Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?

[AvTvM]

... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides. This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens. Hmmm.

That`s exactly the way I see it, yes.
"Zoom Holy Trinity" ... 11-24/4; 24-70/2.8 IS; 70-200 II or "gang of 4" with 100-400 II 8) ;D
[Plus 100/2.8 L IS Macro ... if one really needs it. ]

All of these zooms very sharp from fully open. basically replacing primes for everything except speed.
Only one missing will be 24-70/2.8 IS.

 

[Random Orbits]

I'm just starting a conversation here. Why is Canon making a 11-24 f/4 lens? What segment, issue, reason, gap would make this light up to Canon's marketers as an opportunity to them?

- A

Maybe because Canon can't get around Nikon's patent to produce a competitive 14-24. Nikon's 14-24 decreased the demand for its own 14 f/2.8. I like that Canon is not matching the competition step for step. Perhaps its market research found that 11-24 f/4 would do better than 14-24 f/2.8 . Want the widest fast ultrawide? 14 f/2.8 . Want a UWA zoom? 16-35 f/4 IS or 16-35 f/2.8 II. Want something even wider? 11-24. The asymmetry would also give Canon claim to the widest rectilinear lens on FF, and I'm sure photographers will use that newly-available focal length for some unique/compelling images.

 

[dolina]

Sigma sells a 12-24mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-12-24mm-f-4.5-5.6-DG-II-HSM-Lens.aspx

 

[Random Orbits]

...

So I don't think it's as cut and dry as people are making this out to be. But everyone on this thread -- today -- seems to be on the same page that this is a focal length driven need. Perhaps the release of the 16-35 F/4L IS put the sharpness 'want' to bed (for now), and now the reeeeeally ultrawide folks want their need addressed, i.e. perhaps all the 75% from my poll aren't reading this thread because they are out happily shooting with their new 16-35 f/4 IS lenses.

- A

Agree that the 16-35 f/4 IS solved a lot of UWA issues in the Canon camp.

 

[Etienne]

An EF 16-35 f/2.8 III that is as sharp as the current Nikon 14-24 F/2.8
An EF 14-24 F/2.8 that is only as sharp as the current EF 16-35 F/2.8 II

that's your poll.

of course they are mostly going to suggest the first one the 16-35 II is alright, but not sharp wide open, making a 14-24 like that would be a much weaker performer than the nikkor - so why on earth would anyone want it?

That's precisely why I asked it! Did people want a wider FL even if it wasn't the sharpest lens around? 25% of the respondents still said yes! That 25% is probably pretty geeked about this talk of an 11-24.

- A

that just goes to show you that even if it's a crappy 14-24 some would even desperately want that.

seriously doesn't tell you much else.

I think it might be a stretch to call the 16-35 II crappy. Not as good as the 14-24, for sure. But crappy...

It's true the 16-35 2.8L II can be a little soft wide open, but I am still keeping it because of the f/2.8. One stop is a lot of light. At equivalent apertures, the f/2.8 II and f/4 IS are pretty much identical, so it's a question of more light or IS.

Here's what I'd like to see, although it will never be made: 16- 24 f/2.0 (smaller range to keep the size and weight down in the 600g range. Or a 24-50 f/2.0

 

[privatebydesign]

I'd use it - but not very often - as a "specialty landscape and UrbEX lens" and want it as wide as possible ... for UWA effect.

A 15mm fisheye defished is the equivalent of a 5.25mm rectilinear.

No it isn't.

Real examples show it isn't even close to that, I'd put it closer to 11mm judging from the defished images I have when compared to my 17mm TS-E shift stitched images that do equate to 11mm.

It does become subjective when you look in the corners as to what is acceptable IQ, but I have always been surprised at how good the old Canon 15 fisheye is when defished, indeed it beat the pants off the two Canon 14mm MkII primes I have used.

 

[Maui5150]

... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides. This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens. Hmmm.

That`s exactly the way I see it, yes.
"Zoom Holy Trinity" ... 11-24/4; 24-70/2.8 IS; 70-200 II or "gang of 4" with 100-400 II 8) ;D
[Plus 100/2.8 L IS Macro ... if one really needs it. ]

All of these zooms very sharp from fully open. basically replacing primes for everything except speed.
Only one missing will be 24-70/2.8 IS.

