More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]

[NancyP]

Er - wow! I have to say that at that price, we are talking Zeiss 15mm f/2.8, or TS-E 17mm f/4 plus a spare $750.00. Now that there are filter adapters available for the TS-E 17mm, it would be a tough choice between a TS-E 17 and the proposed lens for purposes of landscape shooting, where the tilt comes in handy. (In theory - I have seen examples of TS used on landscapes, but don't have a TS lens myself).

I suspect that for most people the Sigma 12-24 is good enough, but for a professional needing top IQ, the 11-24 might be a way to differentiate himself or herself from the crowd. This might be a rental lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

f/4 makes sense for an UWA. You can't use depth of field to separate subjects at that focal length and you can hand-hold pretty long exposures at 11mm.

But what happens when you are at 24mm and working a fairly standard environmental portrait and want maximum subject separation? Or when you are in a Siberian reindeer herders chum at 20,000iso and need the f2.8?

F4 doesn't make sense when you just brought out an f4 16-35 with IS and your ultra wide/wide choice doesn't have a single AF lens worth a damn below f4 all the way to 24mm.

 

[ScottyP]

I'll wait for the 16-35 f/2.8 III.

Evidently it may cost $6,000.00 because it is twice as bright.

 

[fox40phil]

I'm looking for Sigma to outbid that shit... with a nice price.

Whats wrong with Canon?!

 

[Daniel Flather]

f/4 makes sense for an UWA. You can't use depth of field to separate subjects at that focal length and you can hand-hold pretty long exposures at 11mm.

But what happens when you are at 24mm and working a fairly standard environmental portrait and want maximum subject separation? Or when you are in a Siberian reindeer herders chum at 20,000iso and need the f2.8?

F4 doesn't make sense when you just brought out an f4 16-35 with IS and your ultra wide/wide choice doesn't have a single AF lens worth a damn below f4 all the way to 24mm.

A second body with the 24/1.4L perhaps?

 

[romanr74]

Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:

• The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
• The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
• The 17 TS-E has a coverage of 11mm if you do a horizontal stitch, the projection distortion from an 11mm to rectilinear on ff is pretty bad, virtually unusable most of the time.

Whilst I don't see 14mm as being a hard limit for ff rectilinear lenses, 11mm is beyond extreme, at these focal lengths a couple of mm makes a huge difference. The 16-35 f4 IS has confirmed Canon can make fine ultra wide zooms, but where is the market for an 11-24 f4 next to that 16-35 f4 IS? If it was f2.8 I'd probably buy it, but my most used lens is the 17 TS-E anyway so it would be a nice compliment to that, at f4 I can stitch the 17 to get 11 on the very rare occasions I need the fov. The 16-35 f4 IS appeals, but it has limited utility for me over the 17 TS-E.

I can see the market for an f2.8 ultra wide zoom to compliment the 16-35 f4 IS, and the kudos of going wider than the 14-24, I am sure Canon would like the title of widest ff rectilinear lens back too, but the Sigma 12-24 is an f4 so even a 12-24 f2.8 would give Canon the fastest widest ever (so far)........

I would expect a 11-24 f/4 to have much better image quality in the corners compared to a fully shifted TS-E 17. I love the TS-E 17 but when shifted IQ takes quite a hit in the corners...

 

[IsaacImage]

The F4 bothering me much more than the price point.
Bring it 2.8 Canon

 

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

Dear Canon, please read these forums from people who know what they want in a lens. Suggested retail price is out of sync with other lenses of similar purpose, especially at F4. It looks impressive and we expect will perform and render as well as the new 24-70 f2.8L II and 16-35 f4.0L II.

Thank you too for printing the lens focal length on the lens hood too! This is big help so we don't have to learn another lens alphabet.

Thank you,
Markoe from USA

 

[xps]

3000€ is a little bit too much for an F4 lens, even if it is very sharp.
Sorry, but this price policy brings me away from Canon.
The Plus in IQ is not worth the high price. It will be a lens for enthusiasts and Canon fanboys.
It is cheaper to buy an other brand body and buy an windeangle prime. And stay with Canon in wildlife photography....
This is my opinion

 

[romanr74]

honestly, imo, if the IQ is matching the latest releases, this is a dream come true! I dont know how often i've really used f/2.8 with my 16-35 unless if it was for indoor architecture shots to shorten exposure time (where you would want to use a tripod anyway if you want to be serious about it). I am not stopping down action.

 

[privatebydesign]

I would expect a 11-24 f/4 to have much better image quality in the corners compared to a fully shifted TS-E 17. I love the TS-E 17 but when shifted IQ takes quite a hit in the corners...

If it didn't it would be a pretty pathetic lens, but even if it is that doesn't get around the effects of projection distortion, can you imagine even more fov than the Sigma 12-24? For small bathrooms it would be a fantastic lens, and the f4 wouldn't matter, but I just don't see the utility of another f4 ultra wide zoom.

 

[privatebydesign]

f/4 makes sense for an UWA. You can't use depth of field to separate subjects at that focal length and you can hand-hold pretty long exposures at 11mm.

