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

[mackguyver]

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.

I used to shoot a fair number of events, so I understand the need for a f/2.8 UWA zoom, and I think the current 16-35 f/2.8 II meets those needs fairly well. Actually I think the 24 f/1.4 II and 35 f/1.4 meet them far better, but the point is that I don't ever remember needing corner-to-corner sharpness of people walking around or on a dance floor. Or tack sharp news and sport photos for that matter. For those that need it, though, yes f/4 is way to slow, though I think f/2.8 is way too slow for that work, too.

Back to the 11-24, I pre-ordered one and can't wait to get one, hopefully late this week. I even called B&H last week to upgrade to overnight shipping...

I'll try to do an earnest test and write up of the 11-24 f/4 vs. 16-35 f/4 IS (16-24mm) vs. TS-E 17 vs. 24-70 f/2.8 II (at 24mm). I have the Kodak Wratten 2 ND 3.0 gelatin as well and will report on that.

 

[H. Jones]

I get needing a 16-35mm F/2.8, but I really can't see any tangible use for a 11-24mm F/2.8 except astrophotography. If you're shooting action at 11mm, your subject is either going to be really, really close, or really really small in the photo. And if your subject is that small, you're going to have focus problems tracking the fast action happening in a small part of the frame.

If shooting events/dances/etc, I've never been bothered by F/4, simply because a close-up subject that can fill 16mm can be lit by color-corrected speedlights, and that gives you a subject-background separation by lighting your subject and thus bringing them out of the background. In that way, I've always found that dances/etc can be easily done with an F/4, because naturally lighting them would be improbable anyway.

I know at the end of the day, photography is creative and about breaking the rules, but if you need a wide, fast lens, there's the 14mm f/2.8, and the 16-35mm F/2.8, and if you're shooting action, I really think there's no need to be wider than 14mm anyway.

Just my opinion and way I shoot, I've loved using my 16-35mm F/4 IS and 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II for news and events, even in abysmal lighting situations; when I used a 17-55mm F/2.8, I still ended up using a color corrected flash, so it's not a big deal to me.

 

[e_honda]

I think it's reasonable for people to ask why Canon hasn't made an equivalent 14-24 f2.8 (it would likely make the 14mm prime obsolete for Canons perspective). But people being surprised at this 11-24 being "only" f4 or saying, "No thanks to this slowpoke, I'll wait for the f2.8" are just being stupid silly.

11mm rectilinear has never been done. The 12-24 Sigma (I have the mk II) was the previous widest. It doesn't even go to f4 and isn't even a constant aperture. It's f4.5-5.6. And it's already a pretty decent size.

Now you're talking about making something that is even wider, has presumably much better IQ and has a wider and constant aperture. Now this is substantially bigger than the Sigma and even bigger than the Nikon 14-24, which is already a beast. Just go look at the side by side photos of these 2 on dpreview. It's astounding how big this Canon is.

Now people still expect to see an f2.8 of this? Won't happen anytime soon.

 

[mackguyver]

11mm rectilinear has never been done. The 12-24 Sigma (I have the mk II) was the previous widest. It doesn't even go to f4 and isn't even a constant aperture. It's f4.5-5.6. And it's already a pretty decent size.

Now you're talking about making something that is even wider, has presumably much better IQ and has a wider and constant aperture. Now this is substantially bigger than the Sigma and even bigger than the Nikon 14-24, which is already a beast. Just go look at the side by side photos of these 2 on dpreview. It's astounding how big this Canon is.

I sure hope the IQ is better than the Sigma for this price. I had that lens and miss it, but distortion at 12mm is a bummer because you lose ~10% of the image when correcting for it. Not a big deal for landscapes, but for buildings...

Also, the size does concern me in terms of fitting in my camera bags. The hood diameter is huge and I fear it won't fit in some of my smaller bags. The 16-35 f/4 IS OTOH is just about the perfect size! But 11mm is 11mm...

 

[adventureous]

This lens weighs more than a 5DIII

 

[privatebydesign]

This link might put the price and speed (aperture) into perspective! http://petapixel.com/2014/10/13/ultra-rare-nikon-13mm-f5-6-holy-grail-lens-shows-ebay/

Of course if Nikon owners want wider than 13 for a fraction of the price they only need to buy a Canon now ;D

 

[weixing]

Hi,

I get needing a 16-35mm F/2.8, but I really can't see any tangible use for a 11-24mm F/2.8 except astrophotography. If you're shooting action at 11mm, your subject is either going to be really, really close, or really really small in the photo. And if your subject is that small, you're going to have focus problems tracking the fast action happening in a small part of the frame.

