What's your thoughts: Photozone's Canon 11-24mm f/4 L review?

[pj1974]

Hi all

On 16 July 2015, Klaus from Photozone.de posted his review of the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4 L USM

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/940-canon1124f4?start=1

The analysis outcome from testing a copy of that lens (on the 50 MP Canon EOS 5Ds R) indicates it faces a number of challenges (understandably) - particularly at 11mm:

• corner sharpness - not sharp at any aperture
• vignetting - very high, especially wide open 3.3 EV
• barrel distortion - high at 4.46%
• Chromatic Aberrations (border CAs) - high ~3.8 pixels

Flare actually is quite good. No mention is made of bokeh (understandably).
Vignetting, barrel distortions and border CAs can be (mostly) corrected in post.
But sharpness can not actually be added in post. I realise that 50 MP is a new benchmark (which Klaus also clearly states in his review).

I appreciate the physical constraints and challenges of creating such a lens - and I applaud Canon for creating this lens... However I am really interested what other CR folk here think of the lens - particularly seeing the Photozone review.

Looking forward to your comments, for a useful & good thread of discussion.
(PS... there are a number of threads about this lens, e.g. announcement, and now some in use, with great photos - but I particularly wanted to receive & read people's thoughts on the lens review!)

Paul 8)

 

[Sporgon]

I read the Photozone review too. I don't have the lens, nor would I ever as it is far too wide for my style of shooting. However some of those who's opinions I respect on CR rate this lens - highly.

 

[privatebydesign]

It depends how you look at it. If you don't NEED 11-16 then the 16-35 f4 IS is a much "better" lens that is more user friendly and has better bench figures, a more 'useful' range and IS. If you need 14-16 then the 11-24 is much better than then current 14mm MkII, if you need 11-14 then there really isn't much choice, if you would like 11 then there is no choice.

I have the 11-24 and find it a superb optic that's only real challenge is the ability to 'see' good compositions. 11 is very wide!

If you don't shoot with a need to 'get it all in', or have the super wide minds eye then it isn't worth three times the 16-35, indeed the 16-35 f4 IS is the nicer lens, the 11-24 does create new compositional opportunities that have never been available before and the IQ is certainly well above average.

 

[arthurbikemad]

Shame they did not choose a more current camera to review with but then I guess you have to start testing at 50mp at some point in time, I had the 14mm mk2 and have a 16-35mk2, waiting for my 11-24 for my 5d3, looking forward to getting stuck in. Loved my 14mm f2.8 Mk2.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Shame they did not choose a more current camera to review with but then I guess you have to start testing at 50mp at some point in time, I had the 14mm mk2 and have a 16-35mk2, waiting for my 11-24 for my 5d3, looking forward to getting stuck in. Loved my 14mm f2.8 Mk2.

What camera is more current?? The 50mp models are the newest, and are the ones which give the most benefit from the lens. If you can afford the lens, you might want to get or plan to get a 50mp camera as well.

Are you are wishing they would test it on a 3+ year old model?

Like it or not, we are going to see lenses tested on 50 mp bodies. The corners and edges will be worse than with a 50 mp camera, but the center will be much sharper. Results may not follow a pattern, just as a test on a APS-C sensor can look entirely different when done on FF. A stellar lens tested on a 5D MK III may reveal unexpected issues on the 50MP body.

 

[arthurbikemad]

Sorry I should have worded it better, I meant tested it on a body that can be compared against older benchmarks, given that the new sensor kind of makes a comparison difficult. I fully agree with your points, speaking as someone with a 5D3 I'd hoped that they would have tested both bodies on this lense, rightly as you say 50mp is the current benchmark and not my out of date 5D3. Plus this lense is designed around the new sensor so I am talking rubbish. I defo plan to get the new 5D but as for "as well" I may have to do some more saving first! For now the 5D3s ageing sensor will have to make do!



Not even sure why I felt compelled to post, perhaps excitement and anticipation of the new arrival!

Not a great first post....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Sorry I should have worded it better, I meant tested it on a body that can be compared against older benchmarks, given that the new sensor kind of makes a comparison difficult. I fully agree with your points, speaking as someone with a 5D3 I'd hoped that they would have tested both bodies on this lense, rightly as you say 50mp is the current benchmark and not my out of date 5D3. Plus this lense is designed around the new sensor so I am talking rubbish. I defo plan to get the new 5D but as for "as well" I may have to do some more saving first! For now the 5D3s ageing sensor will have to make do!



Not even sure why I felt compelled to post, perhaps excitement and anticipation of the new arrival!

Not a great first post....

I do expect to see lots of tests on older cameras, I'd look to " The Digital Picture" for some of the images of test targets. Many of the skilled lens testers are not wealthy people, so a big layout for all of the lenses and bodies is out of the question. They often rely on loaned gear.


