LetTheRightLensIn said:
Agreed. Especially for the most likely use case, landscapes on a tripod, you would probably be stopping down anyways. Even for astrophotography, you'll be on a tripod and at high ISO.
Upvote
0
Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
- Thread starter JVLphoto
- Start date
Agreed. Especially for the most likely use case, landscapes on a tripod, you would probably be stopping down anyways. Even for astrophotography, you'll be on a tripod and at high ISO.
F4 sucks, well it does for me personally. Sure I use the 17 TS-E, an f4, a lot, but it is specialised and no real issue as an f4. As a general purpose ultrawide upgrade to the 16-35 f2.8 the focal length is very interesting, but f4 kills it for too many situations. Iso performance does not replace aperture, neither does IS, I want all three.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
If you need the wide aperture for boke, certainly. I would still like to see a 14-24 f/2.8 L from Canon at some point in the future. Especially if it can top Nikon's IQ corner to corner.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I don't see 11-24mm focal length as "general purpose ultrawide". 24mm is as long as you can go, and that focal length is not general purpose due to the noticable distortion. 11-24mm is pretty much a landscape ultrawide, because the distortion can actually enhance the look of landscape photos (unlike people photos). So again, I think f/4 works for this focal length because you will likely do as good or more likely better than a faster lens stopped down and that is where you will be 99% of the time with this focal length. If you want a lens for the 1% where you want some special effect ultrawide w/ crazy bokeh, the existing 24mm f/1.4L II would be better anyway than an f/2.8 lens.
16-35mm, that I can see as "general purpose ultrawide" because 35mm very much can do general purpose without the very obvious distortion that 24mm has. And we already have that at f/2.8... I can see wanting a general purpose improvement to the 16-35 ii, but I think that should be in a 16-35 iii, not a 11-24...
Upvote
0
You might not, I do.
Many, many, Nikon users use the 12-24 f2.8 as a general purpose ultra wide zoom, I don't see that Canon users, who have gotten so used to lackluster ultrawide zooms of mediocre performance and length, should be unable to utilize a single millimeter of extra width below our Nikon cousins. You might, I don't.
Many, many, Nikon users use the 12-24 f2.8 as a general purpose ultra wide zoom, I don't see that Canon users, who have gotten so used to lackluster ultrawide zooms of mediocre performance and length, should be unable to utilize a single millimeter of extra width below our Nikon cousins. You might, I don't.
Upvote
0
J.R. said:
It will be bulbous either way...that has to do with angle of view. The size of the element will change depending on f/2.8 or f/4. The front element is ultimately what's responsible for gathering the required quantity of light. The gargantuan Nikon 6mm fisheye could have been smaller if it wasn't f/2.8, even though the front element would have still been bulbous like that. The bulb is what allows ultra wide angle FOV, the diameter (or really, total surface area) is what affects total light gathering capacity.
Upvote
0
infared said:
Equal is fine, better is better.
As I said, I would like to see a 14-24 f/2.8 L from Canon at some point in the future. Regardless of whether it's IQ is better than Nikon's. However, I would especially love it if the IQ was better...corner performance of Nikon's could still be improved a little bit.
Upvote
0
For those who want the lens faster than f/4:
* If you need fast, you can buy the 14mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 16-35mm f/2.8, or 24mm f/1.4.
* I can think of only one rectilinear lens wider than 14mm, and it's slower than f/4.
* Apparently there wasn't much demand for zooms wider than 16mm, proof being the Sigma 12-24mm was the only such zoom for nearly a decade. I don't buy that Nikon & Canon just couldn't make a similar ultra wide zoom to compete. It's either there was no money in it, or they couldn't make one they felt would be up to their brand names' standards.
* If you need fast, you can buy the 14mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 16-35mm f/2.8, or 24mm f/1.4.
* I can think of only one rectilinear lens wider than 14mm, and it's slower than f/4.
* Apparently there wasn't much demand for zooms wider than 16mm, proof being the Sigma 12-24mm was the only such zoom for nearly a decade. I don't buy that Nikon & Canon just couldn't make a similar ultra wide zoom to compete. It's either there was no money in it, or they couldn't make one they felt would be up to their brand names' standards.
Upvote
0
I sort of concur with the people thinking F/4.0 would be perfect for this range. If it had to have a variable aperture ratio, then I'd actually like the shorter end to be slower one. But I sort of like that Canon designed it a static F/4.0, and that it is F/4.0 and not 2.8.
What it comes to bulbous front element, I was first thinking that principally, the aperture ratio should not affect it much (11 mm focal length F/4.0 equals 2.75 mm entrance pupil diameter, compare that to 4 mm of F/2.8 ). Then I realized that there is still a need for additional elements correcting the image edge, thus leading to a longer lens, which effectively enlarges the front element due to FOV. F/4.0 should ease things up a bit with respect to vulnerable front, but by looking at the lens diagram, I'd see it's still quite vulnerable.
What it comes to physical limits, it is not feasible to design a rectilinear lens with a FOV of 180 degrees. I think Theia Technologies has a135 141 degree small-format rectilinear (sorta, it has some amount of barrel distortion but nothing close to fish-eye) with an aperture ratio of F/1.8. As a design exercise, I have once designed a 150 degree field of view rectilinear ultra-wide for a small format sensor. It was a sort of no-holds-barred thing; required several aspherical surfaces and special glass materials to get it function at least somehow, the total number of lens elements was over 15. I wouldn't like to try that again with a 35 mm sensor size.
