Canon 11-24mm or not?

[deleteme]

At $3K the lens is fair value but you seem to be very casual about your use for it.

Trading in your two lenses would only go a short way to getting to the price you need.

In my opinion, this specialized lens (and the high price) would lead me to look at alternatives.

 

[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..

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.

Again, I disagree.

My 16-35 f4 IS was noticeably sharper than my 11-24, not enough to concern me most of the time, but it was there.

The magnitude of distortion the 16-35 exhibits is easily corrected automatically in post with no visible loss of image quality so really is a non issue.

The 11-24 might have better flare resistance but that is entirely overshadowed by the fact that it is magnitudes easier to get flare in the image in the first place. In my experience images from the 16-35 f4 IS display less flare than the 11-24 because it is so much easier to mitigate them.

As for focal length, your assumption that the 24 and over overlap is redundant is specious, in practice it is easier to establish if you are in a 16-35 or a 24-70 situation than it is to decide if you are in an 11-24 or 24-70 shooting environment. Having overlap is considerably easier to deal with most times than lens changes.

Lastly, 11-16 is incredibly wide, if you don't have an overriding need for that focal length, and have a good eye for composition, it truthfully isn't worth the price, weight, hassle, limitations or lack of IS, for 99.9% of people the 16-35 f4 IS is a much better and more useful purchase.

 

[Pookie]

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.

Again, I disagree.

My 16-35 f4 IS was noticeably sharper than my 11-24, not enough to concern me most of the time, but it was there.

The magnitude of distortion the 16-35 exhibits is easily corrected automatically in post with no visible loss of image quality so really is a non issue.

The 11-24 might have better flare resistance but that is entirely overshadowed by the fact that it is magnitudes easier to get flare in the image in the first place. In my experience images from the 16-35 f4 IS display less flare than the 11-24 because it is so much easier to mitigate them.

As for focal length, your assumption that the 24 and over overlap is redundant is specious, in practice it is easier to establish if you are in a 16-35 or a 24-70 situation than it is to decide if you are in an 11-24 or 24-70 shooting environment. Having overlap is considerably easier to deal with most times than lens changes.

Lastly, 11-16 is incredibly wide, if you don't have an overriding need for that focal length, and have a good eye for composition, it truthfully isn't worth the price, weight, hassle, limitations or lack of IS, for 99.9% of people the 16-35 f4 IS is a much better and more useful purchase.

Also owning both, this is the best description I've seen yet for the pros and cons of the new 16-35 and 11-24. I use my 16-35 most of the time, actually all of the time.

 

[Eldar]

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.

Again, I disagree.

My 16-35 f4 IS was noticeably sharper than my 11-24, not enough to concern me most of the time, but it was there.

The magnitude of distortion the 16-35 exhibits is easily corrected automatically in post with no visible loss of image quality so really is a non issue.

The 11-24 might have better flare resistance but that is entirely overshadowed by the fact that it is magnitudes easier to get flare in the image in the first place. In my experience images from the 16-35 f4 IS display less flare than the 11-24 because it is so much easier to mitigate them.

As for focal length, your assumption that the 24 and over overlap is redundant is specious, in practice it is easier to establish if you are in a 16-35 or a 24-70 situation than it is to decide if you are in an 11-24 or 24-70 shooting environment. Having overlap is considerably easier to deal with most times than lens changes.

Lastly, 11-16 is incredibly wide, if you don't have an overriding need for that focal length, and have a good eye for composition, it truthfully isn't worth the price, weight, hassle, limitations or lack of IS, for 99.9% of people the 16-35 f4 IS is a much better and more useful purchase.

Also owning both, this is the best description I've seen yet for the pros and cons of the new 16-35 and 11-24. I use my 16-35 most of the time, actually all of the time.

I also own both and totally agree with Privat´s description above. In my case though, I have hardly used the 16-35 since I got the 11-24. It is an extremely fun lens to use, but the point about 11-16 being incredibly wide is very valid. It becomes almost impossible to look at a scene and imagine what an 11mm capture will look like. It is clearly the most challenging lens I have in my portfolio (I have a few ...).

