Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM

[mackguyver]

I finally made it out to shoot yesterday and almost got a pretty nice shot with this lens, but 2 minutes before sunrise, some idiot pulled up in a pick up truck right into the middle of my shot. The FOV at 11mm is quite hard to work with in that regard. I had to readjust and got this poor substitute for the original composition:

I also went to scout a new location on the way home and grabbed this photo (handheld) of a cool pedestrian bridge. The light was pretty harsh, so I converted it to B&W with the Kodak Tri-X profile in DxO Filmpack (minus the grain). Also, the angles are a bit off since it was handheld, but I think it turned out okay:

Both shots were taken at f/11, ISO 400 and were processed in ACR using the lens profile and minimal adjustments. I'd probably crop them a bit, but I wanted to show the full 11mm FOV. One other note - this lens is ridiculously sharp in the middle 3/4 of the frame. It softens a bit from there and more in the extreme corners, but the middle part of the lens is as sharp or sharper than my very best lenses.

 

[SwnSng]

wonderful images Mac! Can't wait until I have the time to shoot anything but baseball.

 

[NWPhil]

I just returned my rental, and wished I had more time with it.
Some major points:
- It's front heavy and larger than other equivalents: canon 16-35 f4 and Sigma 12-24mkII
- Flare control is better than the sigma - no surprise here - but not so sure when compared to the 16-35 f/4 (not a fair comparison as FOV is quite different all wide)
- focusing is fast and accurate
- with the new lens profile on LR6, there is a dramatic improvement vs no lens correction
- feels very solid and well built, with a focusing ring and zoom offering more resistance than other canon zooms

I compared this lens against the Sigma 12-24mmmkII; Canon 16-35mm f/4; Samyang 14mm; Zeiss 15mm ZE; Canon TSe-17mm; Zeiss 18mm; Zeiss 21mm and Canon TSe 24mm, but was just a short testing, inducing flare as much as possible.
I am sure this lens can provide wonderful images, but...I am not convinced yet.
Flare control is the main and strongest reason for me to consider buying it - so I will have to rent it again once it becomes available locally, and take it out for some more serious shooting
For the occasional UWA shooter, it's a hard sell at almost 3k...

If anyone wants to see the (crappy) shots, I can post a link to them later.

 

[Eldar]

Still struggling, but I thought I´d add a couple. This first is from my local duck pond. At 11mm it looks like a lake.

 

[Eldar]

Here´s another, showing the layered rock formation in the Oslo fjord just down from my house. Also at 11mm

 

[mackguyver]

wonderful images Mac! Can't wait until I have the time to shoot anything but baseball.

Thanks - I just wish I could have gotten the shot I really wanted...and I understand about shooting and I am frustrated that I haven't been able to shoot much over the last 6 months or so.

NWPhil - good observations and for an occasional UWA shooter it is quite steep. The flare is definitely better than most of those lenses (at least the Canons & Sigma as I have owned or do own them) and I also think the 16-35 f/4 IS has less flare. The 11-24 f/4 is quite a bit sharper than the Sigma and is sharp throughout the zoom range, unlike the more inconsistent Sigma.

Still struggling, but I thought I´d add a couple. This first is from my local duck pond. At 11mm it looks like a lake.

Eldar, good work - the first shot in particular is very nice. I see you got a lot closer to the subject and focused on getting interesting foregrounds, which is definitely the key. As you use the lens more, you'll start thinking of good subjects. I have a list in my head of all of the places I would like to shoot/re-shoot with this lens. In your part of the world, I picture the rocks and ice in front of glaciers, interiors of ice caves, smooth stones in mountain streams, and alpine meadows full of spring flowers. I could also see laying on the ground and pointing the camera straight up to shoot in the forest.

 

[SwnSng]

Still struggling, but I thought I´d add a couple. This first is from my local duck pond. At 11mm it looks like a lake.

These are awesome! I love the color and contrast in the first image and love the sweeping rocks in the 2nd and the color of the sky is beautiful. If this is struggling I can't wait to see what comes next.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Well, I'm nearly to the north-west coast of Canada but driving rather than photographing too much but here are a couple wide shots, for fun of course. Was a cloudy, wet day.

Jack

 

[mackguyver]

Interesting shots, Jack. The totem poles look like they are about 100 feet tall! I hope the weather improves.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Here's the rightmost totem at a more normal zoom of 24. It's maybe 20-25 feet tall. Does the 11 shot have any merit or is it just a nutty wide shot in your mind, Ian?

Jack

 

[expatinasia]

Here´s another, showing the layered rock formation in the Oslo fjord just down from my house. Also at 11mm

I really like that shot, Eldar, well done!

What an amazing place to live, looks extremely remote.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Has anyone tried filters on this babe yet?

 

[mackguyver]

Has anyone tried filters on this babe yet?

I have the ND 3.0 Wratten gel from Kodak, but haven't had a chance to use it yet...

 

[Jack Douglas]

Not claiming any originality with this one. Like Eldar I'm struggling to learn the extra wide strong points.

Jack

 

[Eldar]

Been out again, to figure out what this lens is supposed to be used for. I have by no means tried to produce award winning photographs, but merely tried to figure out some good use cases. I am still only using 11mm.

Very often I find UWA images rather boring, because it is so evident that they are UWA. Weird perspective, distortion, things falling into our out of the image etc. But at the same time, those who are good at it, can create perspectives where everything is exaggerated, but still cool. So in short, I am still lost, I may have found a potential route to the map store, but *** is not invented where I go with this lens ...

This first, of the bridge, is impossible to shoot with anything but an UWA, unless you stitch. But I still believe I got a fairly natural perspective.

 

[Eldar]

This second one is something I find is working rather well. The flower is shot at very close to minimum focusing distance. But the wide angle is showing enough of the background, to give this summer-is-coming feeling.

 

[Eldar]

This last one is rather badly composed, with the building to the right etc., but it gives this exaggerated perspective you can only have with an UWA lens like this one.

PS! What did I take a picture of??

 

[Eldar]

Not claiming any originality with this one. Like Eldar I'm struggling to learn the extra wide strong points.

Jack

I had to open this full size, to realise you were shooting from inside of the rail tracks. If you lift the shadows a bit, it might be easier to see.

I think the only way to master this chunk of glass is to just try new things and add new angles to them. I am totally incapable today, to envision what 11mm will look like, just by observing a potential motive. When I get to the point where I can do that, I think I have cracked the code.

 

[Eldar]

Since we are celebrating our liberation day today (The Germans left in 1945), I found this pole just down from my house. I don´t believe many would have guessed this to be an 11mm FF image.

 

[Sporgon]

This last one is rather badly composed, with the building to the right etc., but it gives this exaggerated perspective you can only have with an UWA lens like this one.

PS! What did I take a picture of??

Canoes stacked on a trailer ? Really shows how extreme these lenses are. Despite the fact that many of my pictures are ultra wide, I cheat and don't have the foreground issues. I never got on with ultra wide lenses.

However the picture of the flag pole is pretty impressive: agree it doesn't look UWA, it's very straight. How much pp ?