They currently have test shots using three different cameras and you can compare the 21 mp 1DS MK III with the 7D MK II or the 5DS R.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

A quick look shows that the corners may look slightly better on the 1DS III, but the center of the image is simply amazing on the 5DS R.

 

[arthurbikemad]

As you would expect I have read ALL the current reviews and tests, it looks great! I was making a poor effort at conversation.. . Id love the 5DS R but it will be a while. I am sure some amazing photos will be taken with the new 11-24. Pixel peeping is something I try to avoid as it spoils my love of great photographs

 

[ajperk]

I wonder if wide angle lenses may suffer from a systematic problem in the way photozone tests lenses. If I have read correctly, they test the lenses using a chart/target. A given chart/target must fit the field of view of the lens to get comparable information across different lenses. Thus, for a given chart/target, lenses of longer focal length must be situated further away and lenses of short focal length must be closer to get the target to fill the frame. For shorter and shorter focal length lenses we get closer and closer to the minimum focusing distance of the lenses, where many lenses begin to show weaknesses. Is it possible that while at relatively close focusing distances, the 11-24mm isn't greater in the borders/corners, but at the actual focusing distances most people use the borders/corners are much better resolved? Images I've seen so far produced with this lens does not leave me with the impression that it has poor corner resolution.

Perhaps I misunderstand the way they test the lenses, or perhaps my reasoning is incorrect somewhere along the line. What do you all think?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I wonder if wide angle lenses may suffer from a systematic problem in the way photozone tests lenses. If I have read correctly, they test the lenses using a chart/target. A given chart/target must fit the field of view of the lens to get comparable information across different lenses. Thus, for a given chart/target, lenses of longer focal length must be situated further away and lenses of short focal length must be closer to get the target to fill the frame. For shorter and shorter focal length lenses we get closer and closer to the minimum focusing distance of the lenses, where many lenses begin to show weaknesses. Is it possible that while at relatively close focusing distances, the 11-24mm isn't greater in the borders/corners, but at the actual focusing distances most people use the borders/corners are much better resolved? Images I've seen so far produced with this lens does not leave me with the impression that it has poor corner resolution.

Perhaps I misunderstand the way they test the lenses, or perhaps my reasoning is incorrect somewhere along the line. What do you all think?

The issue of test methods may indeed be a factor, but a big issue with such a wide angle is that light rays strike the edges of the sensor at a pretty extreme angle. This causes even more vignetting, and while a camera does boost the gain of the surrounding photosites to partially compensate, its still bad.

The larger sensors have less of a issue, so they can have very wide angle lenses and still be sharp at the edges.

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals has probably the best test setup I've seen used for lens reviews. It is independent of the camera used, since it tests the lens alone. His test machine does not test all lens characteristics, but many can be inferred from the results.

Once they get data from many copies that are from different production batches (50 or more lenses), the picture will become clearer. and looking at just the mtf of the lens alone lets the effect of putting it on a camera body become apparent.

He just published data for many ultra wide lenses.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurements-for-wide-angle-lenses

 

[ajperk]

The issue of test methods may indeed be a factor, but a big issue with such a wide angle is that light rays strike the edges of the sensor at a pretty extreme angle. This causes even more vignetting, and while a camera does boost the gain of the surrounding photosites to partially compensate, its still bad.

The larger sensors have less of a issue, so they can have very wide angle lenses and still be sharp at the edges.

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals has probably the best test setup I've seen used for lens reviews. It is independent of the camera used, since it tests the lens alone. His test machine does not test all lens characteristics, but many can be inferred from the results.

Once they get data from many copies that are from different production batches (50 or more lenses), the picture will become clearer. and looking at just the mtf of the lens alone lets the effect of putting it on a camera body become apparent.

He just published data for many ultra wide lenses.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurements-for-wide-angle-lenses

I suppose it could be a phenomenon associated with vignetting, though I was wondering more about the effect of different types of aberrations at different focusing distances. I believe that Roger at LensRentals usually tests the lens with an optical bench which (if I am recalling correctly) takes measurements with the lens set at infinity focus. Would this make apparent aberrations which would have a significant impact at or near minimum focusing distances?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The issue of test methods may indeed be a factor, but a big issue with such a wide angle is that light rays strike the edges of the sensor at a pretty extreme angle. This causes even more vignetting, and while a camera does boost the gain of the surrounding photosites to partially compensate, its still bad.

The larger sensors have less of a issue, so they can have very wide angle lenses and still be sharp at the edges.

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals has probably the best test setup I've seen used for lens reviews. It is independent of the camera used, since it tests the lens alone. His test machine does not test all lens characteristics, but many can be inferred from the results.

