The Complete Wedding Training System is Finally Here!

Your content will be up shortly. Please allow up to 5 seconds
Gear Announcements

Canon Rumored To Announce Two New Wide Angle Lenses This Week

By Anthony Thurston on May 7th 2014

According to a rumor picked up on several Canon rumor sites, it appears that Canon will announce a couple of new wide angle lenses this week. Both are updates to current popular models and are expected to be upgraded with IS.

canon-ultrawide

The two rumored lenses are a EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM and the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM. The 16-35mm F/4L IS USM is more of an addition, than an upgrade, considering that the current model is F/2.8. Though initial price estimates have the new 16-35 at just under $2000, which is $300 more than the current F/2.8 model.

The other lens, the 10-18mm F/4.5-5.6, is also a little slower than it predecessor. But as I mentioned above, will include IS, so it’s a bit of a tradeoff.

I think that it is interesting that Canon is spending their time adding IS to EVERYTHING under the sun, and lowering apertures, while companies like Sigma are hardly releasing any image stabilized lenses, and are increasing the aperture. Don’t get me wrong, I like IS from a video standpoint, but not at the expense of a lower aperture.

Are you excited for either of these lenses, and what are your thoughts Canon’s “IS on EVERYTHING” strategy going forward?  Leave a comment to discuss!

[via Photo Rumors]

Anthony Thurston is a photographer based in the Salem, Oregon area specializing in Boudoir. He recently started a new project, Fiercely Boudoir to help support the growing boudoir community. Find him over on Instagram. You may also connect with him via Email.

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Mads Helmer Petersen

    The 16-35 f4 – is a must have – I think

    | |
  2. Kaitlyn

    Terrific article! That is the kind of information that are meant to be shared
    across the internet. Shame on Google for now not positioning this put up upper!
    Come on over and talk over with my site . Thank you =)

    | |
  3. Matthew Saville

    Both of these ideas are the worst ideas in the history of Canon ultra-wides, and they’ve ALREADY made the worst lenses in the history of ultra-wides, period! Eesh.

    OK, I kid I kid. For one, the Canon 10-22 EF-S is already one of the best, sharpest ultra-wide lenses on the market. Why make a new one with less zoom? If they really wanted to impress us, they should make a 10-18mm f/2.8 EF-S. THAT would break ground and sell well. Considering how popular the Tokina 11-16 is, I’m honestly shocked that neither Canon nor Nikon have yet done an f/2.8 ultra-wide for APS-C…

    The 17-40 f/4 is already a killer lens, in fact it is often a preferred choice for landscape photographers who don’t need f/2.8. (Plus, the 16-35 mk2 has horrible, horrible field curvature usually.) So I don’t know why they’d even consider making a 16-35 f/4 IS before making a better f/2.8, LET ALONE a 14-24 2.8.

    Seriously, Canon, this is not a good sign. Right now you need to be releasing lenses that prove you’re still in the game, NOT that you’re still sitting back and just releasing random stuff on autopilot.

    =Matt=

    | |
  4. Cody Edger

    Personally.. I don’t even consider a lens unless it has f2.8 or faster. Kinda disappointed that Canon is wasting their money to produce these products. I’ve already decided that I’m moving towards Sigma/Tamron when it comes to my glass purchases.

    | |
  5. David Payne

    Would the 10-18 be for crop sensor only? Canon need a rival to nikon 10-22 in my opinion, that would be a lovely lens even at f4

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      David I’m not sure if this is sarcasm, or you just meant the Nikon 10-24mm DX.

      The only 10-22mm lens in existence, as far as I know, is in fact the Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens. Either way, Canon still doesn’t even really need to “rival” any of the Nikon ultra-wide lenses, since the current Canon 10-22 is as sharp or sharper than all of them.

