More photo leaks show updates to Canon 16-35mm and 24-105mm lenses

Aug 18, 2016

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

More photo leaks show updates to Canon 16-35mm and 24-105mm lenses

Aug 18, 2016

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

16-35-24-105

It almost feels like the manufacturers leak these things themselves, sometimes, just to get some buzz going. After the recent 5D Mark IV leaks, we see two more. This time, it’s a couple of lenses.

The 16-35mm f/2.8 and 24-105mm f/4 are both favourites amongst Canon shooters. The 24-105mm f/4L IS USM first introduced by Canon in 2005 has been a highly regarded lens since day one. The 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM was released in 2007 and is the go-to wide zoom for many.

There’s not too much information with the pictures. But, if what’s there is accurate, there are a few differences in size and weight.

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

5D4_25

5D4_26

Like its predecessor, it has an 82mm filter thread, but there’s some changes in the dimensions. The maximum diameter is approximately the same, but this update sees the length grow from 112mm to 127.5mm.

This increase in length also presents a significant weight increase. The previously 640g lens now weighs in at 790g. The extra weight may help to balance things a little easier with heavier DSLRs, but it’s still more weight to carry.

Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

5D4_27

5D4_28

Like the current 24-105mm lens, the update sports a 77mm filter thread. The diameter of the lens itself is also the same. Again, though, there’s a little growth in length, and a significant weight gain.

The existing model is 107mm long, and the new one is 118mm long. The weight for this one has gone up almost 19% taking it from 670g to 795g.

16-35-24-105-lens_specs

If you already own both of these and decided to go with the replacements, you’d be adding 275g to your bag. That’s an extra half a lens’s worth of weight.

Obviously, no news on a price or a release date yet. If the 5D Mark IV is being announced next week as expected, we may hear more about these then.

Do you use either the 16-35mm f/2.8 II or the 24-105mm f/4? Have you been having issues with them? What would you like to see added or fixed in an updated version? Or do you think they’re just fine as they are? Let us know in the comments.

[via Nokishita]

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

John Aldred

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 responses to “More photo leaks show updates to Canon 16-35mm and 24-105mm lenses”

  1. jbratteson Avatar
    jbratteson

    I currently use the 16-35 mm lens. I’m not feeling a burning desire to upgrade. I use this lens to mostly capture wide angle landscapes and backdrops for composites. I usually hangout in the f8 and beyond range so I can’t see how this is going to be a whole lot sharper. Maybe at 50+ Mp and pixel peeping you might see a difference but who knows.

    1. Photog Avatar
      Photog

      which 16-35mm?
      if you use the old 16-35mm f2.8 II you better think about buying the 16-35mm f4 IS.
      it´s way better for landscape shots than the old f2.8.
      if you don´t use the lens at 2.8 you carry more weight and have inferior corner performance.. for what?
      the IS also helps in so many cases. it´s a great lens.

      1. jbratteson Avatar
        jbratteson

        I have the version II of the lens. I agree the newer 16-35 f4 lens is quite nice. However, there are times at night that without a tripod f2.8 comes in handy. Additionally I snagged this one off craigslist for less than the f4 version. Both quite nice lenses and still can’t imagine a great bump in quality for 95% of the stuff I shoot.

  2. Fyrblade Avatar
    Fyrblade

    I’m curious about this as well… Maybe if the 24-105 had turned into a 2.8 somehow, but I really can’t see myself throwing away $2500 in glass to replace them with the III version. It would have to be a shockingly noticeable improvement.

  3. MiamiC70 Avatar
    MiamiC70

    WTF, would the 16-35mm F2.8 not get IS?

  4. Brian Menin Avatar
    Brian Menin

    I found the 24-105 to be a good lens, but not great. It’s Canon’s L series kit lens. No matter what they do to it, it’s going to be a solid performer, that does nothing exceptionally well. It’s for photographers that don’t care about wide open performance – not because it isn’t sharp, but because​ it’s slow. It does take the place of six of my primes though, so I use it as my all around lens for family photos.

    Since I already had primes from 15 to 35, I got the 16-35 f/4 zoom. It was an easy choice over the 2.8 version, since it has IS, and I usually shoot around f/5.6-8.

    It all comes down to personal choice, needs, and budget. But I don’t see Canon offering any compelling reason to upgrade.