Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States

[Canon Rumors]

Canon USA will be shipping the brand new Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM on Monday, February 23, 2015 to USA dealers. US retailers will be allowed to start selling/shipping the lens on Thursday, February 26, 2015. Although, some may trickle out to photographers before Thursday.</p>
<p>It’s nice to see things happening on schedule.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA11244.html" target="_blank">Adorama</a><a href="http://www.etphotos.net/canon_ef_1124.php" target="_blank"> | </a><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119028-REG/canon_9520b002_ef_11_24mm_f_4l_usm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a><a href="http://www.etphotos.net/canon_ef_1124.php" target="_blank"> | </a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T3ERXKE/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00T3ERXKE&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=SKIW33AKPAGADHBN" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[jcarapet]

now I just need to come up with another 3 grand.

 

[Click]

That's good news

 

[YuengLinger]

Where are the reviews and sample images?

 

[emko]

any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?

 

[Pixel]

I'm just giddy with excitement that I'll soon have a sharp, undistorted, wide lens that has a red ring around the barrel. Was starting to think this day would never come. Now Canon all you need to to do for me is update the 20mm 2.8 and I'll be fine with this f4.

 

[RGF]

If this lens is as good as expected, I'll sell my Canon 14 but only after I really check it out

 

[e_honda]

any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?

Is there any reason people can't understand how big heavy, and expensive this lens would be at F2.8?

Have you seen the size of this thing compared to the Nikon 14-24 F2.8? Dwarfs it in every dimension and is heavier.

 

[RGF]

any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?

For the most part I stop down, so F4 is just fine. Slightly harder to get critical focus with an 11-24, DOF is great so afford a slight miss in focus.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

So the "Faster F/2.8 ultra wide zoom" that Canon is was working on rumor from May of last year is, I assume, dead.

I guess those of us who want a fast UWA zoom with better IQ than the current 16-35 f/2.8 II have to wait for the 16-35 f/2.8 III update, and who knows when that will be.

 

[e_honda]

So the "Faster F/2.8 ultra wide zoom" that Canon is was working on rumor from May of last year is, I assume, dead.

I guess those of us who want a fast UWA zoom with better IQ than the current 16-35 f/2.8 II have to wait for the 16-35 f/2.8 III update, and who knows when that will be.

It's gonna be awhile. The mk II was definitely an improvement over the original, but still left a lot to be desired. Most likely they experimented with different designs and found that the IQ they got with an F4 was better than any practical design they could come up with at F2.8.

Right now, the 16-35 II arguably has the worst bang for your buck in the entire EF lineup. It costs a lot, is notorious for copy to copy variation (I know first hand with 2 that I had) and just isn't that impressive, particularly at F2.8.

 

[hendrik-sg]

A look at the dimensions and the complexity of this lens shows, that it's at the limit of what can be done at all. 11mm at 2.8 might sacrify lots of IQ, beside price and weight.

2nd point is vignetting. If there is lots of vignetting, then the lens is maybe T3.0 in the center and >T5.0 in the Corners. Vignetting correction just pushes the darker areas. Bad example here is the 24 1.4, which may be a 4.0 lens in the corners, just with more coma and softness. So it may be more important to see how much vignetting this lens has than to complain about the max aperture (=transmission in the Center).

 

[Zv]

any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?

Explain why you need f/2.8 at these focal lengths please. Please don't say "low light capability" because if you are using a lens like this indoors in professional use you will almost certainly be using a tripod. And upping the ISO nowadays by one stop isn't a big a deal as it used to be. The 6D works nicely even an ISO 6400. I don't even use that for stars in the middle of the night so unless you are shooting in a cave in complete darkness, handheld, with an older generation camera - the reason is pretty clear why f/4 is good enough.

If not - 14mm f/2.8 is your friend.

 

[King Eyre]

Wonder if the same will apply to this lens as it seems to do with almost every other new lens release.......some will come through then you'll wait months for any more?....eg the new 100-400 and 400 DO are two examples of this, and Canon can't tell when more will be available.

A strange sales and marketing policy.

 

[fiend]

any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?

Explain why you need f/2.8 at these focal lengths please. Please don't say "low light capability" because if you are using a lens like this indoors in professional use you will almost certainly be using a tripod. And upping the ISO nowadays by one stop isn't a big a deal as it used to be. The 6D works nicely even an ISO 6400. I don't even use that for stars in the middle of the night so unless you are shooting in a cave in complete darkness, handheld, with an older generation camera - the reason is pretty clear why f/4 is good enough.

If not - 14mm f/2.8 is your friend.

I can answer your questions..
I use it during wedding-sessions in dark churches.. when the bride couples are moving and no.. I can't use a tripod for that.. nor the IS.
Going from ISO 3200 -> 6400 or ISO 4000 -> 8000 is quite a large step up in ISO on a 5dmkIII.
I need at least 1/160 (sometimes even 1/200) when the couple is moving up and down the aisle. Don't want pictures that are blurry from movementblur.

