Canon 11-24mm or not?

[tpatana]

I've heard lot of good about the 11-24mm lens, but it's bit pricey, especially since I don't shoot too often at that range. And I already have Rokinon 14/2.8 and Canon 15mm fish-eye.

If I sold those two and got the 11-24mm, would I miss anything? I don't really like the FE effect itself. Is the 11mm much wider that 15FE? (can't find actual comparison on those two, and for fact I know the 15FE is much wider than my Rokinon 14mm)

Any reasons why I should switch? Any reasons why I shouldn't?

 

[privatebydesign]

Not worth it in my opinion unless you have a very compelling reason for the 11-16 range, I own the 11-24 and the 15 Fisheye.

There are some good comparison images here including the fisheye defished, which I find a very high quality solution. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/canon_ef11-24f4l.html

For the best method of using defishing to get anamorphic images take a look at this article. http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/

 

[candc]

Not worth it in my opinion unless you have a very compelling reason for the 11-16 range, I own the 11-24 and the 15 Fisheye.

There are some good comparison images here including the fisheye defished, which I find a very high quality solution. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/canon_ef11-24f4l.html

For the best method of using defishing to get anamorphic images take a look at this article. http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/

That's a great article about defishing. I love my 15mm fisheye and use it a lot. The results from the lonely speck method look much better than defishing with Lightfoom or dxo. I like that it doesn't look super stretched out and is still sharp in the corners. I am going to give that method a go.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have mentioned the plugin they use, FisheyeHemi, many times on the forum, it is a fantastic little tool. When I tested the EF 14mm f2.8 MkII (two copies) against the EF 15mm f2.8 defished using FisheyeHemi I found the 15mm to have much higher IQ, especially in the corners.

That the Lonely Speck technique takes the simple FisheyeHemi plugin to a new level just adds to the greatness of it! I agree that regular 'simple' rectilinear conversions, like in LR, are not good for the fisheye.

 

[candc]

I had that plugin at one time. I don't think I really ever gave it a good try. I am going to get it again. I didn't use it because I was mostly using the fisheye for stitching panos with ptgui.. I think the plugin will be really useful now with the higher resolution sensors we have.

Hi res Fisheye shot, dxo conversion no geometry correction, fisheye hemi, downsample with bicubic sharper, shazaam!

 

[Hector1970]

My 2 cents would be.
Cons
The 11-24MM is very heavy. Graduated filter use is a problem.
Lee have a partial solution from 13mm to 24mm I think (but big and expensive).
The big bulbous front is scary. I'll cry if I break / scratch it.

Pro's
Its sharp, very sharp really.
It gives the opportunity to take photos and give a look/POV that no other lens can at 11mm
It can make the sky very dramatic.
Held parallel to the ground its remarkable in its ability to keep a straight horizon at 11mm.

I really like mine but its not a very practical lens to carry around. It adds alot of weight to a bag and for minimal use. I get far more use out of the 16-35 F4 IS which I rate highly.
I wouldn't have it on top of your wanted list but if have almost everything else and have a good eye for foreground for a wide angle shot it can give you some amazing shots that are completely different to what the photographers around you can get.
The fact it's zoom to 24mm is a plus as this is a very common focal length and its sharp at 24mm.
I love really wide angle so I'm going to hold onto mine.

 

[Halfrack]

For a wedding shooter, the 11mm was awesome, and able to capture a scene where stitching or backing up wasn't possible.

 

[privatebydesign]

For a wedding shooter, the 11mm was awesome, and able to capture a scene where stitching or backing up wasn't possible.

Do you have examples of that, I'd like to see them.

 

[ecqns]

I shoot architecture with an a7r and the 17 & 24 TSE's. Begrudgingly bought the 11-24 for tight spaces like a bathroom or kitchen. Really sharp lens - just really wide, I always crop from a 3:2 ratio down to a 4:3 ratio to lose that wide angle lens look.

 

[privatebydesign]

I shoot architecture with an a7r and the 17 & 24 TSE's. Begrudgingly bought the 11-24 for tight spaces like a bathroom or kitchen. Really sharp lens - just really wide, I always crop from a 3:2 ratio down to a 4:3 ratio to lose that wide angle lens look.

I did the same, gave up the 16-35 f4 IS (which I think is an unbelievably good lens) to shoot bathrooms and walk in closets with the 11-24 where the TS-E17 just wouldn't work.

