October 22, 2014, 08:56:40 AM

Author Topic: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]  (Read 17327 times)

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #105 on: August 09, 2014, 07:44:58 PM »
I hope this lens isn't rumour/vapour ware...but if it's true and lets face it a 14-24mm f2.8 isn't that much wider than current 16-35mm f2.8 and sacrifices the long end, a very useful 35mm...then it really needs to offer something more. I was hoping for a 12-24mm, but I'd gladly take an 11mm at the wide end!
I used to have a Sigma 12-24mm f5.6 (ok read f11-f16 due to vignetting) but the angle of view on a full frame camera was amazing and a lot of fun.
I can't wait...but happy to as long as Canon get this lens optically right!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #105 on: August 09, 2014, 07:44:58 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #106 on: August 09, 2014, 08:59:52 PM »
I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really?  The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be  exaggerating just a tad.


lol no he's not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

What landscapes do you see that are shot at f/4.0?  The f/8.0 review is much more applicable, and an f/11.0 or f/16.0 would be even better comparison of the two.
All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.

Realistically, the 16-35mm is also more consistent with the copys produced and the worst 16-35mm is probably better than the best 17-40L.

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2312
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #107 on: August 09, 2014, 09:23:11 PM »
Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this  new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have  Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>

1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.
Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras = 20D, 1DS, 5D MK II, 7D, EOS-M  Plus 17 Canon EF And EF-L lenses, Plus 6 Non Canon Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Rokinon Lenses too,), From 8 mm. to 600 mm..
Yes, My Best Canon Prime Lenses = EF 85 mm F/ 1,2 L MK II  For Portrait Photography , Canon  TS-E 24 Mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II for Landscape, Canon EF 600 mm. L . for Birds & Moon photos, And Canon EF 100 mm , 100 mm L IS, 180 mm L MACRO and  Canon MP-E 65 mm 1-5X for my love Macro photography..
Have a Great week End.
Surapon

Antono Refa

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #108 on: August 10, 2014, 12:31:58 AM »
Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this  new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have  Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>

1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

Juck

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #109 on: August 10, 2014, 01:39:22 AM »
Absolute twaddle. This lens does not and will never, exist.

Does this clownshoes of a site ever actually get anything right?  (hint: no)

rrcphoto

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #110 on: August 10, 2014, 04:18:43 AM »
I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really?  The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be  exaggerating just a tad.


lol no he's not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

What landscapes do you see that are shot at f/4.0?  The f/8.0 review is much more applicable, and an f/11.0 or f/16.0 would be even better comparison of the two.

quite a bit actually.  if you are looking at f/11 and f/16 then use any crappy lens, because your diffraction will smear enough that you don't care anymore.

if you can't get enough Dof at around f/4 to f/6.3 when rolling with a 16mm then you're doing something wrong.

even on a 6D with a focus distance of 20 feet, you have your depth of focus being from 11 feet to infinity.  wide open.  and this is with the CoC being 2 lp versus the much easier .030mm that most people use.

so umm yeah.. what were you saying again?



surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2312
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #111 on: August 10, 2014, 09:02:08 AM »
Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this  new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have  Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>

1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr. Antono Refa.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is "  there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is  rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 12:00:13 PM by surapon »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #111 on: August 10, 2014, 09:02:08 AM »

rs

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #112 on: August 10, 2014, 09:31:17 AM »
Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this  new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have  Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>

1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is "  there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is  rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it if lined up perfectly.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!) 
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 09:38:29 AM by rs »
5D II | 24-70 II | 70-200 II | 100L | 40 | Sigma 50/1.4 | 40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 580 EX II | 1.4x TC II

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2312
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #113 on: August 10, 2014, 12:03:59 PM »
Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this  new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have  Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>

1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is "  there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is  rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it if lined up perfectly.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!)