 

[midluk]

Do you have to take shoe cleaning equipment with you, if you use the 11-24? Or even multiple pairs of shoes and trousers to have the right ones for each composition?

 

[RGF]

11-24 is a great lens but as others have said it is awkward to use.

To made Canon can not make 14-24 or 14-35 with the curved front element. Similar in construction to the 16-35. f2.8 of course. Steal Nikon's thunder.

 

[rs]

Do you have to take shoe cleaning equipment with you, if you use the 11-24? Or even multiple pairs of shoes and trousers to have the right ones for each composition?

It's not quite that bad. In landscape orientation at 11mm, the FoV is 95' vertically. Held horizontally, thats only +/- 47' from the horizon. Compare that to the 8-15 @ 8mm, which has a 180' FoV vertically. If you don't point the 8-15 upwards, you've got to stand in a very awkward pose to keep your feet out of the view.

 

[J.R.]

11-24 is a great lens but as others have said it is awkward to use.

To made Canon can not make 14-24 or 14-35 with the curved front element. Similar in construction to the 16-35. f2.8 of course. Steal Nikon's thunder.

Nikon's thunder is already stolen with the 11-24 don't you think?

 

[Ozarker]

The Canon 11-24 would have fit my line-up perfectly, but I am a weirdo. On my zooms I have a very hard time accepting overlap. Ideal for me would be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200.

I ended up with the Tamron 15-30 after making the excruciating decision (OCD).

My plan was to use the lens for real estate and astro photography etc.. Since the Canon is an f/4 the Tamron seemed a better choice for me.

Believe me, cost was a factor too. I just could not justify the price difference because I knew I would not use the lens very often.

Turns out the Tamron is an excellent lens for the money. Has less coma. It isn't the f/2.8 as labeled (I read it is actually a 3.2). But is is still a fine lens and has opened my eyes to the possibility of including 3rd party primes when they can beat the Canon offering. I also like the heavy feel of the Tamron.

The same day while shopping I held the Canon 14mm and it just did not "feel" like the $$$ it cost. I got the Tamron.

I hope you enjoy whatever you get. Have you decided?

 

[canonix]

I haven´t got any experience with the 11-24mm Canon, I can only refer to the Sigma 12-24mm F4,5-5,6 DG HSM II, which is way under the price of the Canon lense and achieves really good results in matters of colour-quality and you are still around the 11mm range.

 

[Haydn1971]

Given the recent news of he Irix 11mm, if I was in the market for a 11-24mm, I'd seriously hold off until reviews of the 11mm Irix come through

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I think that the Canon lens is the best optically that is currently available. But how many people us a lens this wide and shoot wide open? Usually the main use of such a wide lens is to get close and bend perspectives into creative shapes. So stopping down is usually required. The cost and size is a stopped for me, I would use a lens like this so little it would be hard for me to justify the bag space and ticket price. I personally, would be far better served with a good copy of the Sigma 12-24mm mkII. Only you can make that choice.
The Sigma is nearly as wide, it's a lot cheaper, lighter and smaller. If you are stopping down, I doubt there is much difference in image quality unless one is being very very pikki.

Canon 5DII, Sigma 12-24mm. 12mm @ f8. The lake in the foreground is just a small puddle about 24" across. Get up close with a tripod at rack to 12mm and it looks like a small lake.

 

[freophotos]

Given the recent news of he Irix 11mm, if I was in the market for a 11-24mm, I'd seriously hold off until reviews of the 11mm Irix come through

I bought the 11-24 lens for the occasional architectural shoot but it quickly became the lens that spends the most time on my camera. I shoot for a community newspaper a couple of days a week, and I find the extended wide zoom range the 11-24 offers me provides great flexibility for news and advertising shoots alike. The 16-35mm I used previously never makes it out of the safe.
Coupled with the 24-105mm L. and 120-300mm f2.8, I feel I have the whole range covered with a great kit, (though I'd love to see an ultra-sharp 24-105, or a Canon 24-70 f2.8 IS)

 

[pedro]

Given the recent news of he Irix 11mm, if I was in the market for a 11-24mm, I'd seriously hold off until reviews of the 11mm Irix come through

Plus one

 

[Krob78]

I have both, I use both, I love both! The 11-24mm has been on my camera a bit more than the 16-35mm IS but they're both great lenses. I do quite a bit of RE work as well and the 11-24mm is brilliant for most of the interior work. Thought originally that I may have gotten rid of one, after getting the other but haven't yet..

