Review: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L via DXOMark

[Canon Rumors]

DXOMark has completed another Canon lens review, and this time it’s the EF 11-24mm f/4L.</p>
<p>From DXOMark</p>
<blockquote><p>While traditionally strong in its telephoto lineup, Canon has always been rather weak in offering a range of ultra-wide-angle lenses. When introduced a few years ago, theEF 8-15mm f4L USM Fisheye zoom helped redress the balance, but it didn’t go far enough. Now with this new lens, Canon has proved it can compete with its long-term rival Nikon as well as with new challengers, such as Sigma, who offer some very specialized models at accessible prices. Sure, the EF 11-24mm f4L USM lacks the fast f2.8 aperture of the Nikon, but Canon traded that for wider coverage and didn’t make any concessions with image quality. Even the price is relatively accessible… <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-11-24mm-F4L-USM-lens-review-Ultra-wide-champ" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM $2999: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA11244.html" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119028-REG/canon_9520b002_ef_11_24mm_f_4l_usm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T3ERXKE/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00T3ERXKE&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=SKIW33AKPAGADHBN" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>

 

[painya]

"Even the price is relatively accessible."

Right

 

[Proscribo]

"Even the price is relatively accessible."

Right

It is, when compared with those telephoto lenses dxo talks about in that same quote.
11-24mm costs 3500€ meanwhile 400mm DO II costs 7400€, 500mm f/4 IS II is 9000€ and so on, there are just few cheaper telephotos.

 

[romanr74]

The CA on this lens is horrid. It is also sharper at 11mm than it is at 24mm!

To get an idea for performance, click on the measurements ("Sharpness", "Distortion", "Chromatic Abberation", "Vignetting") and then select the "Field Maps" where available.

Can you show this issue in a horrib picture?

 

[arthurbikemad]

I have just got this lense, real world it seems ULTRA sharp, as sharp as my 24-70 f2.8 Mk2 IMO. RAW files are amazing from corner to corner, last night zoomed I found it hard to tell I was looking at the corner over the centre frame and that's on a 5d3, at 50mp it must be truly amazing!

(bugger, I need an upgrade to a 5dsR)

 

[memoriaphoto]

DXO. They are very good at giving Canon some positive feedback yet in a subtle way piss on the parade.

 

[arthurbikemad]

I have just got this lense, real world it seems ULTRA sharp, as sharp as my 24-70 f2.8 Mk2 IMO. RAW files are amazing from corner to corner, last night zoomed I found it hard to tell I was looking at the corner over the centre frame and that's on a 5d3, at 50mp it must be truly amazing!

What are you using to view them with?

LR/PS, but they look sharp both Mac (retina) and PC with a number of apps.. Going to be doing some large format prints soon so I will see on paper how good it looks

I should add that looking at the test grid/chart on the link, it does not look that good, but I do feel the charts don't reflect what I have taken so far

Saying that I just nipped out and grabbed a couple of 11mm shots of some trees against a blue/white sky, there is a minor amount of fringing (VERY minor, three pixels max viewed at 11:1!) in the very corner on the naked fine branches, easy to remove in post but it is there if you look hard enough for it, still happy with the performance. Tbh its so minor you have to think why am I even looking so close.

 

[romanr74]

The CA on this lens is horrid. It is also sharper at 11mm than it is at 24mm!

To get an idea for performance, click on the measurements ("Sharpness", "Distortion", "Chromatic Abberation", "Vignetting") and then select the "Field Maps" where available.

Can you show this issue in a horrid picture?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Check the corners.

Acutally I was looking for a real-life picture showing "horrib" CA. I was sure I would not get one. Most people commenting on gear here in this forum only look at test charts. Doing so, did you compare these "horrib" 11mm corners to a Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L or the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G AF-S (at 14mm)? And did you do the comparison of all of them at 14mm with f/4.0? There the new Canon kicks ass big time...

 

[arthurbikemad]

The CA on this lens is horrid. It is also sharper at 11mm than it is at 24mm!

To get an idea for performance, click on the measurements ("Sharpness", "Distortion", "Chromatic Abberation", "Vignetting") and then select the "Field Maps" where available.

Can you show this issue in a horrid picture?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Check the corners.

Acutally I was looking for a real-life picture showing "horrib" CA. I was sure I would not get one. Most people commenting on gear here in this forum only look at test charts. Doing so, did you compare these "horrib" 11mm corners to a Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L or the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G AF-S (at 14mm)? And did you do the comparison of all of them at 14mm with f/4.0? There the new Canon kicks ass big time...

Most of the shots I took with my 14mm were wide open and it was indeed a killer lense, if like you say I were to do them back to back then yes I'd compare them at the same, so all at 14mm f4, I was happy with the 14mm f2.8 Mk2 other than sunstars and flare were poor, tbh I never picked holes in the IQ or looked for CA in those shots, HOWEVER at times I did feel it was soft in the corners, better stepped down. Am I worse off with the 11-24? Hard to say at this point in time, I guess as a walk around then maybe, weight for one, money for the other...? So many mixed views online I felt there was only one way to find out, buy it. Some say its sharper than the 14, others...well.... anyway for now I think I have added all I can to the debate haha... Cheers

 

[romanr74]

The CA on this lens is horrid. It is also sharper at 11mm than it is at 24mm!

