Is This a Canon EF 11-24 f/4L?

[Mitch.Conner]

EDIT: Looks like the Admin merged the two threads making my comment irrelevant.

 

[Hannes]

Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site

I just wish its real

Canon lacks that mm range
11mm 12mm 13mm nope

Just EF 14mm, 15mm fisheye and 16-35mm

Canon have lenses that cover those focal lengths, mind you in vignetted fisheye but still

 

[infared]

Just sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II to purchase the new 16-35mm f/4L IS. Really happy with the new lens!...less mush.
I also have a 17mm TSE and the original Canon Fisheye...15mm.
I love my wide angle perspective...but I just don't get 11-24mm. Way to extreme and mostly distortion. Perhaps I am missing something ....a lens like that makes no sense to me unless it is an S lens. Everyone has a different take tho.
14-24mm f/2.8L makes sense....especially to complement the new 16-35mm f/4.0L IS. ....
This seems off somehow. Visually the lens looks faked to me, as if someone combined a non-L product (like the 24mm or 28mm IS lens, altered it in PS adding a zoom ring), and combined it with an L lens hood in PS.
That is the visual I get here...not a new, complete "L" product. It's definitely FAKE.

 

[StudentOfLight]

It looks roughly like something I had imagined. Although I expected the front element to be slightly larger and the overall length to be little bit longer.

 

[lo lite]

Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site

Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40.
Canon will never put a red ring on a hood, it will be on a body, even with integrated hood.

Look closely. The 17-40 is different.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site

Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

What I really meant was just why f/4. If this lens really is $2800 as a rumor months ago suggested, I'd have expected it to be faster to make it more capable for low light.

 

[pleasehelp]

I would prefer a 14-24mm f2.8 every day.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I would prefer a 14-24mm f2.8 every day.

+1

 

[steliosk]

if its true, why it ain't in photokina?

Wish it is though, and if it is, it ain't gonna be cheap

 

[keriboi]

Will be released with the 3D next month

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Will be released with the 3D next month

And the 24-70 f/2.8 IS, which I really really really want but worry will never ever exist.

 

[sagittariansrock]

11-24/4 vs 14-24/2.8?
Interesting dilemma. A good one to have to ponder over

 

[brad-man]

I don't believe the lens exists. But if it does, it has to live up to the recently raised standard for Canon UWAs set by the 16-35IS. No easy task.

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site

Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site

Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1. RLPhoto has a video on Youtube where he handheld the 16-35/4 IS for a second with perfectly acceptable image (@16mm)! Imagine the possibilities if you are shooting in a church and don't have a tripod. I can relate an example from life- I was at the top of the tower in Hotel Paris, Las Vegas where they don't allow tripods, and taking long-ish exposures to shoot the Belaggio fountains. It was very useful to have IS (it wasn't this lens, FYI). Plus 16-35 is very versatile, not just landscape and not to forget, video.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site

Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site

Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.

Again, people need to stop misreading my posts. I never said it wasn't necessary or said it was unnecessary. I said it wasn't AS necessary. The general rule of thumb is 1/focalLength (adjusted for crop factor) is the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed without IS. Let's give an additional bit of leeway for smaller pixels these days. You might need 1/20th of a second shutter speed at 11mm. Sure, it's possible you might need to shoot at one full second in a dimly lit church so you could get a photo of a wedding couple at ISO 100. It's also possible these days that you could crank up the ISO to 1600, still have the same ISO 200 level IQ you had a few years ago, and still get the shot at 1/20th...without IS.

On the other hand, at 200mm you would normally need at least 1/320th of a second shutter speed. You would absolutely need IS to get that 1/20th second ISO 1600 shot.

AS NECESSARY. There is a qualifying term there. I used it for a reason. (PBD, weren't you the one running around recently acting like the grammar police, with claims that it would lessen misunderstanding?) I am not trying to assert it's useless, or unnecessary. I was trying to give a simple reason why Canon likely did not decide to include IS in a 11-24mm lens. That's all. I'm really sick and tired of people crucifying me for writing things they simply misinterpret, or twist around, or whatever it is. Please READ what I write, people.

I wasn't misreading your post, I was taking issue with your presumption of level of necessity. I would find IS far more useful in a 16-35 f2.8 than in a 600 f4 that lives on a tripod in a blind shooting birds. For me IS in ultrawides for handheld environmental work is now, basically, a necessity, if the 11/14-24/30 f2.8 doesn't have IS, and I know it won't, then the 16-35 f4 IS is where my money will go.

No misinterpretation, no twisting of words, just a fundamental disagreement on your use of "as necessary". For me, personally, IS is as necessary on ultrawides as it is on a 70-200 f2.8, it will help us push more boundaries and capture more images with higher quality than ever before, to me that is worth far more than another stop or so of DR.