Once they get data from many copies that are from different production batches (50 or more lenses), the picture will become clearer. and looking at just the mtf of the lens alone lets the effect of putting it on a camera body become apparent.

He just published data for many ultra wide lenses.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurements-for-wide-angle-lenses

I suppose it could be a phenomenon associated with vignetting, though I was wondering more about the effect of different types of aberrations at different focusing distances. I believe that Roger at LensRentals usually tests the lens with an optical bench which (if I am recalling correctly) takes measurements with the lens set at infinity focus. Would this make apparent aberrations which would have a significant impact at or near minimum focusing distances?

Lenses do behave differently for various focus distances, so a combination of Imatest and the trioptics image master can provide that data.

As you obviously already know, lens testing and understanding the results and their effect on real world camera usage is covered in advanced optics, and beyond the scope of this course

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/05/introducing-the-optical-bench

 

[lol]

Photozone use imatest, and uses a chart at a given distance. For this lens, it was stated in the forum they could effectively double the size of the chart by making one corner the centre of the image, and using the opposite corner to test the image edge.

It was also stated in the forum there will be testing of some (other) lenses on the previous and now 5Ds R for comparison.

From memory, Lensrental's OLAF tests at infinity, so results may vary from that.

 

[ahsanford]

Sorry I should have worded it better, I meant tested it on a body that can be compared against older benchmarks, given that the new sensor kind of makes a comparison difficult. I fully agree with your points, speaking as someone with a 5D3 I'd hoped that they would have tested both bodies on this lense, rightly as you say 50mp is the current benchmark and not my out of date 5D3. Plus this lense is designed around the new sensor so I am talking rubbish. I defo plan to get the new 5D but as for "as well" I may have to do some more saving first! For now the 5D3s ageing sensor will have to make do!



Not even sure why I felt compelled to post, perhaps excitement and anticipation of the new arrival!

Not a great first post....

It's fair statement, I get you -- we want data to immediately compare this lens to others on the same sensor.

In that sense, PhotoZone, LensTip, DXO, etc. are staring at a painful cliff with the 5DS rigs. Once they start testing anythong on a 5DS/5DSr, they have to retest eeeeeeeverything. For a place like DXO that makes money through other channels, that won't be so problematic. But PhotoZone (I believe) gets by with single lenses that are often loaned to them. The re-test timeframe for smaller sites like that will be painfully slow.

- A

 

[keithcooper]

Interesting results - I'm using an 11-24 on a 5Ds and hope people do read and take in the caveats about change of testing methodology.

I first tested the 11-24 on my 1Ds3 for my own review, and it feels rather better in the edges than a cursory reading of the figures might suggest. On the 5Ds it's still superb and while the CA is more obvious (smaller pixels) it's no bigger (as a proportion of the image size) and is easily taken care of. I'm thinking of updating the review with a few 5Ds examples

The distortions mentioned at 11mm really don't seem as prominent as the figures would suggest, and the distortion that is there, is relatively clean - if you've tried correcting the distortions of a lens like the Samyang 14mm, you'll appreciate this ;-)

Excellent technical review, even if I fear that lens measurement data and the 5Ds/R will have launched many new topics for those that seem to prefer specifications over actual photography ;-)

 

[Mika]

I wonder if wide angle lenses may suffer from a systematic problem in the way photozone tests lenses. If I have read correctly, they test the lenses using a chart/target. A given chart/target must fit the field of view of the lens to get comparable information across different lenses. Thus, for a given chart/target, lenses of longer focal length must be situated further away and lenses of short focal length must be closer to get the target to fill the frame. For shorter and shorter focal length lenses we get closer and closer to the minimum focusing distance of the lenses, where many lenses begin to show weaknesses. Is it possible that while at relatively close focusing distances, the 11-24mm isn't greater in the borders/corners, but at the actual focusing distances most people use the borders/corners are much better resolved? Images I've seen so far produced with this lens does not leave me with the impression that it has poor corner resolution.

Perhaps I misunderstand the way they test the lenses, or perhaps my reasoning is incorrect somewhere along the line. What do you all think?

Your hunch is most likely correct up to certain level at least. I suspect the Photozone's reported distortion number is specifically affected by this, most of the floating element objectives have an increased distortion near minimum focus distance (double that if it is a zoom). Typically this is the case for corner sharpness as well, as the edges do not really matter that much at macro ratios.

