Full frame at f8 will not give you indefinite DoF. Where image #17 is unsharp (lower corners) is where the DoF ends. The image is clearly focused at close to infinity, the buildings are perfectly fine. The cars in the lower corner are much closer and at 1/100s suspect to motion blur. For image 68, it's the same. Focused on the tree, the foreground (lawn) is perfect, but the boat and buildings are slightly out of focus (I assume that's what you are talking about, I find the image perfectly fine).

If you do environmental portrait or video and want some background seperation - you need F2.8 at least.
Try to photograph in a church without flash ... F2.8 at least.

There are many use cases, they are just not yours.

Yes but I don't mean the /amount/ of blur, I mean the smoothness of it which seems to be a bit disappointing.

The bokeh is good. Its not perfect. But theres no obvious onion-ringing at internet sizes, so thats fine. It also transitions well, not hard lines between objects, even if its a little blob-like. There is nothing jarring or jittery about the bokeh, unlike many lenses. I wouldn't expect better on this kind of lens.

@Steve
Still, considering DOF of UWA lens bokeh is hardly valid term.

Thats not true, Yury. It just depends how close your camera is and how far away your background is. You can't speak that way. All you are commenting on is "at typical normal lens distances".

Take it outside with a background approaching infinity like mountains or fields and get very close to your subject, and the bokeh is huge.

@GlobalGuyUSA
I guess it comes down to ones definition of "bokeh". I was referring to bokeh achievable UWA lens at practical distances.

Not twice the modern marvel?

Totally agree, but 'the best' lenses aren't necessarily the best lenses if they are out of your price range. At present, both the Nikon 14-30 or the Tamron 17-28 would suit myself better, but I am sure Canon will eventually meet the needs of us peasants. [Maybe not with 'affordable' high resolution, but that's another story...]

The big three have always been leapfrogging each other. Nikon leapfrogged the rest with digital SLRs, Canon leapfrogged Nikon with FF. Nikon leapfrogged Canon with high ISO and AF. Sony is leapfrogging Canikon with the move to mirrorless and so on.

I wanted to ask the same, without IBIS the "IS" is the way to go. I guess someone from the Sony-fraction just wanted to spread BS again.

I think he means IS is only necessary because the bodies lack IBIS, which makes lenses unnecessarily large

IBIS on the lens is sometimes better than ibis in the body because you can optimize it to the lens. Wideangle IS is different to an IS for a 400mm 2.8.. So, yes, IBIS in Canon bodies would be a nice gadget, but to have it in the lens is not "unnecessary".

@vscd
True, that's why near all companies which employ IBIS like Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, and Nikon use lens IS in addition to IBIS on their tele lenses. Because IBIS is more effective for wide angles.

Which brings us back to this lens. Which arguably is a wide angle that wouldn't have needed IS on an IBIS body

@vscd Not true actually. From what I have read IBIS is at least as good as ILIS (in-lens) and even more effectively on UWA and WA lenses. ILIS is only more effective in tele lenses as no much space the sensor can swing in body. Then IBIS works on all lenses without ILIS such as on many prime lenses. Canon is the only major brand without IBIS but said they are working on. So what I meant IS is wasted is because the body doesn't have IBIS that makes lens unnecessarily bigger, heavier and more expensive.

200 g weight difference to Sony GM is a big deal especially if carry other lenses.

But in lens stabilization doesn't add that much weight, and when eventually it will work together with IBIS, it will be the best option as the other manufacturers have only IBIS.
The combined option will give some 2 more stops of stabilization anyway, so it is not really a bad thing no mater how you turn it. Canon did openly say that they want top add IBIS, so i guess the decision to add stabilization inside this lens was taking that into account.

From what I have seen it's untrue that "IS in the lens is *always* better than on the body because the stabilization can be optimized to the focallength". Actually IBIS also detects the focal length of the lens that used to engage IBIS function on the FL. Or you could manually input FL in IBIS setup such as with some lenses via adapters such as my Canon 17L TS-E, a big deal now it enjoys about 3-stop effective IS. I use this TS-E lens mostly hand-held so a big deal inside dim light architecture/building.

@PWP - yes, but again, combined IS is the best, so having it in the lens the good thing to do any way :)

Although not in my experience with UWA and WA lenses. All those zoom and prime lenses enjoy IBIS in my lineup such as Zeiss Loxia, Voigtlander (CV), Tamron FE 28-75 and FE 16-35 GM. They all work very well. Wait and see the forthcoming Tamron FE 70-180/2.8 that how it works with IBIS at 180mm side. IBIS still working but just less effective, guess still can gain 2 stops. Not much complaint on such small/light f2.8 zoom that even lighter and smaller than regular 70-200/4.0 IS/OSS zoom and guess price will be attractive also, game change in travelling for those used to carry 3 f/2.8 zoom from 16-200mm FL range.

Now that you have stated that Sony is better do you feel relieved? Good.
The next one, please.

