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

[rocksubculture]

I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage. I already sold my 16-35mm 2.8 II, and just listed my 14mm 2.8 II for sale, with funds from both going toward the purchase of this lens.

In my experience, the quality of the 16-35 2.8 II was just not up to par with the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II on a variety of levels. Also, once I tried the 14 2.8 II, I found the additional 2mm in width to be very useful (and the overall image quality much, much better), though being stuck at one specific (specialty) focal length could be limiting.

Yes, it would be great to have a newer 2.8 lens with better image quality and more zoom, but as many here already mentioned, it isn't likely to come about anytime soon. This 11-24mm is groundbreaking and is pushing technological envelope as it is (and since it was announced with the 50MP bodies, seems much more geared to landscape and studio photography, though obviously not limited to those disciplines; much in the same way the 100-400mm was announced with the 7DII for a different sort of focus).

I think in some cases on my 5D IIIs and 6Ds f/4 will be perfectly fine (and really, an added benefit of more being in focus). When the lighting and action pushes it too far, I can mount it on my Sony A7s and I don't think lack of light will be a problem.

I'm super stoked about this lens. I've learned to really love super wide angle photography in the past year or two, so the possibilities that open up with 11mm really intrigue me. Also, having it on a zoom that goes to 24mm is just way more attractive to me in how practical that is, compared to a prime 14mm which becomes a one trick pony in many of my shooting situations (and sometimes is a one trick that never matches any photographic opportunity).

Jason

 

[Besisika]

I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage. I already sold my 16-35mm 2.8 II, and just listed my 14mm 2.8 II for sale, with funds from both going toward the purchase of this lens.

In my experience, the quality of the 16-35 2.8 II was just not up to par with the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II on a variety of levels. Also, once I tried the 14 2.8 II, I found the additional 2mm in width to be very useful (and the overall image quality much, much better), though being stuck at one specific (specialty) focal length could be limiting.

Yes, it would be great to have a newer 2.8 lens with better image quality and more zoom, but as many here already mentioned, it isn't likely to come about anytime soon. This 11-24mm is groundbreaking and is pushing technological envelope as it is (and since it was announced with the 50MP bodies, seems much more geared to landscape and studio photography, though obviously not limited to those disciplines; much in the same way the 100-400mm was announced with the 7DII for a different sort of focus).

I think in some cases on my 5D IIIs and 6Ds f/4 will be perfectly fine (and really, an added benefit of more being in focus). When the lighting and action pushes it too far, I can mount it on my Sony A7s and I don't think lack of light will be a problem.

I'm super stoked about this lens. I've learned to really love super wide angle photography in the past year or two, so the possibilities that open up with 11mm really intrigue me. Also, having it on a zoom that goes to 24mm is just way more attractive to me in how practical that is, compared to a prime 14mm which becomes a one trick pony in many of my shooting situations (and sometimes is a one trick that never matches any photographic opportunity).

Jason

Sounds good!
Let us know how it goes. I think concert/event photographers are hesitating about it. Post some samples once you have some. Should be fabulous but all for now is just speculation. I still can't picture it out, how wide that would be.
Would it better than the 16-35 F4 for us? You would be the first to know.

 

[rocksubculture]

Sounds good!
Let us know how it goes. I think concert/event photographers are hesitating about it. Post some samples once you have some. Should be fabulous but all for now is just speculation. I still can't picture it out, how wide that would be.
Would it better than the 16-35 F4 for us? You would be the first to know.

Yeah, I was interested about the 16-35 f/4 when I heard about the high quality, but I was hoping that there was a slightly wider/faster lens coming. This 11-24 is much, much wider but no faster, but I think it is a more compelling value proposition in that I could replace two lenses (16-35 2.8 II and 14 2.8 II) with one lens, and have more on the wide end.

I almost never shoot narrower than f/2.8 (all of my lenses have a max aperture of f/2.8 or faster, up to f/0.95), but though lighting can be awful in concerts, some times it is excellent. Just depends on artist and venue and who's operating the lighting.

But there have been cases where I could definitely have used wider than 14mm... and not just to "fit in" the full band from up close, but for when the subject is right in front of me or literally on top of me. For me, the most interesting wide angle shots are when the subject is right up close.

I'm very unusual in how I approach concert photography compared to the norm though - I bring two 6Ds, two 5DIIIs, one 7DII, and one Sony A7s to save time changing lenses and to be ready for any kind of shot. The A7s I bought specifically for old, manual vintage lenses, but it might be a good match for this 11-24mm under certain circumstances (and it would be a breeze to manually focus ultra wide shots at f/4 with focus peaking).

I'll share some shots probably in a couple weeks, as I know I'll have a show from the pit with good lighting coming up, and should have it in my hands by early next week or maybe this weekend...

Jason

 

[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.

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?

I have shot weddings and events. I wouldn't use an 11mm lens (no one ever has because it hasn't existed before!) for weddings though. And if I needed f/2.8 or wider I would use a prime - that's what primes are for IMO.

There are a bunch of lenses out there that could do the job - Canon 14L, Ziess 15mm, Canon 16-35LII, Canon 24L, Samyang 14mm, Canon 24mm f2.8 IS to name a few.

The 11-24 is not meant to be a general purpose lens just like the 17mm TSE isn't a lens made for wedding photographers. My point is if Canon tried to satisfy everyone we would end up with a compromise at best and then no one would be happy. I don't want to see that.

 

[LovePhotography]

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.