 

[Bdube]

I wonder if wide angle lenses may suffer from a systematic problem in the way photozone tests lenses. If I have read correctly, they test the lenses using a chart/target. A given chart/target must fit the field of view of the lens to get comparable information across different lenses. Thus, for a given chart/target, lenses of longer focal length must be situated further away and lenses of short focal length must be closer to get the target to fill the frame. For shorter and shorter focal length lenses we get closer and closer to the minimum focusing distance of the lenses, where many lenses begin to show weaknesses. Is it possible that while at relatively close focusing distances, the 11-24mm isn't greater in the borders/corners, but at the actual focusing distances most people use the borders/corners are much better resolved? Images I've seen so far produced with this lens does not leave me with the impression that it has poor corner resolution.

Perhaps I misunderstand the way they test the lenses, or perhaps my reasoning is incorrect somewhere along the line. What do you all think?

The issue of test methods may indeed be a factor, but a big issue with such a wide angle is that light rays strike the edges of the sensor at a pretty extreme angle. This causes even more vignetting, and while a camera does boost the gain of the surrounding photosites to partially compensate, its still bad.

The larger sensors have less of a issue, so they can have very wide angle lenses and still be sharp at the edges.

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals has probably the best test setup I've seen used for lens reviews. It is independent of the camera used, since it tests the lens alone. His test machine does not test all lens characteristics, but many can be inferred from the results.

Once they get data from many copies that are from different production batches (50 or more lenses), the picture will become clearer. and looking at just the mtf of the lens alone lets the effect of putting it on a camera body become apparent.

He just published data for many ultra wide lenses.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurements-for-wide-angle-lenses

Tuesday we are launching a new database / search / comparison tool for the data. The 11-24 is on my list for testing but won't be done for maybe a week or more.

A very select few micro four thirds lenses are on my radar, as are completing some more Nikon lenses. There is also stop down data for key models to take. I do not have long enough left at OLAF to test every lens at all apertures but I can do a good number of them.

 

[ahsanford]

In my opinion they saw that they couldn't compete with the Nikon 14-24 2.8 in optics and the 2.8 aperture size. So they instead made it an f4, and to make up for it, put some additional focal length on the lower end to it. For me, a superb 14-24 in 2.8 is way more useful than the 11-24 with f4. Won't buy that thing as a consequence.
14-24 f2.8 or f2, tack sharp, no/lowest coma, low ca, now that would be something I would think about spending 3600 euros on.

That all depends on your perspective. On the ultra-wide end of shooting, there are two camps: those desperately needing f/2.8 performance (events/sports/astro people) and those who simply do not care about shooting wide open at all (landscapers, architecture, interiors, etc.).

For the first group, the 11-24 f/4L was not made for you, plain and simple -- you might get great shots with it, but it's not as ideal a lens as other options. Those folks should shoot with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, or possibly that new Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC.

For the second group, the 11-24 f/4L is a very nice option and might be right for their needs. I see it as a super-specialty lens for those that desperately need to get that wide and will give up front filter threads to do so.

But please don't try to compare the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 to this Canon 11-24 f/4L. 11-13 makes this lens a nutty different animal to me. For every Canon person wishing ours was an f/2.8, there is a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 user wishing their lens went down to 11mm.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

And as a side comment, I also think there's a misconception that Canon needs a best in class UWA events/sports lens and a best in class landscape tool in the same lens. I strongly disagree. Just because Nikon pulled that off does not mean Canon should do the same.

Canon is (in my mind) being pretty wise here with a three-headed ultra-wide strategy:

11-24 f/4L --> interiors, architecture, photogs who have caught the really really really ultrawide bug
16-35 f/4L IS --> landscapers, videographers
16-35 f/2.8L II (and surely, the III is coming) --> sports / events, possibly astro.

The reason why I think this is wise is that middle line above. Nikon seemingly found it's way into every landscaper's bag with the tandem of the D8x0 sensors and that 14-24 lens. Canon had a 50 MP rig in development, and they knew landscapers would want a killer lens to support it. That, to me, says to lose the weight/cost/complexity of f/2.8 (unnecessary when you are shooting in the f/8 - f/14 neighborhood so often), offer a properly set front filter ring that is as close as possible to the front element to minimize vignetting with 4x6 systems, and make it as sharp as possible. They did all of those things, and I love them for it.

When Canon finally follows through with a proper 16-35 f/2.8L III, they will have optimized tools for the three camps above. The landscapers aren't lugging around paperweights that require complicated filter outriggers, the ultra-ultra-ultrawide camp has a tool of legend, and event people have a workhorse wide-open specialist that they can rely upon. Win win win.

- A

 

[SwnSng]

I've owned both lenses and pretty much instantly sold my Nikon 14-24 after shooting with the 11-24 for a couple of weeks. The images in the 11-24 in my eyes are just as sharp with better contrast and color and it's not a subtle difference either. I ended up picking up a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for my Astro stuff and never looked back.