Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,241
1,596
120
Thanks Jack and Click,

For those interested in the EXIF, the cat was 11mm @ f5.6, the car was 14mm @ f20 deliberately for the starburst.

And for those that say the dof of an 11/14mm at f4 is 'massive' I beg to differ. Here are a couple of 100% crops from the cat picture @ f5.6. Clearly not even the entire cat is covered by the dof let alone the entire scene.
 

Attachments

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,434
1,592
Alberta, Canada
privatebydesign said:
Thanks Jack and Click,

For those interested in the EXIF, the cat was 11mm @ f5.6, the car was 14mm @ f20 deliberately for the starburst.

And for those that say the dof of an 11/14mm at f4 is 'massive' I beg to differ. Here are a couple of 100% crops from the cat picture @ f5.6. Clearly not even the entire cat is covered by the dof let alone the entire scene.
I've wondered about this in landscapes trying to have everything from a close object back, in focus. So, if you were focused at infinity how far would that feline have to be to appear in focus? Also, when not using a tripod it's hard to judge if infinity is actually in sharp focus.

Jack
 

dcm

Good or bad - it's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
765
109
Jack Douglas said:
privatebydesign said:
Thanks Jack and Click,

For those interested in the EXIF, the cat was 11mm @ f5.6, the car was 14mm @ f20 deliberately for the starburst.

And for those that say the dof of an 11/14mm at f4 is 'massive' I beg to differ. Here are a couple of 100% crops from the cat picture @ f5.6. Clearly not even the entire cat is covered by the dof let alone the entire scene.
I've wondered about this in landscapes trying to have everything from a close object back, in focus. So, if you were focused at infinity how far would that feline have to be to appear in focus? Also, when not using a tripod it's hard to judge if infinity is actually in sharp focus.

Jack
Caution - objects may be closer than they appear. How close was the cat?

It really depends on point of focus, particularly near MFD of 11". If your subject is at 12" the DOF is 9" to 20" at f5.6 or 7" to 43" at f/11 on my DOF calculator. If you move your subject out to 30", the DOF is 15" to infinity at f/5.6. At f/11 your DOF is 12" to infinity as long as your point of focus is more than 18". YMMV
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,241
1,596
120
dcm said:
Jack Douglas said:
privatebydesign said:
Thanks Jack and Click,

For those interested in the EXIF, the cat was 11mm @ f5.6, the car was 14mm @ f20 deliberately for the starburst.

And for those that say the dof of an 11/14mm at f4 is 'massive' I beg to differ. Here are a couple of 100% crops from the cat picture @ f5.6. Clearly not even the entire cat is covered by the dof let alone the entire scene.
I've wondered about this in landscapes trying to have everything from a close object back, in focus. So, if you were focused at infinity how far would that feline have to be to appear in focus? Also, when not using a tripod it's hard to judge if infinity is actually in sharp focus.

Jack
Caution - objects may be closer than they appear. How close was the cat?

It really depends point of focus, particularly near MFD of 11". If your subject is at 12" the DOF is 9" to 20" at f5.6 or 7" to 43" at f/11 on my DOF calculator. If you move your subject out to 30", the DOF is 15" to infinity at f/5.6. At f/11 you can DOF is 12" to infinity as long as your point of focus is more than 18".
Nonsense.

Those figures all presuppose an 8" x 10" print viewed from 12", that is just not how we view images nowadays. For instance I have a 27" screen, if I view at 100% the image is scrollable at 5616/109, or 51" at a mere 22" viewing distance. As magnification goes up dof goes down so I have way less dof than your calculator estimates.
 

dcm

Good or bad - it's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
765
109
privatebydesign said:
dcm said:
Jack Douglas said:
privatebydesign said:
Thanks Jack and Click,

For those interested in the EXIF, the cat was 11mm @ f5.6, the car was 14mm @ f20 deliberately for the starburst.

And for those that say the dof of an 11/14mm at f4 is 'massive' I beg to differ. Here are a couple of 100% crops from the cat picture @ f5.6. Clearly not even the entire cat is covered by the dof let alone the entire scene.
I've wondered about this in landscapes trying to have everything from a close object back, in focus. So, if you were focused at infinity how far would that feline have to be to appear in focus? Also, when not using a tripod it's hard to judge if infinity is actually in sharp focus.

Jack
Caution - objects may be closer than they appear. How close was the cat?

It really depends point of focus, particularly near MFD of 11". If your subject is at 12" the DOF is 9" to 20" at f5.6 or 7" to 43" at f/11 on my DOF calculator. If you move your subject out to 30", the DOF is 15" to infinity at f/5.6. At f/11 you can DOF is 12" to infinity as long as your point of focus is more than 18".
Nonsense.

Those figures all presuppose an 8" x 10" print viewed from 12", that is just not how we view images nowadays. For instance I have a 27" screen, if I view at 100% the image is scrollable at 5616/109, or 51" at a mere 22" viewing distance. As magnification goes up dof goes down so I have way less dof than your calculator estimates.
Sorry, I should have noted the settings on the calculator (blur spot of 30um). I did add a YMMV and probably should have noted different settings would yield different DOF. All I wanted to highlight was the difference in DOF based on the point of focus.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,241
1,596
120
No apology needed dcm.

I was just trying to illustrate the vast difference between what the calculators are calculating and how we are viewing images nowadays. And don't forget the subjective nature of dof, that wonderful phrase "within acceptable focus"!

It's interesting though, an 8"x10" image has a surface area of 80 square inches, a 51"x34" image, even scrollable, is 1,734 inches square, 22 times the area, therefore the viewing distance as per the dof calculator should put us at 61", over five feet, from the screen.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
privatebydesign said:
Nonsense.