Actually it is the Four Horsemen of the Zoom Apocalypse

11-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
200-400/4

 

[dstppy]

... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides. This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens. Hmmm.

That`s exactly the way I see it, yes.
"Zoom Holy Trinity" ... 11-24/4; 24-70/2.8 IS; 70-200 II or "gang of 4" with 100-400 II 8) ;D
[Plus 100/2.8 L IS Macro ... if one really needs it. ]

All of these zooms very sharp from fully open. basically replacing primes for everything except speed.
Only one missing will be 24-70/2.8 IS.

Actually it is the Four Horsemen of the Zoom Apocalypse

11-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
200-400/4

Wouldn't that be the Zoombie Apocalypse?

 

[Lee Jay]

... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides. This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens. Hmmm.

That`s exactly the way I see it, yes.
"Zoom Holy Trinity" ... 11-24/4; 24-70/2.8 IS; 70-200 II or "gang of 4" with 100-400 II 8) ;D
[Plus 100/2.8 L IS Macro ... if one really needs it. ]

All of these zooms very sharp from fully open. basically replacing primes for everything except speed.
Only one missing will be 24-70/2.8 IS.

Actually it is the Four Horsemen of the Zoom Apocalypse

11-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
200-400/4

Wouldn't that be the Zoombie Apocalypse?

That would be the "my-kids-aren't-going-to-college-and-my-wife-is-divorcing me" Apocalypse.

 

[willhuff.net]

Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters? I would love to have the 11-70mm range covered with 2 lenses and 1 set of filters.

 

[lintoni]

... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides. This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens. Hmmm.

That`s exactly the way I see it, yes.
"Zoom Holy Trinity" ... 11-24/4; 24-70/2.8 IS; 70-200 II or "gang of 4" with 100-400 II 8) ;D
[Plus 100/2.8 L IS Macro ... if one really needs it. ]

All of these zooms very sharp from fully open. basically replacing primes for everything except speed.
Only one missing will be 24-70/2.8 IS.

Actually it is the Four Horsemen of the Zoom Apocalypse

11-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
200-400/4

Wouldn't that be the Zoombie Apocalypse?

 

[Lee Jay]

Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters?

Probably.

The front element is going to be very similar to that of the 17-TSE.

And here's the maybe-real maybe-not image posted earlier.

 

[andrewflo]

... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides. This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens. Hmmm.

That`s exactly the way I see it, yes.
"Zoom Holy Trinity" ... 11-24/4; 24-70/2.8 IS; 70-200 II or "gang of 4" with 100-400 II 8) ;D
[Plus 100/2.8 L IS Macro ... if one really needs it. ]

All of these zooms very sharp from fully open. basically replacing primes for everything except speed.
Only one missing will be 24-70/2.8 IS.

Actually it is the Four Horsemen of the Zoom Apocalypse

11-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
200-400/4

Wouldn't that be the Zoombie Apocalypse?

That would be the "my-kids-aren't-going-to-college-and-my-wife-is-divorcing me" Apocalypse.

LOL!

 

[ahsanford]

Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters?

Probably.

The front element is going to be very similar to that of the 17-TSE.

That's why I'd have a hard time at 11mm -- even with a flat front element, virtually anything threaded into the filter ring would vignette, and something stout like my Lee 100mm system would be a no go. It's wonderpana or bust at that FL, isn't it? (Unless Lee would start making outriggers and filters the size of dinner plates. )

So I agree with Lee Jay -- the 11-24mm picture we've seen (real or fake) is probably in the right flavor of what we'd be getting. The 11-24 would be bulbous/non-filterable and the front filtering crowd would stick with the various 16-, 17- zooms, the 20mm non-L no one ever talks about, the 24L, the 24 T/S, etc. I think Zeiss also has an 18mm MF prime that is front filterable.

- A

 

[meywd]

Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters?

Probably.

The front element is going to be very similar to that of the 17-TSE.

