Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]

[AprilForever]

DUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.................................

This is totally up to eleven!!!

I'm pretty sure this might happen, I hope!!!

 

[Lloyd]

And the REALLY bad news is that it will probably come bundled only with the new 7D replacement for preorders. So we are looking at an initial kit purchase of close to 7000.00!!!

East Wind, your an optimist The more likely bad news is that it will first appear when bundled with the 1DXII for $17,000 when they both appear 7 years from now.

 

[Khalai]

Eleven milimetres? Rectilinear? F/2.8? What will be the shape of the front element? Some kind of blackhole device to bend the lightrays?

Since I love my 16-35/4L IS with the capability of applying LEE filters, this lens will be interesting to watch, but nothing I'd wished for. Still, interesting news.

 

[keithcooper]

Sounds fun... yes, I'll have one please ;-)

If so, I'd be curious as to how it compares with the 14mm 2.8L II (apart from killing it's 2nd hand value).

11mm is getting close to what I can get with s side to side stitch of the TS-E17.

Just as well, I never use filters on wide lenses...

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I too am skeptical about a zoom as wide as 11mm. I hope they don't sacrifice too much IQ for it.

My ideal UWA is a 14-30mm f/2.8. I'd gladly give up 5mm on the long end for 2mm on the wide in regards to the current 16-35mm. And despite the number of people here who don't think f/2.8 is necessary, it comes in very hand for wedding receptions and night photography.

 

[ramonjsantiago]

If this is true, count me in, I'm buying one.

 

[dufflover]

Personally I'm not convinced. 11mm at f/2.8 covering the 35mm-format with a range to 24mm? I doubt it.

 

[tron]

I was too excited when I read it. This year I have done some landscape astrophotography.

Then I thought:

I have used mostly my 14mm 2.8L II. In very few cases I have used the TS-E 17 (in some cases the corrected verticals were worth the light loss).

This 11-24 will have to be close to perfect to make me even think of it.

The reason is that half of my 14mm 2.8 II shots would benefit from a (future?) 16-35mm 2.8L III (with no coma).

Its hood with combination of a flat front element would protect from flare from non-avoidable car lights.

The 11-24 wouldn't be protected just like my 14. Its only benefit would be a slight increase in expose time (at 11mm) say from 25-30 sec to 35-40 sec (and hopefully less coma).

 

[JOJOBASS]

$2800? Mother of god.....

 

[vulie504]

I love the 16-35 focal length , but I need the f2.8. So for me I wouldn't mind it if canon released a 16-35 2.8 iii.
Do you guys think that with the release if the 16-35 f4 is means that my dream won't come true?

 

[tyger11]

A 14-28 f/2.8 IS with aperture ring would be a godsend for cine purposes. Just sayin'. Pop that on a Speedbooster onto a BMPCC and you've got 21-50mm equivalence with a ridiculous max aperture with IS. Totally worth $2,800.

 

[tron]

I love the 16-35 focal length , but I need the f2.8. So for me I wouldn't mind it if canon released a 16-35 2.8 iii.
Do you guys think that with the release if the 16-35 f4 is means that my dream won't come true?

As I said, I'd love a 16-35 2.8 iii too. But maybe Canon want to do something else to show innovation and at the same time compete with Nikon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I am wondering if we will start to see some of their new diffraction lens technology. The price would certainly cover one of the new plastic radial particle dispersion lens elements bonded to a glass lens element.

In any event, 16mm is pretty wide for me, even 24mm seems pretty wide. I still have my 15mm FE and a 17mm prime, but they get almost no use.

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm also hoping for f/2.8. Don't care about IS. Want to be able to shoot events and creative portraits in lowest possible light. If I want my camera to be still I use a tripod. When the subject is moving, IS doesn't come into play.

The price and the likelihood of the bulbous front element that can't be protected with a UV filter would probably keep it out of my bag.

 

[Kethean]

11mm full frame must be substantial. I've played with Sigma's 12-24 FF lens and 12 is really really wide...like watch for your feet wide (112 degree angle of view). I can't imagine something wider, faster, and theoretically super sharp. That price tag really isn't super terrible when you think the Sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6 is $950 new and the Nikon 14-24 is $2k. 3mm on the short end is a LOT at this focal length (104 vs 117 degrees).

 

[RGF]

Here are some angle of views

First column is 35mm focal length then the angle of view (not half angle, full angle) for the vertical, hortizonal and diagonal dimensions.

Equations are straightforward. Perhaps I should make an iPhone app.

35mm V 35mm H 35 MM D
11 95 117 126
14 81 104 114
16 74 97 107
24 53 74 84
35 38 54 63

 

[that1guyy]

Interesting Canon is making such a wide full frame lens. I have my eye on the Sigma 12-24 3.5-5.6 but this is even wider plus an f2.8. However it is three times the price of that lens so it's not for me.

 

[Dick]

Would really want a lens like this, but yeah... 3k just isn't happening. 8-15L and PP shall keep on doing it for me.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

More than 2x zoom in this ultra-ultra-wide angle area, and on top of that f/2.8??? I'm thinking this is gonna be an incredible big, heavy an expensive lens if real.

But most of all I'm thinking this is an untrustworthy rumor (and canonrumors also only ranks it CR1). Why make the zoom-range so long for such an extreme lens, making it so much harder to construct?...

 

[e17paul]

What would the angle of view be? Keeping tripod feet or your own feet out of frame could be a practical limitation, unless cropping to panorama format.