Anyone receive 11-24 yet (or shipping notice)
- Thread starter RGF
- Start date
Looking at the 11-24 makes me wonder if Canon couldn't have produced a multi-position hood for the 17mm TS-E (orient the petals so they don't come in the way of the wider side).
Upvote
0
bgateb said:i'm excited to start playing with it
Working on a review.
Man, that is one hunk* of glass! Let us know when you complete your review!
*typo corrected
Upvote
0
sagittariansrock said:
But then for it to be close to effective you'd have to move the hood each time you shifted, and the problem with that is actually seeing the vignetting before you take the image, just look at the completely impractical and ineffectual hood for the 24mm TS-E MkII. Also, interestingly, the shift stitched 17 still gives a wider horizontal view than the 11-24, though the the projection distortion from the 11-24 seems lower.
In the instruction manual it says to use a piece of cardboard to shade the lens from light sources and in truth that method works well.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I think that's the funniest thing Canon has ever published and I'm mad they didn't include an official piece of cardboard! Just kidding...and the TS-E 24 hood is better than nothing, but that's not really saying much. It's marginally better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II hood, which I also found all but useless. I'm working on my first batch of 11-24 photos as I type this...
Upvote
0
mackguyver said:
What, your 24 TS-E didn't come with the official Canon cardboard shade? Mine did, it is about 4" x 7" and has Canon logo in red on one side and is a mat black on the other, you are supposed to use it with a Wimberly Plamp, but the Plamp II is much better.
Looking forwards to seeing those 11-24 images, don't suppose you have any fisheye shots for comparison?
Upvote
0
Mine was a refurb so it came in a less glamorous white box and I don't have a Plamp but have been meaning to pick one up some day. Usually my hand is big enough to shade, but during long exposures, it's hard to hold it exactly in place.privatebydesign said:mackguyver said:
What, your 24 TS-E didn't come with the official Canon cardboard shade? Mine did, it is about 4" x 7" and has Canon logo in red on one side and is a mat black on the other, you are supposed to use it with a Wimberly Plamp, but the Plamp II is much better.
Looking forwards to seeing those 11-24 images, don't suppose you have any fisheye shots for comparison?
Also, no fisheye, sorry. I bought the 8-15, but it had an issue, and it was around the time the 11-24 was all but confirmed so I just returned it for a refund.
Upvote
0
jeffa4444, that's interesting. My sense is that Canon was smart to go 11-24 at F4 rather than simply improve on Nikon 14-24 F2.8. Guess the numbers will ultimately prove or disprove that.
Jack
Jack
Upvote
0
Tested the lens today. Did a panning with a 5Ds. Heavy distortion - so definitely not a video lens as the pan view will look bad. Holding in same position may work. Not so impressed.
Upvote
0
asmundma said:
The 'distortion' is not an aberration though, distortion as an aberration is remarkably well controlled on the 11-24, the 'distortion' you are seeing is projection distortion and is a fundamental function of the rectilinear projection of such a wide fov.
Upvote
0
Private is right - the geometric distortion is well controlled, but bending all that light to fit in a 3:2 / 16:9 frame causes projection distortion on the sides & corners. In terms of video, have you seen this video from Canon:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXTSrxuZ43A
If not, it should give you a better idea about its use. Also, how did you get a hold of a 5Ds?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXTSrxuZ43A
If not, it should give you a better idea about its use. Also, how did you get a hold of a 5Ds?
Upvote
0