Have you tried using the 'spherize' filter under 'Distort' in PS set to horizontal to remap the edges of the frame to make those edges more realistic? I am doing it more and more at the moment, it has it's limitations but works quite well sometimes.

 

[rs]

Is the 11mm much wider that 15FE? (can't find actual comparison on those two, and for fact I know the 15FE is much wider than my Rokinon 14mm)

The 11-24 at 11mm covers an angle of view (diagonally) of 126'. The 15mm fisheye is 180'.

 

[ecqns]

Have you tried using the 'spherize' filter under 'Distort' in PS set to horizontal to remap the edges of the frame to make those edges more realistic? I am doing it more and more at the moment, it has it's limitations but works quite well sometimes.

Still too distorted and difficult to control. This is why I'm constantly bothering Adobe to add more grid control points to the Warp tool. The way it is now is so limited. Or I've suggested adding a bezier curve control into the liquify dialogue. Puppet warp can't do it - its got to be the worst new feature in a long time.
I usually just scale the outside portions of the image in and crop off the edges.

 

[YellowJersey]

Since you don't often shoot in that range, I'd say your money is probably better spent elsewhere. Between the fisheye and the Rokinon, you've got decent coverage.

If you are in the market for a new lens, a better way to go may be the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8. It performs very well, nice and sharp, gives you autofocus (unlike the Rokinon), has stabilisation, gives you a 2.8 aperture (not necessarily vital, but handy), and is not only way less expensive than the 11-24mm but also very reasonably priced by any standard. I got one recently and I love it. I have to say that I never thought stabilisation on an UWA made any sense, but I have since changed my mind about that.

I think the only reason to buy the 11-24mm is if you need something wider than 14mm on a regular basis. It's an amazing lens, but unless you have a lot of money burning a hole in your pocket, I'd say it doesn't make practical sense for most people due to its cost.

 

[Canon_Shooter]

for the money not worth it, great lens, not as sharp as a 24 mk 2 or other regular wides but beats 8 - 15 , on a few places but the cost..... rent it, or CPS it

f/4 does not let in enough light. but needs to be restated, daylight its awesome. try it for a bit.

 

[1982chris911]

I've heard lot of good about the 11-24mm lens, but it's bit pricey, especially since I don't shoot too often at that range. And I already have Rokinon 14/2.8 and Canon 15mm fish-eye.

If I sold those two and got the 11-24mm, would I miss anything? I don't really like the FE effect itself. Is the 11mm much wider that 15FE? (can't find actual comparison on those two, and for fact I know the 15FE is much wider than my Rokinon 14mm)

Any reasons why I should switch? Any reasons why I shouldn't?

11-24mm is the best UWA in the Canon System ... Only reason not to use it, is you need f2.8, then you should go with the equally impressive Tamron 15-30mm ...

Problem about defishing is that the rendered frame is extremely wide (somewhere like 140-180 Deg of view on the diagonal) and you often need to crop a lot for anything other than an very extrem UWA perspective ... on the other hand the 11-24mm gets actually better in IQ from 11-14mm and stays impressive till 21mm while lossing a bit again till 24mm (all still on an extremely high level). so you don't crop but zoom your wide frame (which is often necessary for meaningful composition) IQ wise the 11-24 is better than all other UWA zooms (Canon 16-35 f4 IS and Tamron 15-30mm can compete). However the best about the 11-24 is its coatings and ability to produce the most beautiful sunstars and flare pattern that I have ever seen with ANY UWA lens (Including Zeiss) ...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

 

[privatebydesign]

I've heard lot of good about the 11-24mm lens, but it's bit pricey, especially since I don't shoot too often at that range. And I already have Rokinon 14/2.8 and Canon 15mm fish-eye.

If I sold those two and got the 11-24mm, would I miss anything? I don't really like the FE effect itself. Is the 11mm much wider that 15FE? (can't find actual comparison on those two, and for fact I know the 15FE is much wider than my Rokinon 14mm)

Any reasons why I should switch? Any reasons why I shouldn't?

11-24mm is the best UWA in the Canon System ... Only reason not to use it, is you need f2.8, then you should go with the equally impressive Tamron 15-30mm ...

