Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
This is where I don't get why Canon would make this lens f/2.8 leading to a huge size & cost. Action shooters are much more likely to use a fisheye instead of an 11mm lens, and I'm not seeing much bokeh this wide. Also, with today's high ISO bodies, and lenses this wide, who can't handhold at 1/10-1/30s? I thought that the f/4 aperture was the smartest decision Canon made with the 16-35 f/4 IS. I love fast lenses and would kill for this proposed lens, but I just don't see the need for f/2.8 on this lens.
Then again, it's CR1, so we're probably just making fools of ourselves by discussing this ridiculous rumor.
Then again, it's CR1, so we're probably just making fools of ourselves by discussing this ridiculous rumor.
Upvote
0
It will be expensive, and it will probably be great. I just hope they keep the size and weight down, even if it has to be 12-24 or 14-24, or even 12-24 f/4L.
I decided not to "upgrade" my 16-35 2.8L II since at equivalent focal lengths, it is the same as the f/4L IS and yet it still goes to 2.8. But if this is a sharp 12-24 f/4L and no bigger or heavier than the 16-35, I may trade up to this. I have plenty of options covering 24-35 already, but nothing under 16.
I decided not to "upgrade" my 16-35 2.8L II since at equivalent focal lengths, it is the same as the f/4L IS and yet it still goes to 2.8. But if this is a sharp 12-24 f/4L and no bigger or heavier than the 16-35, I may trade up to this. I have plenty of options covering 24-35 already, but nothing under 16.
Upvote
0
11mm at f/2.8 and a subject distance of 4.7 feet = infinite depth of field from 2.38 feet onward, according to DOF Master. So, one could handhold at shutter speeds greater than 1 second with f/2.8 after the sun sets and get everything in focus. Sounds like a very specialized use... :
Upvote
0
jebrady03 said:11mm at f/2.8 and a subject distance of 4.7 feet = infinite depth of field from 2.38 feet onward, according to DOF Master. So, one could handhold at shutter speeds greater than 1 second with f/2.8 after the sun sets and get everything in focus. Sounds like a very specialized use... :
Holy hyperfocal, Batman!
bvukich said:
You have won the day. Excellent reference.
Upvote
0
This would be my dream lens. I was saying earlier in the week how much I would love a 12mm F/2.8 but 11!?!
I do a lot of barmy artsy stuff at 12 - the 14 F/2.8L II just doesn't cut it - and I would love that extra mm.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/organize/?start_tab=one_set72157646248821401
And I actually would pay the (no-doubt) £2,800 that it will cost. It's a lot of cash but ELEVEN?!?
I do a lot of barmy artsy stuff at 12 - the 14 F/2.8L II just doesn't cut it - and I would love that extra mm.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/organize/?start_tab=one_set72157646248821401
And I actually would pay the (no-doubt) £2,800 that it will cost. It's a lot of cash but ELEVEN?!?
Upvote
0
worth waiting for
Was debating the new 16-35 IS 4 to replace the 16-35 2.8II, but only for the IQ - I don't need the IS on an UWA. Now, I can think about having 11-70 mm covered with the same IQ as the 24-70 2.8 II. If my IQ wish is true, I will happily pay the price. Possible in 2015?
Was debating the new 16-35 IS 4 to replace the 16-35 2.8II, but only for the IQ - I don't need the IS on an UWA. Now, I can think about having 11-70 mm covered with the same IQ as the 24-70 2.8 II. If my IQ wish is true, I will happily pay the price. Possible in 2015?
Upvote
0
Vern said:
I am in the same boat. There's no real IQ improvement in the 16-35 f/4L IS. They are the same at equivalent apertures. The fact that they are the same weight and size, and that the 16-35 f/2.8L II goes to 2.8 convinced me to skip the f/4, but an 11/12/14 - 24 is more tempting. I realllly hope they go with f/4 on this to keep the weight down, because f/2.8 is bound to be big and heavy, not to mention much more expensive.
Upvote
0
mackguyver said:
Perhaps it was easier to get around Nikon's patents by going to 11 rather than 12 or 14 at the wide end...
Upvote
0
Agreed - however, where's all the people that were crying that the 16-35 came out as a 4.0?mackguyver said:
Two weeks or less ago you'd think canon killed their puppy for not coming out with a fast UWA to complete against the 14-24/2.8 nikon now everyone's complaining that it's a) a crap ton wider b) not priced less than the nikkor (like really people?!) c) not 4.0.
this will be very hard to get the corners in critical focus from infinity - can't really to around F/4.0 with critical precision of 2Lp's versus a standard calculator which uses .030mm as it's CoC.
Upvote
0
Don't you guys think it's an approach that Canon usually gets its f/2.8 without IS (e.g 16-25/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 ) out the door first? That can showcase what they can achieve.
Then sometime later they release their f/4 IS variants (e.g. 16-35/4 IS, 24-70/4 IS, 70-200/4 IS) to suit different needs.
Also, a fast (f/2.8 or even faster) UWA is important to night sky photography at least, e.g. Milky Way shots.
Then sometime later they release their f/4 IS variants (e.g. 16-35/4 IS, 24-70/4 IS, 70-200/4 IS) to suit different needs.
Also, a fast (f/2.8 or even faster) UWA is important to night sky photography at least, e.g. Milky Way shots.
Upvote
0
[/quote]I am in the same boat. There's no real IQ improvement in the 16-35 f/4L IS. They are the same at equivalent apertures. The fact that they are the same weight and size, and that the 16-35 f/2.8L II goes to 2.8 convinced me to skip the f/4, but an 11/12/14 - 24 is more tempting. I realllly hope they go with f/4 on this to keep the weight down, because f/2.8 is bound to be big and heavy, not to mention much more expensive.
[/quote]
I agree about the IQ between the f4 and 2.8II - contrast looks marginally better at f4 w the former, but not really worth replacing a lens over and at f8 where I shoot landscape from a tripod, its definitely not worth a switch (pending further data).
11-24 w or w/o f 2.8 is intriguing. I'd go with the best IQ formula and only prefer 2.8 if it did not degrade the IQ at f4 and above. Size, weight + cost less important for the applications I envisage.
[/quote]
I agree about the IQ between the f4 and 2.8II - contrast looks marginally better at f4 w the former, but not really worth replacing a lens over and at f8 where I shoot landscape from a tripod, its definitely not worth a switch (pending further data).
11-24 w or w/o f 2.8 is intriguing. I'd go with the best IQ formula and only prefer 2.8 if it did not degrade the IQ at f4 and above. Size, weight + cost less important for the applications I envisage.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