That's why I'd have a hard time at 11mm -- even with a flat front element, virtually anything threaded into the filter ring would vignette, and something stout like my Lee 100mm system would be a no go. It's wonderpana or bust at that FL, isn't it? (Unless Lee would start making outriggers and filters the size of dinner plates. )

So I agree with Lee Jay -- the 11-24mm picture we've seen (real or fake) is probably in the right flavor of what we'd be getting. The 11-24 would be bulbous/non-filterable and the front filtering crowd would stick with the various 16-, 17- zooms, the 20mm non-L no one ever talks about, the 24L, the 24 T/S, etc. I think Zeiss also has an 18mm MF prime that is front filterable.

- A

maybe the Lee SW150 system

 

[privatebydesign]

Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters? I would love to have the 11-70mm range covered with 2 lenses and 1 set of filters.

No, not for the 135/FF format.

As Lee Jay points out the front element would need to be very similar to the 17TS-E which, coincidentally, actually has an effective 11mm fov when you do a longitudinal shift stitch. And unless they dramatically up the corner IQ of that then I would far rather have the 16-35 f4 IS. The projection distortion inherent in a lens as wide at an 11mm is probably going to be an IQ killer.

 

[ahsanford]

That's why I'd have a hard time at 11mm -- even with a flat front element, virtually anything threaded into the filter ring would vignette, and something stout like my Lee 100mm system would be a no go. It's wonderpana or bust at that FL, isn't it? (Unless Lee would start making outriggers and filters the size of dinner plates. )

So I agree with Lee Jay -- the 11-24mm picture we've seen (real or fake) is probably in the right flavor of what we'd be getting. The 11-24 would be bulbous/non-filterable and the front filtering crowd would stick with the various 16-, 17- zooms, the 20mm non-L no one ever talks about, the 24L, the 24 T/S, etc. I think Zeiss also has an 18mm MF prime that is front filterable.

- A

maybe the Lee SW150 system

I see that product as proof positive of the stranglehold the 14-24 has on landscapers at least in England (where Lee is located). The people who came up with a terrific system to work with any front filterable lens devoted an entire product line to one lens. Other lenses work with it, but they designed it because of that one lens.

But even if this worked for the 11-24, I wouldn't migrate away from my Lee 100 system for 5 more mm wider focal length. Those filters (esp. my 105 front CPL) are not cheap!

- A

 

[dstppy]

Actually it is the Four Horsemen of the Zoom Apocalypse

11-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
200-400/4

Wouldn't that be the Zoombie Apocalypse?

I am just a bad, bad man. I should be ashamed, but I'm not. :

 

[AvTvM]

Hehehe ... Love it! ;D

 

[preppyak]

I'm torn on this one, if it is indeed real. My head is swirling these sort of thoughts right now:

• If it's for event photogs, one would think it's a stop too slow, right?
• If it's for video, where's the IS?
• If it's for landscapers, how do you filter it? We'd be stuck in Wonderpana world, wouldn't we?
• If Canon insists on going pound for pound with Nikon's 14-24 ultrawide, they will be a stop slower. Isn't the Nikon an f/2.8 design?

Well, lets go through them. First, 11-24 is not for event photogs, thats that the 16-35 is for. Thus why the new one has IS.

It's also not for video, as its impractically wide and would only be used for very specific shots. Far more likely that someone would want the 16-35 range for that (and again, that has IS).

Landscapers have been filtering lenses without threaded filters for many years, and many that would buy this $2k+ lens either already own filter systems, or dont mind spending a little more on some new filters. Nikons 14-24 doesnt have threaded filters either, nor does Canons 17mm TS. Even if this did have a threaded filter, it'd be wider than the 77mm or 82mm filters people already own...so, new filters would be needed anyway

If Canon is going pound for pound with the 14-24 from Nikon, then Canon is 3mm wider, which some might trade the f/2.8 for. Especially if its as sharp at f/4 as the Nikon is. Likewise, it'd make Canon's the widest rectilinear lens out there I believe. The few people that NEED 14mm f/2.8 could either get Canon's, or do what most of them are already doing, save $1000+, and buy the Rokinon. Most astro guys [main user I can think of that would want/need f/2.8] already own the Rokinon because it's 1/5th the price of the other options.

The new 16-35 makes this lens slightly less desirable than it probably was 6 months ago. But there are still plenty of landscapers that will buy it if its on par with the sharpness of recent Canon lenses. Especially if it comes combo'd with a 30+ MP sensor