So yes, rectilinear ultra-wides do become very expensive very quickly. I tip my hat to Sigma designers who could do a 12-24 with a relatively modest price. I tip my hat to Canon designers if they get the 11-24 on the markets.
EDIT: Moderators: why is this in EOS Bodies? I think I first wrote to a thread of the same patent under Lenses category.
What it comes to bulbous front element, I was first thinking that principally, the aperture ratio should not affect it much (11 mm focal length F/4.0 equals 2.75 mm entrance pupil diameter, compare that to 4 mm of F/2.8 ). Then I realized that there is still a need for additional elements correcting the image edge, thus leading to a longer lens, which effectively enlarges the front element due to FOV. F/4.0 should ease things up a bit with respect to vulnerable front, but by looking at the lens diagram, I'd see it's still quite vulnerable.
What it comes to physical limits, it is not feasible to design a rectilinear lens with a FOV of 180 degrees. I think Theia Technologies has a
So yes, rectilinear ultra-wides do become very expensive very quickly. I tip my hat to Sigma designers who could do a 12-24 with a relatively modest price. I tip my hat to Canon designers if they get the 11-24 on the markets.
EDIT: Moderators: why is this in EOS Bodies? I think I first wrote to a thread of the same patent under Lenses category.
Upvote
0
I'd tend to agree with the choice of F/4, Nikon IMHO did not expect the 14-24mm to become the heavly used landscape lens it has. Personally I went with the 16-35mm VR when I got my D800 as I often like to shoot light(a lot of my landscape shooting is also dog walking), not just the weight of the lens but the larger filters and more need for a tripod on the 14-24mm went against that, not great at 35mm but I shoot in the 28mm range quite a lot where it is still excellent.
One thing I really think Canon should look into it making filters easier to use. Lens/camera manufacturers seem to have a need to try and play down the need for them but you look at the Nikon 14-24mm and this has clearly been a massive issue that's put many off. With an 11mm lens I'd imagine the problem would become even worse if Canon goes with the same fixed lens hood design.
The alternative to me seems to me seem to be to make the lens hood removable, not clip on like your standard hood but screw on like the 50mm 1.8. The bulb front element would I'd guess mean you'd also need another screw on attachment(that became larger) to offer a thread that cleared it but if they could make that 105mm it would make things a lot easier.
One thing I really think Canon should look into it making filters easier to use. Lens/camera manufacturers seem to have a need to try and play down the need for them but you look at the Nikon 14-24mm and this has clearly been a massive issue that's put many off. With an 11mm lens I'd imagine the problem would become even worse if Canon goes with the same fixed lens hood design.
The alternative to me seems to me seem to be to make the lens hood removable, not clip on like your standard hood but screw on like the 50mm 1.8. The bulb front element would I'd guess mean you'd also need another screw on attachment(that became larger) to offer a thread that cleared it but if they could make that 105mm it would make things a lot easier.
Upvote
0
Some notes of a goo gle translation of the document (in both, german & english) gave some additional data not mentioned in the original article:
Filters: According to the Patent the front lens diameter is 84 mm - with a bulbous front element and that lens diameter filter size will be some 150mm with a special holder. Lens size is comparable to 70-200 2.8 (shorter but thicker)!
Optical Correction: Distortion is designed to be roughly 0.5% (FL not mentioned) at the cost of higher chromatic aberration. The idea is to rely on software correction for chromatic aberration.
f/4.0: High camera sensor sensitivity allows slower f-stops. Canon seems to find the main advantage in "Hyper wide angle capabilty" going below 14mm. They have f/4 & 11mm compared to Nikon with 2.8 & 14mm - if that lens is on the market.
Filters: According to the Patent the front lens diameter is 84 mm - with a bulbous front element and that lens diameter filter size will be some 150mm with a special holder. Lens size is comparable to 70-200 2.8 (shorter but thicker)!
Optical Correction: Distortion is designed to be roughly 0.5% (FL not mentioned) at the cost of higher chromatic aberration. The idea is to rely on software correction for chromatic aberration.
f/4.0: High camera sensor sensitivity allows slower f-stops. Canon seems to find the main advantage in "Hyper wide angle capabilty" going below 14mm. They have f/4 & 11mm compared to Nikon with 2.8 & 14mm - if that lens is on the market.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Seriously? Perhaps you can provide some solid proof that many Nikon users used the 14-24 as a general purose zoom lens.
I once saw the photos by an amateur wedding photographer who shot an entire wedding with his ultrawide lens (in this case, the Canon EF-S 10-22 or 16-35 lens in 35 mm equivalent) cos that was all he had. I can tell you many of the photos were bad, really really bad... perspective distortion is simply awful.
Upvote
0
Viggo said:
You are both right, in my disappointment I was mentally mixing the two Nikon lenses, my apologies.
The FF lens that Canon really needs to equal or best is the 14-24 f2.8. An 11-24 f4, is not, in my opinion, it. Having used many stitched 17 TS-E images the projection distortion at 11mm is not worth using, though an old mentor of mine swore by the Sigma 12-24 that was 100% tripod work and only used at 12 in very tight spaces.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
