More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]

[dcm]

Maybe if they painted it white...

But seriously, if image quality rivals the recent great whites like the 200-400, it might be worth it. I imagine the design/engineering challenges for fast/wide are somewhat analogous to fast/long. I haven't seen a lot of FF primes faster than f/2.8 at/below 14mm so an f/4 zoom is not unexpected.

Still, a bit out of my price range though.

 

[privatebydesign]

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?

I tend to agree with the below 16mm range, certainly tripods to get nice levels would be better used most of the time.

As for the stitched TS-E images comparing, well the effective 11mm stitch, at 24mm x 60mm (effective sensor size) gives you an odd aspect ratio that works well for some stuff, header images and banner posters, but not well most of the time and the corners are not good when fully shifted, I find the two side by side stitch useful more often for a 36mm x 48mm effective sensor size.

So the two scenarios, a stitched shifted effective 11mm and a single 11mm rectilinear image would be quite different, though like I said earlier, the amount of projection distortion on the native image would be wild!

 

[Jon_D]

Why is Canon going for slow (relativ slow) f4 lenses lately?

For 3000$ i expect a f2.8 lens.

 

[grey4]

The text says "around" 3K - so that probably would mean a launch price of $2800 - Not too far off launch price of $2400 which accompanied the 24-70, 70-200 mk ii's.

Within 18 months the price will be down 500$, just like the 24-70 f/4 L IS, bring the lens to 2300, the same listed price as the 24-70 mk ii and 70-200 mk ii, with street and used prices sneaking around 2k.

 

[zlatko]

Well, this is typical. People complained that Canon does not have an ultra-super-wide to match or exceed Nikon's. Some even bought Nikon's and mounted it on their Canon cameras. Now a Canon version appears, and people complain about the price. And they complain that it's "only" f/4. Gotta complain about something. If it were f/2.8, they'd complain about the increased size and the weight. And they'd complain about the price even more. And they'd complain that the IQ would have been better if it had been f/4. Quality costs. Unless you *know* what goes into designing and building the lens, you *don't* know what it should cost. Besides, Canon offers a full range of wide angle options, starting with the EF-S 10-18mm for just $300 — there's something for nearly every budget. I rarely need anything wider than 24mm, so this lens has little interest for me. But if I ever needed something like this with really great IQ, it's nice to know it will be available.

 

[YuengLinger]

I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

 

[raptor3x]

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

That would be insane to replace the 10-22 with this rumored 11-24L for a 7D unless you really really needed weather sealing.

 

[Random Orbits]

I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?

 

[9VIII]

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.

That was my first thought.

If this thing has sharp corners and extremely well controlled distortion (at least across most of the focal range), it will be a very tempting lens.

I've always wondered why there's no "Big Whites" on the wide end.

 

[Antono Refa]

I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?

Who has a rectilinear FF lens that is even f/4 when wider than 14mm? Who has a rectilinear FF lens wider than 12mm?

Oh, yes, Nikon rumors posted a rumor about a 10mm f/4 FX lens three years ago. Responses were "I was considering going to Canon for their 17mm t/s, but I think I'll wait a bit", "A modern 135 f/2 and a 70-200 f/4 are to me the glaring holes in the lineup", and "Q: How long does it usually take to go from patent to finished product? A: Sometimes it never happens. So could be anything from tomorrow to never." - the good old spirit of Canon rumors.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.

And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?

Who has a rectilinear FF lens that is even f/4 when wider than 14mm? Who has a rectilinear FF lens wider than 12mm?

Yes, we get it. This one literally goes to 11. That alone isn't necessarily going to cut it for everybody... especially at $3k.

 

[cellomaster27]

while I do think that 3k is quite high, depending on the quality of the lens, it isn't totally out of the water. There wouldn't be a lens that could match up to the focus range. 11mm is significantly different from 12mm (duh). and up to 24mm? that's really good. f4 is plenty.. 2.8 on 11mm is not necessary. Plus with the iso capabilities of the sensors now. Hopefully the price will drop to around 2k. Although that would be a "steal" for what it's potentially about to offer.

 

[privatebydesign]

I've always wondered why there's no "Big Whites" on the wide end.

Because the white lens colour was introduced to mitigate the effects of heat on the comparatively large Flourite elements in the super teles. Canon do have at least one Ultra Wide patents with a flourite element, but even then the actual element is much smaller, and therefore less prone to heat changes.

 

[infared]

$3000!!!! @f/4?????????
...so glad that I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8II and bought the new 16-35mm f/4 IS!!!!
Great deal (even cash-out for me)... The new 16-35mm f/4 IS seems like a GREAT deal for a great lens if this new lens is going to be 3$$grand...whoa! I guess it makes sense though...lot of glass there...and more of an extreme specialty lens...I have a 17mm TSE and that or 16mm or my fisheye...is plenty for me!

 

[Etienne]

If Canon pulls this off (11-24 f/4L) with outstanding quality, it would be worth quite a lot of $$$.
But it's still a bit of a specialist lens. Nice to know it's available. There are a lot of other things tempting money from my wallet, so this would fall into "nice to have" category for me, especially since there are other more practical and much cheaper ways, to go wide.

Still, I am glad they are NOT going to f/2.8 ... that lens would be a monster with an even bigger price, and difficult to use in cramped quarters. With the ever-increasing quality of high ISO sensors, f/2.8 is becoming less important for low light (f/2.8 is no where near enough for shallow DOF in an ultrawide, even at 24mm).

 

[zlatko]

I agree, at f/2.8 it would be a monster in size. An 11 to 24mm zoom is pretty far from a portrait lens anyway.

 

[iMagic]

F4.0 would not surprize me. Canon reserves the biggest apertures for the prime lenses. ie. 14mm prime. If they did the zoom at 2.8 the 14mm prime would be less desireable.

 

[privatebydesign]

F4.0 would not surprize me. Canon reserves the biggest apertures for the prime lenses. ie. 14mm prime. If they did the zoom at 2.8 the 14mm prime would be less desireable.

The 14mm is a comparative dog (well the two I have used were and one was direct from LensRentals so was at least 'up to specs') and Nikon have had a 14mm f2.8 prime and 14-24 f2.8 zoom in their lineups for a long time.

Canon have got all the money they are going to realise from the 14mm MkII prime, any R&D costs were either returned or amortized long ago, it could become the $1,500 'budget' option if a matching zoom came out.

 

[Antono Refa]

Who has a rectilinear FF lens that is even f/4 when wider than 14mm? Who has a rectilinear FF lens wider than 12mm?

Yes, we get it. This one literally goes to 11. That alone isn't necessarily going to cut it for everybody... especially at $3k.

Your point being what? That some people could continue whining about "there's no lens that cuts it for us today, amd that one wouldn't cut it for us either if & when released"? Really?

 

[NancyP]

Let's be practical. Do people really want to drag a 4 pound lens up a mountain? I suspect that the main users will be landscape shooters.