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

[ewg963]

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.

+10000000000000000

 

[neech7]

I doubt that it will have IS..it would be as big as a large cow!!!! LOL!

So how much bigger are the IS versions of the 70-200s over their non-IS counterparts? This idea that adding IS to a lens is going to make it significantly bigger is just pure myth, like the Canon EOS 3D.

 

[rrcphoto]

I doubt that it will have IS..it would be as big as a large cow!!!! LOL!

So how much bigger are the IS versions of the 70-200s over their non-IS counterparts? This idea that adding IS to a lens is going to make it significantly bigger is just pure myth, like the Canon EOS 3D.

there's only so much room - this will already float in at around 16 elements or more. adding IS, adds to that, as well there has to be room for those elements in the optical / light path and lens body, not to mention the increased complexity for the optics to main performance.

 

[guestimate]

I'm personally skeptical of a 11-24 full frame lens ( especially f2.8, even more so if it's only $2800) because of the Nikon 13mm f5.6.

 

[raptor3x]

I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really? The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be exaggerating just a tad.

 

[dufflover]

If the rumour were at f/4 it would far more believable.

 

[Loswr]

there's only so much room - this will already float in at around 16 elements or more. adding IS, adds to that, as well there has to be room for those elements in the optical / light path and lens body, not to mention the increased complexity for the optics to main performance.

Looking at the designs for the Nikon 14-24/2.8, Canon 16-35/2.8, and the Sigma 12-24mm lenses, there does seem to be a bit of open space, beyond what's required for the zoom mechanism. Whether it's feasible from an optical standpoint, and how representative those designs (which are either longer or slower) would be of a hypothetical 11-24mm lens, are unknown.

 

[rrcphoto]

I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really? The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be exaggerating just a tad.

lol no he's not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

 

[infared]

I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really? The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be exaggerating just a tad.

lol no he's not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

+1

 

[StudentOfLight]

f2.8, really??????

Take Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 (which weighs around 1.2kg) as a comparison. Now factor in a that 11mm is wider, f2.8 is two stops faster and the that it's a supposed to zoom... and the weight for this rumored lens would probably be around 10kg, if not more.

The only way they could reduce weight would be by compromising on build quality and optical performance. What would be the point of that?

 

[Antono Refa]

f2.8, really??????

Take Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 (which weighs around 1.2kg) as a comparison. Now factor in a lens that's 11mm is wider, f2.8 is stops faster and the fact that it's a zoom... and the weight for this rumored lens would probably be around 10kg, if not more.

The only way they could reduce weight would be by compromising on build quality and optical performance. What would be the point of that?

The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is 1mm longer and 200g lighter. Did Nikon compromise on the build quality & optical performance of that lens?

 

[StudentOfLight]

f2.8, really??????

Take Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 (which weighs around 1.2kg) as a comparison. Now factor in a lens that's 11mm is wider, f2.8 is stops faster and the fact that it's a zoom... and the weight for this rumored lens would probably be around 10kg, if not more.

The only way they could reduce weight would be by compromising on build quality and optical performance. What would be the point of that?

The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is 1mm longer and 200g lighter. Did Nikon compromise on the build quality & optical performance of that lens?

Yes, it has very high distortion.

 

[surapon]

Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, Rokinon ( Samyang) 14 mm. F/ 2.8, Canon EF 17-40 mm L, and Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II, Plus Tamron 11-17 mm. too. And all of them are Great for Landscape/ Building photography too.
Yes, I will use $ 2800 Us Dollars to tour/ Trip to Eastern Europe = Better for me.
Well, That Just my Idea, Because of I do not need the Super/ Super sharp lens for 90% of My Photos , use in FaceBook, just need 18" wide Photos ( MAX. ) any ways.
Have a great Week end.
Surapon

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/samyang14.html

http://petapixel.com/2014/06/04/review-rokinon-12mm-f2-0-great-option-astrophotogs-budget/

 

[Antono Refa]

Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>

1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.

 

[Antono Refa]

f2.8, really??????

Take Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 (which weighs around 1.2kg) as a comparison. Now factor in a lens that's 11mm is wider, f2.8 is stops faster and the fact that it's a zoom... and the weight for this rumored lens would probably be around 10kg, if not more.

The only way they could reduce weight would be by compromising on build quality and optical performance. What would be the point of that?

The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is 1mm longer and 200g lighter. Did Nikon compromise on the build quality & optical performance of that lens?

Yes, it has very high distortion.

A reasonable compromise in an age when distortion can be fixed in post processing.

 

[gecko]

Think I'll wait for the EF 11-24 II

 

[StudentOfLight]

f2.8, really??????

Take Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 (which weighs around 1.2kg) as a comparison. Now factor in a lens that's 11mm is wider, f2.8 is stops faster and the fact that it's a zoom... and the weight for this rumored lens would probably be around 10kg, if not more.

The only way they could reduce weight would be by compromising on build quality and optical performance. What would be the point of that?

The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is 1mm longer and 200g lighter. Did Nikon compromise on the build quality & optical performance of that lens?

Yes, it has very high distortion.

A reasonable compromise in an age when distortion can be fixed in post processing.

A reasonable compromise for some people, but Me, I'm completely unreasonable

 

[SoullessPolack]

I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really? The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be exaggerating just a tad.

lol no he's not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

What landscapes do you see that are shot at f/4.0? The f/8.0 review is much more applicable, and an f/11.0 or f/16.0 would be even better comparison of the two.

 

[transpo1]

I'm a filmmaker and video guy so will buy this lens in a heartbeat and sell my 16-35L F4 IS if it's good enough. The wide angle and 2.8 will be indispensable for crop frame (Super 35mm) movie shooting.

 

[orionz06]

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.

I think it's easier to sell a lens that covers all possibilities first. An f/2.8 still works at f/4 and if the lens is good folks will buy it. I think it's the safer bet compared to an f/4, even at half the price.