you can go from 1/16 to a full second (!) of exposure. Now you can approach 100 ISO and/or tighten the aperture for more depth and sharpness - all without lugging a tripod. If I were making a "Cathedrals of the World" coffee table book, this lens would be at the very top of my list.