If shooting events/dances/etc, I've never been bothered by F/4, simply because a close-up subject that can fill 16mm can be lit by color-corrected speedlights, and that gives you a subject-background separation by lighting your subject and thus bringing them out of the background. In that way, I've always found that dances/etc can be easily done with an F/4, because naturally lighting them would be improbable anyway.

I know at the end of the day, photography is creative and about breaking the rules, but if you need a wide, fast lens, there's the 14mm f/2.8, and the 16-35mm F/2.8, and if you're shooting action, I really think there's no need to be wider than 14mm anyway.

Just my opinion and way I shoot, I've loved using my 16-35mm F/4 IS and 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II for news and events, even in abysmal lighting situations; when I used a 17-55mm F/2.8, I still ended up using a color corrected flash, so it's not a big deal to me.

Don't be so confidence of yourself... may be later you'll find yourself wanting this lens... ha ha ha ;D

Anyway, birder and wildlife photographer will be envy of you guys... you "only" need to spend US$3K to get the world widest FF lens... they had to spend double the price just to get the "entry level" F4 super telephoto lens... ha ha ha ;D

Have a nice day.

 

[CG photography]

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.

While f4 is good enough for most situations, there are many legitimate uses of a 2.8 wide...
Milky Way landscapes and aurora shots are two prominent examples. Recently I had to shoot moving athletes in a poorly lit rock climbing gym with a wide angle; since the subjects were moving a tripod would have been useless, and the f4 was a liability. Many venues and historical sites like european cathedrals will not allow the use of a tripod. If these examples seem obscure to you then I would argue the need for 11mm-13mm is also pretty rare. I would rather have a 14-24 2.8 IS with equivalent quality and even price.

 

[H. Jones]

Hi,

I get needing a 16-35mm F/2.8, but I really can't see any tangible use for a 11-24mm F/2.8 except astrophotography. If you're shooting action at 11mm, your subject is either going to be really, really close, or really really small in the photo. And if your subject is that small, you're going to have focus problems tracking the fast action happening in a small part of the frame.

If shooting events/dances/etc, I've never been bothered by F/4, simply because a close-up subject that can fill 16mm can be lit by color-corrected speedlights, and that gives you a subject-background separation by lighting your subject and thus bringing them out of the background. In that way, I've always found that dances/etc can be easily done with an F/4, because naturally lighting them would be improbable anyway.

I know at the end of the day, photography is creative and about breaking the rules, but if you need a wide, fast lens, there's the 14mm f/2.8, and the 16-35mm F/2.8, and if you're shooting action, I really think there's no need to be wider than 14mm anyway.

Just my opinion and way I shoot, I've loved using my 16-35mm F/4 IS and 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II for news and events, even in abysmal lighting situations; when I used a 17-55mm F/2.8, I still ended up using a color corrected flash, so it's not a big deal to me.

Don't be so confidence of yourself... may be later you'll find yourself wanting this lens... ha ha ha ;D

Anyway, birder and wildlife photographer will be envy of you guys... you "only" need to spend US$3K to get the world widest FF lens... they had to spend double the price just to get the "entry level" F4 super telephoto lens... ha ha ha ;D

Have a nice day.

Oh don't get me wrong, I would love to have this lens! I personally don't have a use for anything wider than 16mm, but 11-24mm f/4 would be a fantastic lens for me if I needed it. The price is just too much to get it for specialized uses when my money-making photographs don't really require even 16mm very often. For my landscapes I would absolutely love a f/4 11-24mm, but landscapes are just a hobby for me.

 

[mackguyver]

Some good points and I definitely see this as a specialist lens, equivalent to the big whites in terms of why they are expensive. The 16-35 f/4 IS is way more practical, and may even have slightly better IQ if the MTF curves are accurate. It also costs way less and way smaller/lighter plus has IS. It's sort of the 180 macro vs. 100 IS macro to me. The 180 takes extenders, comes with a tripod ring and gives greater working distance. But, it's more expensive, slower, heavier, lacks IS, and is really a specialist tool.

I see this lens as a prime money maker, not hobby lens. Sure, it will be great for fun stuff and landscapes, but if it has low distortion and goes to 11mm, it will be perfect for interiors and shots of buildings and other structures. If that's part of your client base, you'll likely make your money back pretty quickly.

Also, on the f/4 vs. 2.8 debate, CG's argument falls apart a bit when you consider DOF. A stop faster will let you focus more easily, but even at a theoretical 14mm, f/2.8 is going to be too shallow for a cathedral. I think the 16-35 f/4 IS would work quite well in that situation and I'd still be shooting at f/5.6-8 to get barely enough DOF.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

but even at a theoretical 14mm, f/2.8 is going to be too shallow for a cathedral.

