Well EF 11-24 f/2.8L – it is kinda extreme numbers. So extreme, that I think it is 99.9% inaccurate info.
Numbers a can believe:
1) EF 14-24 f/2.8L – a competitor for Nikon lens.
2) EF 11-24 f/4L – something totally new.
3) EF-S 11-24 f/2.8 – fast lens for APS-C (non L, of course).
If previously posted patent info (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/
) is correct – the second variant is the most feasible.
Though, it is still possible that 11-24 f/2.8 are the correct numbers. Canon has some extraordinary lenses in its portfolio (e.g. 1200mm f/5.6 or 50mm f/1.0). But all are abandoned. Their price was as extreme as their specs are. And I believe the users niche was very narrow. So I don't think canon will make another one. It's just not profitably.
And if it is EF 11-24 f/4L, how popular it will be? (just interesting) I use Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on APS-C for WA (17,6-25,6mm FF equivalent) and I very rarely wish to be able to go lower than 11mm (although it happened several times) but I often wish to have more on the long end. So, for my use, the 16-35mm range on FF gonna be almost perfect. "My use" is all-around photographing during travels (landscapes, towns, etc) and some indoor usage. What scenarios can be where non-fisheye 11mm on FF would be necessary? Only asto-photo?