Canon 11-24mm or not?

[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 ???

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.

are you nuts...? i was saying that i was not blown away by the 16-35 f/4 because i was used to these angles already from using the 16-35 f/2.8... because they are the same...!!!
if you for the first time use a 16-35 f/4 and never used that angle before, you might be differently impressed by it through its high quality and the new to you angles...

 

[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.

are you nuts...? i was saying that i was not blown away by the 16-35 f/4 because i was used to these angles already from using the 16-35 f/2.8... because they are the same...!!!
if you for the first time use a 16-35 f/4 and never used that angle before, you might be differently impressed by it through its high quality and the new to you angles...

My bad! I read it differently. So if I understand correctly, it isn't about the f/2.8 over the f/4 lens, its about the focal length of 16-35mm that you are not 'blown away'.

Peace ... J.R.

 

[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 ???

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.

are you nuts...? i was saying that i was not blown away by the 16-35 f/4 because i was used to these angles already from using the 16-35 f/2.8... because they are the same...!!!
if you for the first time use a 16-35 f/4 and never used that angle before, you might be differently impressed by it through its high quality and the new to you angles...

My bad! I read it differently. So if I understand correctly, it isn't about the f/2.8 over the f/4 lens, its about the focal length of 16-35mm that you are not 'blown away'.

Peace ... J.R.

I was impressed with the very high optical quality of the lens. I don't mind too much that it is "only" f/4 - for my uses the IS makes good for that stop lost over the f/2.8. But the lens didn't add a new "FOV experience" to my gear set, I was used to the 16-35 range from my 2.8 already. So for me it was not venturing into new angles and perspectives - which took "this" WOW-element out of the lens for me.

The 11-24 has the former 16-35 user venture into new creative possiblities through its sheer wideness.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It's hard to compose with such a wide lens. I had similar issues with the Sigma 12-24mm when it was first launched. It just takes some time to "see" and what makes a good silly wide shot.

 

[romanr74]

It's hard to compose with such a wide lens. I had similar issues with the Sigma 12-24mm when it was first launched. It just takes some time to "see" and what makes a good silly wide shot.

I didn't talk about issues - but creative possibilities...

 

[JJF]

Yes, I totally recommend the 11-24. Its one of my favorite lenses.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

Sorry....but there IS no better correction. All wide lenses distort. A lens designer either corrects for straight lines (like the 15mm L) or one corrects for circles and gets a fisheye....or one corrects a bit in the middle and gets a 16-35IIL approach. They are all corrected by design and the 16-35IIL type of correction is intended to be a happy medium which works for architecture and people.

 

[Vern]

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.

Zoom overlap cause cognitive dissonance for me too. I know it isn't logical, but there it is....

Contemplating the 11-24 and the 5DSR as a joint purchase before my next backpacking trip. I do a lot of Canyonland trips or similar and the 16-35 just isn't wide enough and there isn't/aren't always time/conditions to shoot a pano.

 

[JMZawodny]

I picked up the 11-24 this past week at a good price along with a rebate. I tend to shoot mostly with long lenses and got this to challenge myself. It is indeed a challenging lens for me. It really emphasizes the need to properly compose the image. If you shoot ultra-wide often, I think you'll love this lens. A little pixel peeping has yet to uncover any issues that are not easily dealt with in post processing, but you already knew that. I'm looking forward to completing the learning curve.

 

[iaind]

eat lens. Got mine as part of 5DSR deal with cashback and saved a bundle

 

[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.

Zoom overlap cause cognitive dissonance for me too. I know it isn't logical, but there it is....

Contemplating the 11-24 and the 5DSR as a joint purchase before my next backpacking trip. I do a lot of Canyonland trips or similar and the 16-35 just isn't wide enough and there isn't/aren't always time/conditions to shoot a pano.

Vern, it got worse for me because I settled on the excellent Tamron 15-30... so overlap AND a non-Canon lens in the bag.

The Tamron is very nicely built, heavy lens. I'm obsessive compulsive so it still bugs me months later. Just weird old me.

Just like the 600EX-RT... had I not been injured and thrown out of work I'd have got fifteen of those suckers just because you can use fifteen at once. That's the only reason.