But what happens when you are at 24mm and working a fairly standard environmental portrait and want maximum subject separation? Or when you are in a Siberian reindeer herders chum at 20,000iso and need the f2.8?

F4 doesn't make sense when you just brought out an f4 16-35 with IS and your ultra wide/wide choice doesn't have a single AF lens worth a damn below f4 all the way to 24mm.

A second body with the 24/1.4L perhaps?

That would be a third body for most serious shooters in that field, the 70-200 f2.8 IS on one, the 16-35 or new 11-35 f4 zoom on another plus a need for a 24 f1.4 n a third, not gonna wash with those guys.

 

[Etienne]

Way too much $$ for me, but I might rent one. Very specialist lens.
I can put a $350 Rokinon 8mm f/2.8 (or 12mm f/2) on my EOS M, and get interesting results in a tiny package carried on a little waist bag. Sure it's not as good as a 11-24 on my 5D3, but it's quickly available while simultaneously using the 5D3 with a 16-35 or 70-200.

 

[rfdesigner]

Looks like they're fixing their Wide angle weakness.. Well done Canon.

At this rate they'll have nothing left to update and will HAVE to release a 50mmf1.4 II with proper ringUSM

.
.
.

oh no, sorry, that's against their religion!

 

[The Flasher]

Hard to imagine a rectilinear 11mm lens. Maybe it will be rectilinear after 14mm zoom range. Wait and see and happily keep using the 14mm 2.8 II, 17 TSE, 16-35 /4 combo.

 

[Dick]

11-24 f/4 sounds very interesting, but 3k...? I'll survive without it. :'( I have a family to feed.
Why is everything so f*cking expensive these days? Just spent 1k on a new phone. That is just ridiculous.

 

[Random Orbits]

Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:

• The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
• The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
• The 17 TS-E has a coverage of 11mm if you do a horizontal stitch, the projection distortion from an 11mm to rectilinear on ff is pretty bad, virtually unusable most of the time.

Whilst I don't see 14mm as being a hard limit for ff rectilinear lenses, 11mm is beyond extreme, at these focal lengths a couple of mm makes a huge difference. The 16-35 f4 IS has confirmed Canon can make fine ultra wide zooms, but where is the market for an 11-24 f4 next to that 16-35 f4 IS? If it was f2.8 I'd probably buy it, but my most used lens is the 17 TS-E anyway so it would be a nice compliment to that, at f4 I can stitch the 17 to get 11 on the very rare occasions I need the fov. The 16-35 f4 IS appeals, but it has limited utility for me over the 17 TS-E.

I can see the market for an f2.8 ultra wide zoom to compliment the 16-35 f4 IS, and the kudos of going wider than the 14-24, I am sure Canon would like the title of widest ff rectilinear lens back too, but the Sigma 12-24 is an f4 so even a 12-24 f2.8 would give Canon the fastest widest ever (so far)........

Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 weighs more than 2 lb. How much heavier would a well-corrected 12-24 f/2.8 weigh? Would a 3-4 lb lens sell?

I'm hoping that the Canon is working on a 16-35 f/2.8 III that is as easily filterable as the II. A 16-35 f/2.8 III, 16-35 f/4 IS, and a 11-24 f/4 will meet most photographers needs and would provide the best breadth of high performance lenses amongst mainstream camera/lens manufacturers. How will 11mm be used? I'm not sure, but I'm sure that people will figure out a use for it, and then it'll be copied ad naseum like the Go Pro action video or aerial/drone stuff...

 

[hendrik-sg]

To get a FOW this wide, the use of 8-15 fisheye at about 11mm on FF (with black corners) and correct with the hemi correction tool gives quite nice resultes. Compromise is, ist not exactlly rectangular projection and sharpness suffers at 180° FOW.

But
- it's 180° and not 120°
- it's 1000$ not 3000$
- the look is more natural than strongle recangular in my opinion.

For 3000$ one gets both (8-15 and 17TS) lenses, which gives all Fisheye Options, give UWA TS, 11mm rectangular with stitching for static subjects, and 180° FOW with correction in compromised quality.

All this together is more for me, than a 11-24 zoom for the same money.

To get compositions acceptable with lenses this wide, needs (at least for me) lot of time and patience, then using the tripod and maybe a lens change to take home all options is no problem and may get better results than a single shot with the zoom

The 17 TS has soft Corners fully shifted and lots of vignetting, thats true, but stitching gives a 40MP 11mm pic, which downscaled is really fine, and any other 11-12mm option has to prove her benefit first.

 

[grey4]

if the price settles, a 11-24 L would totally replace the 10-22 in my kit. Especially on a 7Dii

 

[andrewflo]

As awesome as this lens looks... I think I'd have to skip it for $3k.

I'm no expert at ultra wides but wouldn't any professional application of 11mm FOV equivalent be better suited by a TSE lens? Or would a TSE stitched photo of the exact same perspective/FOV produce comparable images?