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. rs
Now, To day I learn some thing new form dear friend like You.
No, I never use super wide angle to shoot the group shots of my dear friends---because some of them will hate me----Ha, Ha, ha, To see his/ her face as round as the full moon, and 2 time bigger than their friend at the center of the photo.
Thanks again .
Surapon

CarlMillerPhoto

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #114 on: August 10, 2014, 12:43:15 PM »
I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really?  The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be  exaggerating just a tad.


lol no he's not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

What landscapes do you see that are shot at f/4.0?  The f/8.0 review is much more applicable, and an f/11.0 or f/16.0 would be even better comparison of the two.

quite a bit actually.  if you are looking at f/11 and f/16 then use any crappy lens, because your diffraction will smear enough that you don't care anymore.

if you can't get enough Dof at around f/4 to f/6.3 when rolling with a 16mm then you're doing something wrong.

even on a 6D with a focus distance of 20 feet, you have your depth of focus being from 11 feet to infinity.  wide open.  and this is with the CoC being 2 lp versus the much easier .030mm that most people use.

so umm yeah.. what were you saying again?

If there's nothing in your frame closer than 11 feet that you want in focus @ 16mm, I worry about your landscape composition. Seems you might be the one doing something wrong.

And yes, Dilbert was exaggerating. At smaller apertures (f/9, f/11, f/13) both the 17-40mm and new 16-35mm take pretty damn good pictures. Yes, those of the latter have slightly sharper corners and if you're a professional, I'd say that's a needed improvement. But if not, stop pixel peeping and go shoot.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 12:45:24 PM by CarlMillerPhoto »
My photography equipment goes here, apparently.

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1557
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #115 on: August 10, 2014, 12:54:12 PM »
I would be happier with f4 IS.

vscd

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
  • 5DC
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #116 on: August 11, 2014, 03:31:52 AM »
Quote
All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.

Diffraction depends on your sensorsize, too. Not your lens, only.

Greetings
5DC, 24-85, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 40STM

StudentOfLight

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #117 on: August 13, 2014, 05:36:56 PM »
Quote
All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.

Diffraction depends on your sensorsize, too. Not your lens, only.

Greetings
Do you mean pixel size?
Fantasy Gear:
TS-E: 45mm f/2.8 L-II,  EF: 40mm f/0.8,  100mm f/1.4,  35-85mm f/1.8, 
EF with 1.4xInt: 100-300mm f/4 ,  500mm f/5.6 L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #117 on: August 13, 2014, 05:36:56 PM »

vscd

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
  • 5DC
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #118 on: August 16, 2014, 02:21:02 AM »
Yepp. I mean pixelsize. For example a 5DC has diffractions >f13...
5DC, 24-85, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 40STM

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #119 on: August 18, 2014, 05:31:57 AM »
Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this  new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have  Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>

1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is "  there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is  rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it if lined up perfectly.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!)

Yes you are correct, a fully rectilinear corrected lens is one where straight lines stay straight in the frame. Two good examples of this are the 14L and Sigma 12-24 HSM (mkI). Circles become more egg shaped as the approach the corners of the frame. All wide lenses show distortion somewhere, either lines or circles.

Most rectilinear wide lenses are corrected to some degree but not fully. This is to allow a compromise and versatility. A fully corrected lens distorts circles (faces) so a design compromises is employed to keep straight lines fairly straight (a slight curve is usually not too noticeable and quite acceptable) but keeps the circles fairly circular (unless you shoot up close). The 16-35IIL is a great example of this. Most lens designers assume the user will correct in Lightroom / Photoshop if they need a more extreme correction. I find the look I get out of the 16-35IIL looks quite natural and is kind on the eye. A 14L, TS-e 17L or Siggi 12-24 tend to look very angular and isn't how the human eye sees the scene.

Where as fish-eye lenses are the complete opposite. Circles stay circular but straight lines curve as they approach the edges of the frame.

This is why I have more than one wide lens in my collection and why I am REALLY looking forwards to this new lens from Canon. It could be a game changer.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« Reply #119 on: August 18, 2014, 05:31:57 AM »