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

[candyman]

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

;D

 

[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.

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

I apologize - I could have worded that better.

Based on what I've read, the 13mm f/5.6 was made to order, while the 14-24mm f/2.8 is mass produced. My bet is Canon would choose to cater to the larger, and therefore more profitable, market of people who are willing to make a compromise and post process, rather than the former.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I hope this lens isn't rumour/vapour ware...but if it's true and lets face it a 14-24mm f2.8 isn't that much wider than current 16-35mm f2.8 and sacrifices the long end, a very useful 35mm...then it really needs to offer something more. I was hoping for a 12-24mm, but I'd gladly take an 11mm at the wide end!
I used to have a Sigma 12-24mm f5.6 (ok read f11-f16 due to vignetting) but the angle of view on a full frame camera was amazing and a lot of fun.
I can't wait...but happy to as long as Canon get this lens optically right!

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.

Realistically, the 16-35mm is also more consistent with the copys produced and the worst 16-35mm is probably better than the best 17-40L.

 

[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, <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.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.
Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras = 20D, 1DS, 5D MK II, 7D, EOS-M Plus 17 Canon EF And EF-L lenses, Plus 6 Non Canon Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Rokinon Lenses too,), From 8 mm. to 600 mm..
Yes, My Best Canon Prime Lenses = EF 85 mm F/ 1,2 L MK II For Portrait Photography , Canon TS-E 24 Mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II for Landscape, Canon EF 600 mm. L . for Birds & Moon photos, And Canon EF 100 mm , 100 mm L IS, 180 mm L MACRO and Canon MP-E 65 mm 1-5X for my love Macro photography..
Have a Great week End.
Surapon

 

[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.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

 

[Juck]

Absolute twaddle. This lens does not and will never, exist.

Does this clownshoes of a site ever actually get anything right? (hint: no)

 

[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

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.

quite a bit actually. if you are looking at f/11 and f/16 then use any crappy lens, because your diffraction will smear enough that you don't care anymore.

if you can't get enough Dof at around f/4 to f/6.3 when rolling with a 16mm then you're doing something wrong.

even on a 6D with a focus distance of 20 feet, you have your depth of focus being from 11 feet to infinity. wide open. and this is with the CoC being 2 lp versus the much easier .030mm that most people use.

so umm yeah.. what were you saying again?

 

[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, <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.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr. Antono Refa.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is " there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

 

[rs]

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.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is " there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it if lined up perfectly.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!)

 

[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, <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.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is " there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it if lined up perfectly.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!)

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. rs
Now, To day I learn some thing new form dear friend like You.
No, I never use super wide angle to shoot the group shots of my dear friends---because some of them will hate me----Ha, Ha, ha, To see his/ her face as round as the full moon, and 2 time bigger than their friend at the center of the photo.
Thanks again .
Surapon

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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.

quite a bit actually. if you are looking at f/11 and f/16 then use any crappy lens, because your diffraction will smear enough that you don't care anymore.

if you can't get enough Dof at around f/4 to f/6.3 when rolling with a 16mm then you're doing something wrong.

even on a 6D with a focus distance of 20 feet, you have your depth of focus being from 11 feet to infinity. wide open. and this is with the CoC being 2 lp versus the much easier .030mm that most people use.

so umm yeah.. what were you saying again?

If there's nothing in your frame closer than 11 feet that you want in focus @ 16mm, I worry about your landscape composition. Seems you might be the one doing something wrong.

And yes, Dilbert was exaggerating. At smaller apertures (f/9, f/11, f/13) both the 17-40mm and new 16-35mm take pretty damn good pictures. Yes, those of the latter have slightly sharper corners and if you're a professional, I'd say that's a needed improvement. But if not, stop pixel peeping and go shoot.

 

[sanj]

I would be happier with f4 IS.

 

[vscd]

All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.

Diffraction depends on your sensorsize, too. Not your lens, only.

Greetings

 

[StudentOfLight]

All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.

Diffraction depends on your sensorsize, too. Not your lens, only.

Greetings

Do you mean pixel size?

 

[vscd]

Yepp. I mean pixelsize. For example a 5DC has diffractions >f13...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is " there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it if lined up perfectly.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!)

Yes you are correct, a fully rectilinear corrected lens is one where straight lines stay straight in the frame. Two good examples of this are the 14L and Sigma 12-24 HSM (mkI). Circles become more egg shaped as the approach the corners of the frame. All wide lenses show distortion somewhere, either lines or circles.

Most rectilinear wide lenses are corrected to some degree but not fully. This is to allow a compromise and versatility. A fully corrected lens distorts circles (faces) so a design compromises is employed to keep straight lines fairly straight (a slight curve is usually not too noticeable and quite acceptable) but keeps the circles fairly circular (unless you shoot up close). The 16-35IIL is a great example of this. Most lens designers assume the user will correct in Lightroom / Photoshop if they need a more extreme correction. I find the look I get out of the 16-35IIL looks quite natural and is kind on the eye. A 14L, TS-e 17L or Siggi 12-24 tend to look very angular and isn't how the human eye sees the scene.

Where as fish-eye lenses are the complete opposite. Circles stay circular but straight lines curve as they approach the edges of the frame.

This is why I have more than one wide lens in my collection and why I am REALLY looking forwards to this new lens from Canon. It could be a game changer.

 

[StudentOfLight]

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.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is " there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it if lined up perfectly.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!)

Yes you are correct, a fully rectilinear corrected lens is one where straight lines stay straight in the frame. Two good examples of this are the 14L and Sigma 12-24 HSM (mkI). Circles become more egg shaped as the approach the corners of the frame. All wide lenses show distortion somewhere, either lines or circles.

Most rectilinear wide lenses are corrected to some degree but not fully. This is to allow a compromise and versatility. A fully corrected lens distorts circles (faces) so a design compromises is employed to keep straight lines fairly straight (a slight curve is usually not too noticeable and quite acceptable) but keeps the circles fairly circular (unless you shoot up close). The 16-35IIL is a great example of this. Most lens designers assume the user will correct in Lightroom / Photoshop if they need a more extreme correction. I find the look I get out of the 16-35IIL looks quite natural and is kind on the eye. A 14L, TS-e 17L or Siggi 12-24 tend to look very angular and isn't how the human eye sees the scene.

Where as fish-eye lenses are the complete opposite. Circles stay circular but straight lines curve as they approach the edges of the frame.

This is why I have more than one wide lens in my collection and why I am REALLY looking forwards to this new lens from Canon. It could be a game changer.

Well explained.