 

[tpatana]

Just like the 600EX-RT... had I not been injured and thrown out of work I'd have got fifteen of those suckers just because you can use fifteen at once. That's the only reason.

Soo... like this, but longer?

http://neilvn.com/tangents/images/flash/gear/NV2_7880.jpg

 

[privatebydesign]

Just like the 600EX-RT... had I not been injured and thrown out of work I'd have got fifteen of those suckers just because you can use fifteen at once. That's the only reason.

Soo... like this, but longer?

http://neilvn.com/tangents/images/flash/gear/NV2_7880.jpg

No, these are much better, two IDC Triple Threat's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaALe0w992E

 

[tpatana]

Aside from being AA-battery-powered, why in earth you wouldn't use normal studio strobes? Pretty much any strobe in the market would be cheaper.

 

[privatebydesign]

Aside from being AA-battery-powered, why in earth you wouldn't use normal studio strobes? Pretty much any strobe in the market would be cheaper.

ETTL, HSS!

Until the newer round of 'off camera flash' IGBT powered 500-650 ws battery powered strobes came out it was the only way to get ETTL and HSS powerful enough to be useful in bright sun. it also makes for a very flexible package, need two background lights a hair light a fill light and a key light? Well your set of 600's can do that, your single strobe can't. Want to place accent lights around an interior? Your 600's can do that too.

Lighting solutions are tools, there is a place for all of them.

 

[Ozarker]

Just like the 600EX-RT... had I not been injured and thrown out of work I'd have got fifteen of those suckers just because you can use fifteen at once. That's the only reason.

Soo... like this, but longer?

http://neilvn.com/tangents/images/flash/gear/NV2_7880.jpg

No, these are much better, two IDC Triple Threat's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaALe0w992E

Only have one triple threat, but you get the idea. (Note to self: Need two more triple threats. Can't have just a single triple. DUH!) :-[

Stupid. Just three good high powered strobes like that flashpoint would have done it and much more professional looking too than ganging up so many speedlites.

At the time I was reading Syl Arena's "Speedliters Handbook" and thought it was cool drilling mounting holes in 2x4s to mount 15 speedlites. Now it just seems lame. I now realize that Mr. Arena gets paid to drill holes and I don't.

Shoulda took a nice vacation to Hawaii instead and let the gear lust evaporate.

It takes 5 or 6 600EX-RT to match that single Flashpoint and it gives very nice light at 360ws. Another time I let reason and sanity overrule compulsion (Getting the Flashpoint). It has been good therapy.

 

[privatebydesign]

The original style Triple Threat is much better than the current design. IDC did a much better job than Westcott and Bruce Dorn obviously 'sold out' to make it happen.

 

[Ozarker]

The original style Triple Threat is much better than the current design. IDC did a much better job than Westcott and Bruce Dorn obviously 'sold out' to make it happen.

Anodized billet aluminum with laser etched biker designed logos would be all the rage.

 

[tpatana]

Aside from being AA-battery-powered, why in earth you wouldn't use normal studio strobes? Pretty much any strobe in the market would be cheaper.

ETTL, HSS!

Until the newer round of 'off camera flash' IGBT powered 500-650 ws battery powered strobes came out it was the only way to get ETTL and HSS powerful enough to be useful in bright sun. it also makes for a very flexible package, need two background lights a hair light a fill light and a key light? Well your set of 600's can do that, your single strobe can't. Want to place accent lights around an interior? Your 600's can do that too.

Lighting solutions are tools, there is a place for all of them.

I give you the ETTL, but anything else my Rovelight 600 can handle, including HSS up to 1/8000. And one of those costs about same as one 600EX-RT.

There's place for speedlites too, I use them frequently. But going beyond few (~2-4) sounds waste of money to me, I'd rather take the rovelight when I need more power.

 

[Ozarker]

Just like the 600EX-RT... had I not been injured and thrown out of work I'd have got fifteen of those suckers just because you can use fifteen at once. That's the only reason.

Soo... like this, but longer?

http://neilvn.com/tangents/images/flash/gear/NV2_7880.jpg

Yeah, or a Syl Arena endorsed 2x4.