Problem about defishing is that the rendered frame is extremely wide (somewhere like 140-180 Deg of view on the diagonal) and you often need to crop a lot for anything other than an very extrem UWA perspective ... on the other hand the 11-24mm gets actually better in IQ from 11-14mm and stays impressive till 21mm while lossing a bit again till 24mm (all still on an extremely high level). so you don't crop but zoom your wide frame (which is often necessary for meaningful composition) IQ wise the 11-24 is better than all other UWA zooms (Canon 16-35 f4 IS and Tamron 15-30mm can compete). However the best about the 11-24 is its coatings and ability to produce the most beautiful sunstars and flare pattern that I have ever seen with ANY UWA lens (Including Zeiss) ...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Nonsense, the 16-35 f4 is every bit as good a lens, optically 'better' (mine was sharper in the corners), cheaper, smaller, takes filters and has IS.

I agree about the 11-24 flare characteristics, and have commented on that in previous threads, but it is very easy to get that flare in the first place too because of the extreme front element..

 

[arthurbikemad]

Not much to add other than... I love my 11-24, don't use it much but when I do and you plant your eye on the viewfinder its like your eyelids have been folded back and your eyeballs pulled from there sockets, sucks up the FOV like a dyson on steroids!

 

[J.R.]

Not much to add other than... I love my 11-24, don't use it much but when I do and you plant your eye on the viewfinder its like your eyelids have been folded back and your eyeballs pulled from there sockets, sucks up the FOV like a dyson on steroids!

;D ;D

I love my 11-24 as well. If only because of the amount of $$$ I had to shell out for it.

That being said, it is the toughest lens I've used yet. The IQ is terrific, only problem is to get a good composition with the humongous FOV. This lens takes time to get used to, leave alone master.

It seems to be growing on me for sure ... I'm a bit better at it after loads of experimentation in the last month. hope to post some photos in the next week (I can't access my desktop till Monday).

 

[YuengLinger]

Not.

 

[1982chris911]

I've heard lot of good about the 11-24mm lens, but it's bit pricey, especially since I don't shoot too often at that range. And I already have Rokinon 14/2.8 and Canon 15mm fish-eye.

If I sold those two and got the 11-24mm, would I miss anything? I don't really like the FE effect itself. Is the 11mm much wider that 15FE? (can't find actual comparison on those two, and for fact I know the 15FE is much wider than my Rokinon 14mm)

Any reasons why I should switch? Any reasons why I shouldn't?

11-24mm is the best UWA in the Canon System ... Only reason not to use it, is you need f2.8, then you should go with the equally impressive Tamron 15-30mm ...

Problem about defishing is that the rendered frame is extremely wide (somewhere like 140-180 Deg of view on the diagonal) and you often need to crop a lot for anything other than an very extrem UWA perspective ... on the other hand the 11-24mm gets actually better in IQ from 11-14mm and stays impressive till 21mm while lossing a bit again till 24mm (all still on an extremely high level). so you don't crop but zoom your wide frame (which is often necessary for meaningful composition) IQ wise the 11-24 is better than all other UWA zooms (Canon 16-35 f4 IS and Tamron 15-30mm can compete). However the best about the 11-24 is its coatings and ability to produce the most beautiful sunstars and flare pattern that I have ever seen with ANY UWA lens (Including Zeiss) ...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Nonsense, the 16-35 f4 is every bit as good a lens, optically 'better' (mine was sharper in the corners), cheaper, smaller, takes filters and has IS.

I agree about the 11-24 flare characteristics, and have commented on that in previous threads, but it is very easy to get that flare in the first place too because of the extreme front element..

11-24 is way better corrected than the 16-35 at 16mm to 20mm while sharpness is about equal :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Secondly the UWA zoom range of the 11-24 is much more (11 to 24mm) while the 16-35mm only has 16-24mm when the second lens in your kit is the 24-70 f2.8 II which is better than both from 24mm onwards

Both this makes the 11-24 the better UWA of the both in my opinion as there are often situation where you need wider than 16mm which the smaller zoom just cannot cover. I have both and each has about 15 to 25k frames taken with a 5DMKIII and 5DsR (clearly the 11-24mm beats the 16-35mm bc of its better correction, flare characteristics and sunstars)... the 16-35 is preferable IF you need IS or the weight and size of the package matters or you need filters, optically the 11-24 is better.