Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
- Thread starter JVLphoto
- Start date
Woody said:
Of course, I am the only person I can and want to speak for. Having said that I am one of the very few posters here that ever constrains their input by saying " personally" or " in my opinion" I even did it several times in this thread, do you?
Upvote
0
tianxiaozhang said:
If you like landscape portraiture then ---how ya gonna do that without a landscape lens? I love my 24mm, but, there are times wen you want wider than that.
"A perfect fit between the more effect-driven 8-15mm f/4 fisheye and the event-oriented 16-35mm f/2.8..."
what about the 14mmm prime???? Wider than the 16-35, less distortion, better IQ than the 8-15mm...it's a lens on my list to check out for sure!!!!
Upvote
0
Woody said:
Well I used to work with two, but if you want internet proof then go look at Joe McNally's site and see some of the amazing work, including portraits, he has put out with his 14-24.
Upvote
0
Ruined said:
For me it's not about bokeh re: max aperature. I use my ultra wides for a few things.. landscapes, portraits, wedding ceremonies and wedding receptions.
It's that last one that makes me want it at 2.8.
uggg...the 16-35...its a lens i used to love to pieces, then i bought the 24 and I find that the 16-35 really only comes out if i want to go wider than 24 (small venue/big group shot). I never really liked the look of the 16-24 from maybe 20ish-35mm - so the 24mm has become my general purpose wide angle. I am considering replacing my 16-35 with a 14mm prime - but - if something like the 14-24 or 12-24...came along...hmmmmmm...maybe this is just one of those areas i need to make the trade off
Only issue with this specific lens it that it fills a few of my needs...but I'd still need to have the 16-35 on hand for low light....
Upvote
0
If you are the sole voice in a million with strange requirements, then, it should hardly surprise you that your demands are totally ignored.dilbert said:
I believe a better description from Chuck would have been "environmental portraits", where the environment adds context to the image. (e.g. Model reading a book under a large tree.) If the scale of the environment adds context to an image why not shoot with a wide angle lens from a reasonable distance.
Upvote
0
This would be an excellent lens for the landscape photographer, if its optics are good. I enjoy using the Sigma 8-16mm on APS-C. Canon has to beat its big brother, Sigma 12-24mm, in optical quality. Maybe Canon will wise up and sell us a filter adapter system or plan ahead, contact a manufacture of filters/adapters, and give them the lead time to develop the adapter in time to be launched simultaneously with the lens.
In other news, Samyang Europe has just announced a filter holder for its 14mm lens. Cokin makes the matching filter size, which is a bit odd. So far there is a solid ND 0.9 and a grad ND 0.6 - unclear if the grad is "soft" or "hard", hopefully soft because one has to deal with distortion.
In other news, Samyang Europe has just announced a filter holder for its 14mm lens. Cokin makes the matching filter size, which is a bit odd. So far there is a solid ND 0.9 and a grad ND 0.6 - unclear if the grad is "soft" or "hard", hopefully soft because one has to deal with distortion.
Upvote
0
I owned the Sigma 12-24 II and LOVED the ultra-wide angle FOV at 12mm. I didn't use it enough to justify keeping it around, and it was really only useable at f/11, so I sold it to fund my 300 f/2.8. If Canon can build an 11-24 with great IQ, I'd be first in line to buy it. Why anyone would care about f/2.8 at this focal length is just odd (for any use other than astrophotography). If you want bokeh at 24mm, buy the f/1.4. At shorter focal lengths, f/2.8 would only add weight, cost, and compromise IQ.NancyP said:
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Chuck Alaimo said:
I find it very amusing to hear that the 14mm has less distortion...on a wide lens there is no such thing. A fish eye has no distortion...if you shoot a circulr object to the edge of the frame....it stays circular, but straight lines become curved. With a rectilinear corrected wide lens, stright lines remain straight but circles to the edge of the frame become distorted and heavily egg shaped....so no good for portraits or group shots.
Various wide lenses correct straight lines to various degrees. But there is always distortion present depending on the subject's shape and where it is in the frame.
The 16-35IIL walks an interesting path half way between fully corrected rectilinear and uncorrected (fish eye type of distortion). This allows a medium degree of correction, which can be pushed further in Post Production very easily. A fully corrected recilinear lens is quite rare and not particularly versatile...a 14mm and Sigma 12-24mm comes to mind. They pretty much become architecture and landscape lenses and not great outside of those genres. Where as a 16-35IIL is far more versatile and less extream correction. At the other end of the scale is a 8-15mm L fish eye zoom which is completely uncorrected and not very versatile either.
I don't see that a 12-24 /11-24 / 14L / 14-24mm lens as a replacement to a 16-35IIL. No it compliments but doesn't replace. I have never found a single ultra wide lens which "does it all". I currently have four and I can't see that this will ever change. Sigma 12-24mm, TS-e 17L, 16-35IIL and 8-15L fisheye. Guess which one gets used the most and offeres me the best display of portfolio grade photographs?
If this new Canon does get released....I'll be swapping out my Sigma for it, but keeping the other three lenses.
If I look at my lens arsenal, I have a lot of lenses which cover the 24-35mm range. Not all lenses perform the same with the same look for their focal lengths
Upvote
0
StudentOfLight said:
TY...yeah, that is a better way of saying it. Just saying really that there are lots of ways to use an ultra wide. They aren't easy to use due to distortion, but when you nail the right angle, they can be quite awesome!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