For hand-held still image in low light it's disputable IBIS vs ILIS in UWA and WA lenses. I don't have a scientific test but I have read many such claims and experiences that IBIS is just as effective as. But I'd agree ILIS is more effective in panning on moving subject with slow shutter, yes that is a clear advantage. But anyway those lenses I mentioned mainly for landscape purpose where IBIS indeed effective, all owners said so from different brands especially from those mFT owners :-) they claimed they can hand-held a FF eq 16mm lens upto 1~2 sec that I simply cannot with Sony, lol. Guess mFT sensor is much smaller and much room inside body.

Up to normal focallengths like 42 or 50mm there is no disadvantage for IBIS whatsoever. Maybe apart from some points from above (AF with Dual Pixel and a shaking sensor is awkward in my humble opinion).

@vscd
"IS is more effective with long telephoto lenses"

We all agree on that. That's also why all the camera companies who have IBIS also use IS on their tele lenses. Just look at their current lineup

"IS allows faster and more accurate AF & exposure metering, because the image comes already stabilized to the camera sensor"

Uhm what? You do know that IBIS can also stabilize before taking the picture, stabilizing the EVF and also the AF readings. Even though I don't know why a exposure metering should be affected by pixel level blur?

"Combinations of IS and IBIS are possible but mostly they add maximum 2 stops or less. Mostly nothing."

The dual IS off Olympus and Panasonic add a whole lot more than nothing. And even on the other cameras IBIS will take care of the other three axes when IS is active since lens IS only stabilizes 2 axes (pitach and jaw). That is esepcially important for close up work and video

Also I don't understand you IBIS is not optimized for a FL. Knowing the focal length even is a requirement for 3 axis IBIS to work. For 5 axis you even need the focus distance for it to work. The movement of the IBIS unit is very well tuned to individual lenses

In any case IS and IBIS are both good. even better together.

@Battersea
True but that leads the question away from the initial comment.

His complaint was the weight of the lens, which he believes comes from the IS. So the question is not if IS is good but instead if additional lens IS is worth the weight penalty if you already have IBIS.

That said it is not really clear if the IS is the cause for the increase in weight.
The Sony has the same number of elements and while it lacks the IS unit, it instead has a second focus group. So maybe the additional weight is simply caused by the extra mm of width, which on UWA adds a lot of design complexity

Curious in what world is 15mm the same as 16mm especially on the wide end?

IS usually doesn't add elements, it just adds mechanics.

as far as "much smaller/lighter" let's see;
- it's 160g heavier than the Sony (not 200g)
- it's .2 inches longer same diameter.

so basically the same size and a little heavier.

then you have balance.

if you look at the sony GM 16-35, most of the elements (and larger ones) are grouped to the front.

if you compare that to the RF lens, the elements are more balanced between front and back.

so on a camera, I would not be surprised if the Sony actually feels heavier than the Canon.

comparison:
https://gyazo.com/0c3edbac8f90897be7753c3ff60a2bb9

@rrc1967
Cross-sections in zooms are pretty meaningless since elements will shift a lot during zoom. And it seems like the Canon is shown extended while the Sony is shown at it's shortest position.
https://www.cameralabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/hero_Sony16-35f2-8GM_60449.jpg
http://www.photodo.com/imgs/articles/9386/highressony1635mmf28gmrearobliqueview1505460641.jpg
On these images, you can see that the elements of the Sony also move back if the lens is in the extended position.

Also, the size difference is larger than it seems if you just look at the numbers due to the tapered design of the Sony
https://camerasize.com/compact/#826.663,799.840,ha,t

But I agree the added weight is likely due to the extra reach @15mm and that 15mm vs 16mm is a significant difference

For a such walk-around zoom that use very frequently, even 160 g difference is a big deal, quite noticeably. 16-35 GM is the default on A7r III (now A7r IV) hang on my neck and so far so good but not sure how I will feel 160 g heavier as I usually carry 2nd camera into trips that cross my shoulder.

In my bag I added Voigtlander (CV) FE 12mm/F5.6 in case I need further wider for architecture, spiral stair and dome roof etc. It has very beautiful 10-point sunstar even at f/4 that is much better than 18 or 22 point sunstar from these zoom.

But 15-35 is not same as 16-35.

Those 200g will be offset by the 400g+ weight savings of the RF 70-200 vs the 70-200 GM ;)

Haha, then Tamron FE 70-180/2.8 is coming weights only 815g that is even lighter than Canon and Sony 70-200/4.0 IS/OSS lenses (and much lighter than this RF 70-200/2.8 IS) but one stop faster. No mention also Tamron FE 28-75/2.8 that is so lighter/smaller than Sony and Canon 24-70/2.8 lenses and complement my 16-35 GM very well.

What happened to all the men? Weight savings? Really? Come on... Large format Was heavy, this is not even close to something to care about :)
A lot of mimimi recently.

Yes, IS is nice to have, however personally I'll sacrifice if the body has IBIS AND if there's a 200g weight reduction. Future Canon bodies will certainly integrate IBIS.