When I shoot landscape / indoor and people are not moving.. then I can use f4 and IS. When I shoot landscapes I often step it down aswell. (f8-f14)

Another thing.. when you shoot stars / aurora up here in the northern part of Sweden.. even F2.8 is quite small aperture. I could really use a f1.4 with a UWA.. but that's not available.

 

[YuengLinger]

any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?

Explain why you need f/2.8 at these focal lengths please. Please don't say "low light capability" because if you are using a lens like this indoors in professional use you will almost certainly be using a tripod. And upping the ISO nowadays by one stop isn't a big a deal as it used to be. The 6D works nicely even an ISO 6400. I don't even use that for stars in the middle of the night so unless you are shooting in a cave in complete darkness, handheld, with an older generation camera - the reason is pretty clear why f/4 is good enough.

If not - 14mm f/2.8 is your friend.

What experience do you have shooting events? And though you may be satisfied with ISO 6400 images, there is no arguing that lower ISO looks significantly better. I'd rather have a non-IS 2.8 for shooting typical indoor and under-tent events than 4.0 with IS. People move! Colors, bokeh, contrast, and, of course, sharpness all look better at lower ISO.

I would have bought a Canon version of 14-24mm f/2.8, but not this one at f/4. I'm sure it will test/review just fine in terms of IQ for landscape and still-life, but for people photography, f/2.8 is still the standard, especially for $3000!

This isn't the max aperture of choice for photojournalists, sports, or wedding photographers.

Enjoy it for what it is, but why berate those of us who do value 2.8?

 

[YuengLinger]

Wonder if the same will apply to this lens as it seems to do with almost every other new lens release.......some will come through then you'll wait months for any more?....eg the new 100-400 and 400 DO are two examples of this, and Canon can't tell when more will be available.

A strange sales and marketing policy.

Pretty common for hot new products with very high manufacturing standards to be in short supply when first released, even for the first six months.

Here in the USA the supply problem has been made worse since last fall by the dock-worker strikes, but, hooray, those have ended, and now the TWO MONTH shipping backlog will start to clear out little by little.

 

[King Eyre]

Pretty common for hot new products with very high manufacturing standards to be in short supply when first released, even for the first six months.

Here in the USA the supply problem has been made worse since last fall by the dock-worker strikes, but, hooray, those have ended, and now the TWO MONTH shipping backlog will start to clear out little by little.
[/quote]

Possibly, but look at the 200-400 f4....2 years from announcement to ship?......and here in Europe, we ain't had a dockworkers strike!!

I wouldn't mind so much if they said "here's a new product but you can't get it for 3 months" or something like that, but both B and H and Adorama have contacted Canon on my behalf and can't even get an approximate date!!

 

[MaxFoto]

I would have loved, loved, an 11mm F/2.8/3.5 prime instead. Still I have pre ordered the 11-24L and can't wait to get it.

 

[Random Orbits]

any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?

Explain why you need f/2.8 at these focal lengths please. Please don't say "low light capability" because if you are using a lens like this indoors in professional use you will almost certainly be using a tripod. And upping the ISO nowadays by one stop isn't a big a deal as it used to be. The 6D works nicely even an ISO 6400. I don't even use that for stars in the middle of the night so unless you are shooting in a cave in complete darkness, handheld, with an older generation camera - the reason is pretty clear why f/4 is good enough.

If not - 14mm f/2.8 is your friend.

What experience do you have shooting events? And though you may be satisfied with ISO 6400 images, there is no arguing that lower ISO looks significantly better. I'd rather have a non-IS 2.8 for shooting typical indoor and under-tent events than 4.0 with IS. People move! Colors, bokeh, contrast, and, of course, sharpness all look better at lower ISO.

I would have bought a Canon version of 14-24mm f/2.8, but not this one at f/4. I'm sure it will test/review just fine in terms of IQ for landscape and still-life, but for people photography, f/2.8 is still the standard, especially for $3000!

This isn't the max aperture of choice for photojournalists, sports, or wedding photographers.

Enjoy it for what it is, but why berate those of us who do value 2.8?

At over 2 lb for an f/4, how much would a f/2.8 weigh? Before, the 16-35 f/4 IS came out, I did use a 14 f/2.8 and the 16-35 f/2.8. There are other choices to get what you want if you need f/2.8. The 11-24 gives you another choice; it does not reduce the number of choices currently available to you. Would I have preferred a 16-35 f/2.8 III as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS? Absolutely, but for now, I've sold the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the 16-35 f/4 IS. Take the new lens for what it is. It is something that gives the widest FOV for a rectilinear lens for FF. It happens to be f/4. It is what it is.