 

[privatebydesign]

"IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths."

That is a self contained sentence that makes a fairly blatant claim which for you it might be true, for others, not so much; it is also a massive generalisation and I took exception to it because in at least one case, mine, it is not true (and I don't believe I am alone). Now you can get upset that everybody doesn't agree with you, that is your right, but I didn't crucify you, or twist or misrepresent your words, I just disagreed with them, and that is what a forum is about. Stop the persecution complex and do me the favour of "Please READ what I write, people."

 

[privatebydesign]

Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?

IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.

I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.

+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.

Again, people need to stop misreading my posts. I never said it wasn't necessary or said it was unnecessary. I said it wasn't AS necessary. The general rule of thumb is 1/focalLength (adjusted for crop factor) is the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed without IS. Let's give an additional bit of leeway for smaller pixels these days. You might need 1/20th of a second shutter speed at 11mm. Sure, it's possible you might need to shoot at one full second in a dimly lit church so you could get a photo of a wedding couple at ISO 100. It's also possible these days that you could crank up the ISO to 1600, still have the same ISO 200 level IQ you had a few years ago, and still get the shot at 1/20th...without IS.

On the other hand, at 200mm you would normally need at least 1/320th of a second shutter speed. You would absolutely need IS to get that 1/20th second ISO 1600 shot.

AS NECESSARY. There is a qualifying term there. I used it for a reason. (PBD, weren't you the one running around recently acting like the grammar police, with claims that it would lessen misunderstanding?) I am not trying to assert it's useless, or unnecessary. I was trying to give a simple reason why Canon likely did not decide to include IS in a 11-24mm lens. That's all. I'm really sick and tired of people crucifying me for writing things they simply misinterpret, or twist around, or whatever it is. Please READ what I write, people.

I wasn't misreading your post, I was taking issue with your presumption of level of necessity. I would find IS far more useful in a 16-35 f2.8 than in a 600 f4 that lives on a tripod in a blind shooting birds. For me IS in ultrawides for handheld environmental work is now, basically, a necessity, if the 11/14-24/30 f2.8 doesn't have IS, and I know it won't, then the 16-35 f4 IS is where my money will go.

No misinterpretation, no twisting of words, just a fundamental disagreement on your use of "as necessary". For me, personally, IS is as necessary on ultrawides as it is on a 70-200 f2.8, it will help us push more boundaries and capture more images with higher quality than ever before, to me that is worth far more than another stop or so of DR.

Your entitled to your own opinion, however it's just that, an opinion. I wasn't generalizing anything, and my assessment of the "necessity" of IS is not wrong in a general sense. Statistically and empirically, IS is essential on long lenses for any kind of hand-held use at what are often even very fast shutter speeds. Also statistically, IS is NOT essential for hand-held shots at wide and ultrawide focal lengths.

There is a big difference between something being useful, and something being essential. Usefulness is very often a matter of opinion, resulting from differences in personal style. I would be willing to bet that far more ultra wide angle lens users, if tested, would not find nearly as many reason to ask for IS to be added than those using longer focal lengths. I would be willing to bet that your insistence that IS is so useful as to effectively be essential and vehemently debate my post and pick apart words is a reaction a far, far less significant percentage of the wide angle lens using population is going to have.

My original post was simply offering a reasoning why Canon is less likely to decide to include IS in ultra wide angle lenses. It is NOT as necessary as at long focal lengths, where it is effectively essential for hand-holdability at shutter speeds that most would consider quite fast. It is very likely that ultra wide angle lenses are being used on tripods or some other kind of support, than hand-held in extremely dimly lit places at ultra low ISO settings. Inclusion of IS is also an additional cost, one which will be passed onto the end user, and NOT every user is willing to pay more money for a feature they may not find as necessary as others. I'm willing to bet the balance is tipped more heavily in favor of those who don't find IS useful there. If there was a very significant demand for IS in ultra ultra wide angle lenses like an 11-24mm, I think Canon would have included it.

Furthermore, none of that has anything to do with usefulness. It simply has to do with the likely reasons why Canon did not include IS in such an ultra wide angle lens designed for full frame sensors. If you find it useful, great! I'd recommend sending emails to Canon demanding they include IS in every single lens they make.

That would be "you're"

 

[hendrik-sg]

Maybe this lens is at the limit of what is possible with reasonable IQ and for acceptable price.

Maybe the question is, "have this lens without IS" or "not have it at all", just because there is no room for the IS unit or because of other restrictions.

The same may be true about 2.8 opening, it may be impossible, or unconvienient in weight, size or price...

So lets hope it is real, and has good optical performance