A far limit of infinity is not shallow.

 

[privatebydesign]

but even at a theoretical 14mm, f/2.8 is going to be too shallow for a cathedral.

A far limit of infinity is not shallow.

"Acceptably sharp" is a much narrower concept. Hyperfocal sucks and has been fairly comprehensively illustrated to be practically worthless.

 

[LovePhotography]

Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?

 

[SwnSng]

Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?

I think it just depends on the person. With your set of lens it looks like you have it covered so the 11-24mm would be my choice if you had to pick one. the one intriguing thing about 11-24 is that images at 11mm will be somewhat unique in the immediate future.

 

[privatebydesign]

Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?

Unless you have a very compelling reason for the 11-16 range the 16-35 f4 IS is one of Canon's best lenses, I doubt the 11-24 will have as good IQ, it won't be as practical to use, it is much heavier and larger too. The 15 and 8-15 defish very well for an effective 11/12mm rectilinear image as well.

I will be getting the 11-24 if it tests out well, I won't be selling my 16-35 f4IS to get it though, for me they are very different tools and I can't imagine taking the 11-24 on any trip that doesn't specifically require it, whereas the 16-35 is a great general purpose lens. I own the 17TS-E too and see that as yet another tool that compliments rather than replaces either of the other UWA lenses.

 

[Random Orbits]

Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?

Sure, if you have enough money. If you were to ask which one to get first, I'd suggest the 16-35. It has a more versatile focal length range, takes filters, weighs less, etc. Plus the price premium is less for the 16-35. You can purchase it for less than MSRP, whereas you won't be able to do that for the 11-24 for a while. It'll also take a while before the accessory filters/filter holders are designed/made for the 11-24.

 

[Famateur]

I see this lens as a prime money maker, not hobby lens.

But this is a zoom lens. You knew that before you clicked the Pre-Order button, right? ;D

 

[Besisika]

Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?

I have been debated on the same subject myself.
I own a 24-70 f4 and a sigma 35 1.4 and it is time to buy a SWA.
I can't justify at this time, shooting events, the need for the 11-24 for $3000. I am speculating what it can do but I can't justify it yet.
At 16-18mm you can shoot even the whole gospel choir jumping up and down without any trouble from 3m away. At 1/200sec and ISO 6400 you will make your heart hurt only. So why not step further away a bit and shoot it with a 24 1.4 at 2.0? and whenever a flash is allowed, get lower ISO with deeper DOF.
There maybe sometime when I would really use the 11mm but would I spend $3000 just for that? How many of these photos would I need? Simply, I can't get the justification, if I don't shoot landscape.
I am going to go for the 16-35 F4 and use it with flash whenever possible, plus great well stabilized SWA handheld video, then add the sigma 24 mm 1.4 for a lesser price.
These two would give me more stuff to sell than just only from the 11-24, even it was at 2.8 non-IS at the same price.

 

[SwnSng]

Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?

I have been debated on the same subject myself.
I own a 24-70 f4 and a sigma 35 1.4 and it is time to buy a SWA.
I can't justify at this time, shooting events, the need for the 11-24 for $3000. I am speculating what it can do but I can't justify it yet.
At 16-18mm you can shoot even the whole gospel choir jumping up and down without any trouble from 3m away. At 1/200sec and ISO 6400 you will make your heart hurt only. So why not step further away a bit and shoot it with a 24 1.4 at 2.0? and whenever a flash is allowed, get lower ISO with deeper DOF.
There maybe sometime when I would really use the 11mm but would I spend $3000 just for that? How many of these photos would I need? Simply, I can't get the justification, if I don't shoot landscape.
I am going to go for the 16-35 F4 and use it with flash whenever possible, plus great well stabilized SWA handheld video, then add the sigma 24 mm 1.4 for a lesser price.
These two would give me more stuff to sell than just only from the 11-24, even it was at 2.8 non-IS at the same price.

11-24 is all about architecture/real estate and landscape photography and perhaps throw in video and other unique party scenarios but most folks will be buying it for the first two things mentioned. I agree that the primary buyers will be professional photographers making a living with it.

 

[mackguyver]

I see this lens as a prime money maker, not hobby lens.

But this is a zoom lens. You knew that before you clicked the Pre-Order button, right? ;D

Nice one - and dammit, I thought it was an 11mm prime

Also, for those of you wondering if you should get this over the 16-35 f/4 IS -- that's your answer. If you don't know, then I don't think spending $3k on this lens is the way to go. It's going to be heavy, big, fragile, not very versatile (short range, no filters), and did I mention really expensive? Beyond that, taking a good shot at 16mm is hard enough, shooting a good composition at 11mm will be very, very difficult.