Those figures all presuppose an 8" x 10" print viewed from 12", that is just not how we view images nowadays. For instance I have a 27" screen, if I view at 100% the image is scrollable at 5616/109, or 51" at a mere 22" viewing distance. As magnification goes up dof goes down so I have way less dof than your calculator estimates.
Nonsense.

Your figures presuppose a computer monitor, and that is just not how we view images nowadays. For instance, if I have an iPhone 6 that's a 4x2.25" image viewed from 14", so I have way more DoF than your reestimation of the original estimate estimates.

;D
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,434
1,592
Alberta, Canada
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
Nonsense.

Those figures all presuppose an 8" x 10" print viewed from 12", that is just not how we view images nowadays. For instance I have a 27" screen, if I view at 100% the image is scrollable at 5616/109, or 51" at a mere 22" viewing distance. As magnification goes up dof goes down so I have way less dof than your calculator estimates.
Nonsense.

Your figures presuppose a computer monitor, and that is just not how we view images nowadays. For instance, if I have an iPhone 6 that's a 4x2.25" image viewed from 14", so I have way more DoF than your reestimation of the original estimate estimates.

;D
I've always felt sorry for those not viewing on full size screens but now I understand the great advantage you have. Always getting more DOF, Wow.... learn something new every day!

Jack
 

bluenoser1993

EOS RP
Jul 11, 2012
210
17
neuroanatomist said:
R1-7D said:
What are your thoughts on it compared to any other wide angles you own?

Hope you had a nice time in France wile you were there.
I did have a nice time, although photography time was limited (I was there for a scientific conference).

Composition is challenging with the 11-24! There were a few shots where I used the 11-24L and also the TS-E 17L for the same scene, and often ended up preferring the TS-E image. Here's an example, the first with the TS-E 17 and the second with the 11-24 (I didn't actually process the latter, to remove flare etc.).

"Hôtel de ville de Tours"

EOS 1D X, TS-E 17mm f/4L, 8s, f/8, ISO 100
I'm not a fan of UWA distortion unless the foreground is something my mind doesn't have a preconceived notion of how it should look. In this case the flowers have an unatural appearance, almost like they're blown over in a strong wind. The TSE shot is amazing though.
 

R1-7D

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 25, 2012
714
33
Canada
I absolutely love this lens. The more I use it, the more I feel like I am getting the hang of it. It's not easy to use. I've barely had it off my camera on my travels. Almost regret bringing my 24-70 with me.

Here's some shots from Bath, London, and Paris.
 

Attachments

R1-7D

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 25, 2012
714
33
Canada
Jack Douglas said:
R1-7D, I feel much like you and I don't have those wonderful subjects you're showing to shoot! Lovely.

Jack
Thank you for the complement! It's really a fun lens to use.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,434
1,592
Alberta, Canada
R1-7D said:
Jack Douglas said:
Here is a recent 1DX2 shot at 21 mm on a frosty day.

Jack
This is really beautiful! Looks like a winter wonderland. Beautifully composed.
Thanks. Here is a thought I've had. I seem to prefer the 11mm shots of landscape when they are cropped with less height, more like a panorama. It seems like that gives more emphasis to the fact that there is a very wide field of view and makes me imagine I'm scanning the view. And I guess often it removes the sometimes less interesting expanse of sky when it's not contributing much.

Jack
 

R1-7D

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 25, 2012
714
33
Canada
Jack Douglas said:
R1-7D said:
Jack Douglas said:
Here is a recent 1DX2 shot at 21 mm on a frosty day.

Jack
This is really beautiful! Looks like a winter wonderland. Beautifully composed.
Thanks. Here is a thought I've had. I seem to prefer the 11mm shots of landscape when they are cropped with less height, more like a panorama. It seems like that gives more emphasis to the fact that there is a very wide field of view and makes me imagine I'm scanning the view. And I guess often it removes the sometimes less interesting expanse of sky when it's not contributing much.

Jack
I think it's because when shooting at 11mm there's often just so much dead space in the frame -- with nothing interesting in the sky, or just too much of it, cropping it down in a panorama-esque style frame is not a bad idea. The lens is wide enough it practically is panorama! :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
Went to a conference in Washington, D.C. last week, and had a couple of free blue hour/evenings to wander around the Capitol Mall area. The 11-24L was ideal for the World War II Memorial. First shot is the view from the east side, second shot is looking straight up inslde the Atlantic triumphal arch.

"From Sea to Shining Sea"

EOS 1D X, EF 11-24mm f/4L USM @ 11mm, 30 s, f/11, ISO 100

"WWII Memorial 'Atlantic' Arch"

EOS 1D X, EF 11-24mm f/4L USM @ 15mm, 15 s, f/11, ISO 100

As usual, click for larger. Thanks for looking!
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,434
1,592
Alberta, Canada
neuroanatomist said:
Went to a conference in Washington, D.C. last week, and had a couple of free blue hour/evenings to wander around the Capitol Mall area. The 11-24L was ideal for the World War II Memorial. First shot is the view from the east side, second shot is looking straight up inslde the Atlantic triumphal arch.

"From Sea to Shining Sea"

EOS 1D X, EF 11-24mm f/4L USM @ 11mm, 30 s, f/11, ISO 100

"WWII Memorial 'Atlantic' Arch"

EOS 1D X, EF 11-24mm f/4L USM @ 15mm, 15 s, f/11, ISO 100

As usual, click for larger. Thanks for looking!
Very nice.

Jack