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Given the recent news of he Irix 11mm, if I was in the market for a 11-24mm, I'd seriously hold off until reviews of the 11mm Irix come through

Plus one

There's also the Laowa Zero-D 12mm f/2.8 coming out soon as well. So it would be interesting to see both these two primes, the Sigma 12-24mm II and the Canon 11-24L tested together.

 

[romanr74]

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.

Again, I disagree.

My 16-35 f4 IS was noticeably sharper than my 11-24, not enough to concern me most of the time, but it was there.

The magnitude of distortion the 16-35 exhibits is easily corrected automatically in post with no visible loss of image quality so really is a non issue.

The 11-24 might have better flare resistance but that is entirely overshadowed by the fact that it is magnitudes easier to get flare in the image in the first place. In my experience images from the 16-35 f4 IS display less flare than the 11-24 because it is so much easier to mitigate them.

As for focal length, your assumption that the 24 and over overlap is redundant is specious, in practice it is easier to establish if you are in a 16-35 or a 24-70 situation than it is to decide if you are in an 11-24 or 24-70 shooting environment. Having overlap is considerably easier to deal with most times than lens changes.

Lastly, 11-16 is incredibly wide, if you don't have an overriding need for that focal length, and have a good eye for composition, it truthfully isn't worth the price, weight, hassle, limitations or lack of IS, for 99.9% of people the 16-35 f4 IS is a much better and more useful purchase.

I wouldn't throw the two lenses in the same basket.

The 16-35 f/4 IS is a wonderful, affordable lens. It is a perfect walk around lens, I guess you can leave the house with only this lens in your bag and not miss too many shots. I'm overall very happy with it! But not blown away... maybe because I was used to the angles/FOV from my 16-35 f/2.8 II - which, though, has severe optical issues in the corners in my opinion.

The 11-24 f/4 is a piece of art, a unique mindblowing piece of glass, new FOV/angles to get used to, opening up new creative possibilities. I was very excited about the lens when it was launched, it took me a while to actually get it because it has a hefty price. I have not the slightest regret about getting it though. I spent a weekend in Italy where I used the lens practically as my walk-around-lens. The 4 pictures I posted under my 500px account made the lens my lens with the most likes at 500px within 2 days. It is not for everybody, but it is clearly a fantastic lens.

If it's really only for 0.1% of people then, hey, I'm part of the elite...

 

[J.R.]

The 16-35 f/4 IS is a wonderful, affordable lens. It is a perfect walk around lens, I guess you can leave the house with only this lens in your bag and not miss too many shots. I'm overall very happy with it! But not blown away... maybe because I was used to the angles/FOV from my 16-35 f/2.8 II - which, though, has severe optical issues in the corners in my opinion.

The AOV is identical for the 16-35 f/2.8 II and the 16-35 f/4

 

[romanr74]

The 16-35 f/4 IS is a wonderful, affordable lens. It is a perfect walk around lens, I guess you can leave the house with only this lens in your bag and not miss too many shots. I'm overall very happy with it! But not blown away... maybe because I was used to the angles/FOV from my 16-35 f/2.8 II - which, though, has severe optical issues in the corners in my opinion.

The AOV is identical for the 16-35 f/2.8 II and the 16-35 f/4

Thats what i meant ???

 

[J.R.]

The 16-35 f/4 IS is a wonderful, affordable lens. It is a perfect walk around lens, I guess you can leave the house with only this lens in your bag and not miss too many shots. I'm overall very happy with it! But not blown away... maybe because I was used to the angles/FOV from my 16-35 f/2.8 II - which, though, has severe optical issues in the corners in my opinion.

The AOV is identical for the 16-35 f/2.8 II and the 16-35 f/4

Thats what i meant ???

From the text highlighted in red in your comment above, you are basically saying that the angles / FOV of the f/2.8II and f/4 are different.