Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
11-24 f2.8 would be a nice lense. Just think about the range you could cover with three lenses (all @f2.8):
11-24...24-70...70-200 Wohooo...!
On my behalf, I don't need too much zoomlenses anymore. I always caught myself to use the shortest or longest end on those lenses. So I travel with something like the 14,35 and 85 primes. But I'm not living from my gear... so I can miss a shot without problems
11-24...24-70...70-200 Wohooo...!
On my behalf, I don't need too much zoomlenses anymore. I always caught myself to use the shortest or longest end on those lenses. So I travel with something like the 14,35 and 85 primes. But I'm not living from my gear... so I can miss a shot without problems
Upvote
0
Only one person even mentioned the updated 7D related to this lens. For crop sensor cameras, the 10-22 lens is the only really WIDE ZOOM available from Canon. While a Full Frame camera is a better choice for wide angle photography, I'd rather have the sports/wildlife capacity. For someone moving toward Pro gear one lens at a time, this 11-24 at f.2.8L is a dream come true (price not withstanding) to pair with the 7DMKII! First I need that damn camera though! I'd complain if I actually had the money to buy it now! LOL
Upvote
0
RLPhoto said:
I have to agree...It is so much sharper than my 16-35mm f/2.8L II.
I shoot a lot of WA and the new 16-35 f/4L IS is just so sharp right to the edges and just so much more lens for my style of shooting with the IS. The price (relative to some of the more ridiculous pricing) for what you get is actually competitive.
Also, let's remember ...this rumored 11-24mm is only CR-1!
Upvote
0
Though I thought in the past that 14-24 could serve me well, I am happy with my 16-35 f/4 IS. For me 16mm is wide enough and with fit for my 77m CPL and ND filters
Upvote
0
The Sigma 12-24 weighs 600g, the faster Nikon 14-24mm weighs 1000kg. An 11-24/2.8 would weigh more, and have an even more bulbous front element. Apart from live action concert shooters, does everyone want that added to the weight of the bag?
The lens patent we have previously seen makes more sense:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/
The lens patent we have previously seen makes more sense:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/
Upvote
0
Well, this is very intriguing, but I will believe it when I see it. That would have to be VERY heavy, and nowadays I am reminded of my general flabbiness compared with my youth - there's a big benefit to keeping total camera kit weight under 12 to 15 pounds if you are hiking long distances with elevations or in hot weather or in "dry" country, because - remember - 1 liter/quart of water weighs 1 kilo/2.2 pounds, and one may need to carry two or sometimes five or more (desert conditions) liters of water in addition to the camera kit, just for an all-day hike.
Upvote
0
There was a patent for a Canon EF 11-24mm f/4.
On the one hand, I can see Canon aiming a stop faster to compete with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. On the other hand, with the complaints about the Nikon's and the TS-E 17mm's bulbous front elements and need for special filters, I can see Canon giving up an f-stop to get a flat front element, if possible.
Personally, I'll happy to forgo f/2.8 (and IS) and save on money, weight, and size.
On the one hand, I can see Canon aiming a stop faster to compete with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. On the other hand, with the complaints about the Nikon's and the TS-E 17mm's bulbous front elements and need for special filters, I can see Canon giving up an f-stop to get a flat front element, if possible.
Personally, I'll happy to forgo f/2.8 (and IS) and save on money, weight, and size.
Upvote
0
Am I the only thinking: "there is no way this can possibly be true!"?
Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime? And we're talking about a zoom? At f/2.8?
Have seen how BIG the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is?
I actually think $2800 would be a steal for something so absurdly wide and fast.
I agree with most on here in that I do not see the point of f/2.8 on something this wide. I guess you could argue astro-landscape photography but, at 11mm, even f/4 would be very manageable on modern full-frame image sensors.
I hope I'm completely wrong, but this lens just seems physically impossible to make.
Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime? And we're talking about a zoom? At f/2.8?
Have seen how BIG the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is?
I actually think $2800 would be a steal for something so absurdly wide and fast.
I agree with most on here in that I do not see the point of f/2.8 on something this wide. I guess you could argue astro-landscape photography but, at 11mm, even f/4 would be very manageable on modern full-frame image sensors.
I hope I'm completely wrong, but this lens just seems physically impossible to make.
Upvote
0
Well EF 11-24 f/2.8L – it is kinda extreme numbers. So extreme, that I think it is 99.9% inaccurate info.
Numbers a can believe:
1) EF 14-24 f/2.8L – a competitor for Nikon lens.
2) EF 11-24 f/4L – something totally new.
3) EF-S 11-24 f/2.8 – fast lens for APS-C (non L, of course).
If previously posted patent info (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/) is correct – the second variant is the most feasible.
Though, it is still possible that 11-24 f/2.8 are the correct numbers. Canon has some extraordinary lenses in its portfolio (e.g. 1200mm f/5.6 or 50mm f/1.0). But all are abandoned. Their price was as extreme as their specs are. And I believe the users niche was very narrow. So I don't think canon will make another one. It's just not profitably.
And if it is EF 11-24 f/4L, how popular it will be? (just interesting) I use Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on APS-C for WA (17,6-25,6mm FF equivalent) and I very rarely wish to be able to go lower than 11mm (although it happened several times) but I often wish to have more on the long end. So, for my use, the 16-35mm range on FF gonna be almost perfect. "My use" is all-around photographing during travels (landscapes, towns, etc) and some indoor usage. What scenarios can be where non-fisheye 11mm on FF would be necessary? Only asto-photo?
Numbers a can believe:
1) EF 14-24 f/2.8L – a competitor for Nikon lens.
2) EF 11-24 f/4L – something totally new.
3) EF-S 11-24 f/2.8 – fast lens for APS-C (non L, of course).
If previously posted patent info (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/) is correct – the second variant is the most feasible.
Though, it is still possible that 11-24 f/2.8 are the correct numbers. Canon has some extraordinary lenses in its portfolio (e.g. 1200mm f/5.6 or 50mm f/1.0). But all are abandoned. Their price was as extreme as their specs are. And I believe the users niche was very narrow. So I don't think canon will make another one. It's just not profitably.
And if it is EF 11-24 f/4L, how popular it will be? (just interesting) I use Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on APS-C for WA (17,6-25,6mm FF equivalent) and I very rarely wish to be able to go lower than 11mm (although it happened several times) but I often wish to have more on the long end. So, for my use, the 16-35mm range on FF gonna be almost perfect. "My use" is all-around photographing during travels (landscapes, towns, etc) and some indoor usage. What scenarios can be where non-fisheye 11mm on FF would be necessary? Only asto-photo?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