      =Matt=

      | |
  6. Carsten Schertzer

    The 16-35mm F/4 IS, is for the video guys. Pretty much useless to us still shooters.

    | |
    • Cody Edger

      Why? Personally, I think a good video lens needs great lowlight capability. Sure, f4 will give you more buffer room for your focus, but you lose a lot of light.

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Yeah I’m actually with Cody on this one, for video you’re “stuck” at 1/30 sec. or 1/60 sec. shutter speeds, so stabilization isn’t always as helpful as a faster aperture can be.

      Personally, I like stabilization for photojournalism and street photography, so that I can go even SLOWER than 1/30 sec. with my hand-holding. In fact at 16mm I bet I could hand-hold a few sharp shots at 1/2 sec or so!

      =Matt=

      | |
  7. lukas

    IS = more profit for Canon. IS lens price is harder to compare with other lens makers

    | |
  8. mdshirajum

    I know many wedding photographers also use the 16-35 for dramatic shots. To them, maximum aperture matters.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Not so much at 16mm, really. If a wedding photographer really wants shallow DOF at wider angles, that’s what an f/1.4 or f/1.8 prime is for. For example I’d rather have the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR and the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G. THAT would be the better combo for “best of both worlds”. (Or, even better, if Sigma would get around to making a 24mm f/1.4 ART!!!)

      | |
  9. Eric

    I’m surprised many people don’t understand the usefulness of IS in landscape photography. Yes, if you’re shooting a long exposure, then you need a tripod, not IS. But in handheld landscape cases IS is very helpful. Max aperture is hardly important for most landscape work, since you usually stop down to f/8-f/16 to maximize depth of field. In doing so, you sometimes start seeing the shutter speed dip below 1/20th of a second, even in decent light. IS makes that shutter speed viable. Max aperture does not.

    IS is most useful for static subjects of course.

    I’m excited for the 16-35 f/4 IS, especially if it gets the same image quality treatment as the 24-70 f/2.8 II. The sharpness and chromatic aberration improvements were substantial.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      I tend to agree with you as an adventure photographer, Eric. Many times I find myself hiking / backpacking and I don’t have the time to set up a tripod every few minutes just to take a sharp image at a shutter speed that I could probably hand-hold if I had stabilization. Having IS / VR in a 16-35 might allow me to shoot at f/11 instead of f/4, for example, at golden hour or just after sunset or similar times. (Or in mid-day light but in deep shade or something…)

      | |
  10. Ted

    A 16-35mm F4 IS makes little sense, since most people looking at this focal length are probably shooting landscape/architecture, and generally rely on a tripod. So what benefit is Image Stabilization in that scenario? And for those using the lens handheld, the f2.8 version would be more sought after for it’s low light capabilities. What’s IS going to give you – an extra stop or two below f4?

    Maybe it’s just me, but some of Canon’s decisions lately (no EOS M in the Americas, the 24-70 II without IS), leave me scratching my head.

    | |
    • jag

      Decision is based on using the lens for filming Ted! It’s not just about photos anymore! IS is a LIFE SAVER when filming and most users would prefer f4 over f2.8 for filming.

      | |
  11. mdshirajum

    I`m very interested to buy a wide angle lens with sharp corners. But at $2k and f4, this one will surely be a fail unless the IQ is too good. IMO, f2.8+non IS is same as f4+IS!!!

    | |
    • Dud

      Its not the same. When you´re shooting (with F2.8) in indoor and objects are moving, you cant get same result as using F4+IS.

      | |
    • Cracked Glass Productions

      The 16-35 f2.8 looks great but I honestly don’t see the point of the 2.8 yes it gets you more light but it with modern sensors getting that extra stop is easier so would it make more sense to get the f4 save some cash and have IS also the 77mm filter is more universale unlike the 82mm. On a wide angle like that seeing the difference in the bokeh of an f/4 vs an f/2.8 is almost irrelevant. I am building a kit of f/4 zoom lenses I have the 70-200 and am getting the 24-105 and will get the 17-40 f/4. then I will pick up more fast primes. That is how I would do things.

      | |