For me, if it's as sharp corner to corner as the 16-35 f/4, it's going to be hard to turn resist. Certainly can't see $3000 on a lens not as sharp as the $1000 16-35. But if it IS as sharp, hell, I'll learn to figure out how to take a good shot at 11mm. I'm mean, there are never enough shots off the top of the Empire State Building, or pics of you dog's snout 2 inches from the lens, right?

 

[mackguyver]

I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage.

While you're waiting, here's a review of the Nikon 14-24 for concert shooting. I imagine you've seen his site by now, but if not, he's got a lot of great stuff on it:
http://www.ishootshows.com/2011/01/19/review-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g-best-wide-angle-lens/

For me, if it's as sharp corner to corner as the 16-35 f/4, it's going to be hard to turn resist. Certainly can't see $3000 on a lens not as sharp as the $1000 16-35. But if it IS as sharp, hell, I'll learn to figure out how to take a good shot at 11mm. I'm mean, there are never enough shots off the top of the Empire State Building, or pics of you dog's snout 2 inches from the lens, right?

Looking at the MTF charts, it looks like the corners of the 11-24 are a bit better than the 16-35 f/4 IS at 24mm, but it's slightly less sharp overall. At 11mm, it looks like it has slightly better contrast and equivalent but more uniform resolution. Given that the 16-35 f/4 IS is a very sharp lens, that looks very good. The only real weaknesses of the 16-35 f/4 IS are fairly strong vignetting in the extreme corners (mostly at 16mm), a fair amount of distortion (16, again), and a hint of CA.

I think the 11-24 cost comes mostly from the ability to go to 11mm, and the low distortion, which means that the FOV will still be near 11mm after correction. If it does that and is as sharp or nearly as sharp as the 16-35 f/4 IS, I think we'll get our money's worth.

 

[Besisika]

I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage.

While you're waiting, here's a review of the Nikon 14-24 for concert shooting. I imagine you've seen his site by now, but if not, he's got a lot of great stuff on it:
http://www.ishootshows.com/2011/01/19/review-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g-best-wide-angle-lens/

Mack, these are fabulous!
Now I see what are we talking about.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[mackguyver]

I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage.

While you're waiting, here's a review of the Nikon 14-24 for concert shooting. I imagine you've seen his site by now, but if not, he's got a lot of great stuff on it:
http://www.ishootshows.com/2011/01/19/review-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g-best-wide-angle-lens/

Mack, these are fabulous!
Now I see what are we talking about.
Thanks for sharing.

I'm happy to share things I find and I've followed Todd's work for a while. I really like his work and he writes great reviews and articles including a very helpful one on how to get a photo pass.

 

[privatebydesign]

I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage.

While you're waiting, here's a review of the Nikon 14-24 for concert shooting. I imagine you've seen his site by now, but if not, he's got a lot of great stuff on it:
http://www.ishootshows.com/2011/01/19/review-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g-best-wide-angle-lens/

Mack, these are fabulous!
Now I see what are we talking about.
Thanks for sharing.

I'm happy to share things I find and I've followed Todd's work for a while. I really like his work and he writes great reviews and articles including a very helpful one on how to get a photo pass.

Ha, birds of a feather! I have been an occasional visitor since his DIY beauty dish post!

 

[cfargo]

B&H says that they are not getting them until 3/4/2015. Adorama is still saying this week sometime.

 

[mackguyver]

B&H says that they are not getting them until 3/4/2015. Adorama is still saying this week sometime.

Bummer. I have a shoot this weekend that I was hoping to use it for, but I have another next weekend, so hopefully it will make it in time for that.

 

[jeffa4444]

Played around with the lens today at the BVE Exhibition in London have to say at 11mm and at edges their appeared to be zero distortion. Its a big lens at the front end and makes the combo on the 5d MKIII quite heavy but overall the IQ looks to be very high.
Canon are giving us a lens to test this week so will shoot some video with it as well as stills, we will also put it up on our MTF bench.

 

[jeffa4444]

Lee Filters are making an adaptor for this lens for their SW150 holder which they originally designed for the Nikon 12-24mm

 

[Hispany]

A few units have been received in Spain http://www.martin-iglesias.com/ficha/NUEVO-OBJETIVO-CANON-11-24-F4-L-USM-disponible-a-primero-de-marzo-2015/18522/

I guess they will be available for other markets really soon.

 

[NancyP]

Well, I am the one taking close-ups of poisonous snakes....with the 180 macro +/- 1.4X TC. I grumble about carrying around this brick even for plant macros, but the results are so nice.

 

[cfargo]

My local dealer says that they got confirmation that they have been shipped from Canon but not how many. I'm headed to Hawaii on Saturday and I'm hoping to have one before then.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Spain price in Euros converts to $2820 US

Canadian price $3500 converts to about $2765 US

What's up?

Jack

 

[mackguyver]

What's up?

The US dollar, that's what:

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/24/the-strong-dollar-is-the-biggest-threat-to-the-recovery/

 

[Jack Douglas]

Yes but I simply used todays conversion rates, 0.79 roughly for Canada. So you slip me $2765 and I pass you a lens - isn't that better than paying $3K?

Jack

 

[mackguyver]

Yes but I simply used todays conversion rates, 0.79 roughly for Canada. So you slip me $2765 and I pass you a lens - isn't that better than paying $3K?

Jack

Canonpricewatch has suggested that very thing and had pre-orders up from their Canadian affiliates. It's also why we're seeing these insanely cheap deals on the gray market bodies on eBay. I've ordered from Canada before and wouldn't hesitate to do so again. With NAFTA, there are no fees, duties, etc. The only catch is that the 1D X (at least) comes with a Canadian vs. North American warranty card. Lenses come with the NA card in all cases, I believe.