To get an idea for performance, click on the measurements ("Sharpness", "Distortion", "Chromatic Abberation", "Vignetting") and then select the "Field Maps" where available.

Can you show this issue in a horrid picture?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Check the corners.

Acutally I was looking for a real-life picture showing "horrib" CA. I was sure I would not get one. Most people commenting on gear here in this forum only look at test charts. Doing so, did you compare these "horrib" 11mm corners to a Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L or the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G AF-S (at 14mm)? And did you do the comparison of all of them at 14mm with f/4.0? There the new Canon kicks ass big time...

Most of the shots I took with my 14mm were wide open and it was indeed a killer lense, if like you say I were to do them back to back then yes I'd compare them at the same, so all at 14mm f4, I was happy with the 14mm f2.8 Mk2 other than sunstars and flare were poor, tbh I never picked holes in the IQ or looked for CA in those shots, HOWEVER at times I did feel it was soft in the corners, better stepped down. Am I worse off with the 11-24? Hard to say at this point in time, I guess as a walk around then maybe, weight for one, money for the other...? So many mixed views online I felt there was only one way to find out, buy it. Some say its sharper than the 14, others...well.... anyway for now I think I have added all I can to the debate haha... Cheers

For sure I envy you!!!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I love the line "the Canon 8-15mm didn't go far enough..."
Really? I think 8mm is pretty far enough. It doesn't actually get wider in full frame land than 180" angle of view!

The "Canon is bad at wide lenses" debate ended with the TS-e 17L...it's an amazing lens and still untouched in the market place by any other brand. The Canon 8-15L is another fantastic wide angle lens...and then there's the new 16-35mm f4 LIS....which is the current "best in class". So I count that is three top world class wide lenses from Canon. The new 11-24mm is another in a long line of recent world best wide lenses, which have NO peers. DXO seem to be in some kind of time warp, Can have been knocking ball out of the park since the TS-e 17L!

 

[Loswr]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Check the corners.

Acutally I was looking for a real-life picture showing "horrib" CA. I was sure I would not get one. Most people commenting on gear here in this forum only look at test charts.

+1

Some people go even further, adding up numbers from test chart measurements, tabulating and color-coding the results, highlighting differences they think mean something when, in fact, they are insignificant even from the numbers themselves, let alone in real images.

 

[Loswr]

The new 11-24mm is another in a long line of recent world best wide lenses, which have NO peers. DXO seem to be in some kind of time warp, Can have been knocking ball out of the park since the TS-e 17L!

Doesn't matter. It's all about the max aperture and DR, and in those areas these slow f/4 Canon lenses just can't deliver so they get mediocre Lens Scores at best. But that's the stinky BS that is DxO.

 

[romanr74]

The new 11-24mm is another in a long line of recent world best wide lenses, which have NO peers. DXO seem to be in some kind of time warp, Can have been knocking ball out of the park since the TS-e 17L!

Doesn't matter. It's all about the max aperture and DR, and in those areas these slow f/4 Canon lenses just can't deliver so they get mediocre Lens Scores at best. But that's the stinky BS that is DxO.

What gives me goosebumps is the clear idea that latest next april it will be in my kit !

 

[LSXPhotog]

I find it amusing that DxO hasn't tested a single lens with the 5DS. Are they afraid to reveal lens scores being better than Zeiss and Nikon?

Also, what works do their love in where the Canon 8-15 wasn't a huge deal? What else did Canon need to do in order to please then with it?

 

[Rick]

The CA on this lens is horrid. It is also sharper at 11mm than it is at 24mm!

To get an idea for performance, click on the measurements ("Sharpness", "Distortion", "Chromatic Abberation", "Vignetting") and then select the "Field Maps" where available.

Can you show this issue in a horrid picture?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Check the corners.

Dualing links:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[The Flasher]

This lens is nothing short of spectacular. That "horrid" ca doesn't seem to be that horrid architectural shots, most shot at f5.6-8, a matter of fact, they don't show up at all. Back-lit scenes look fantastic. The super wide, rectilinear 11mm range takes the frustration out of having to stitch multi 17mmts, images are tack sharp. Use this for video as well, amazing.

Micro peep charts in the corners wide open all you like, not until you start taking pictures do you see the fantastic results in real world application of this photography tool.

 

[LSXPhotog]

This pretty much rests the case on which is the better performing lens, if you ask me. Even at a higher pixel density, the Canon would still show less distortion and CA.

The CA on this lens is horrid. It is also sharper at 11mm than it is at 24mm!

To get an idea for performance, click on the measurements ("Sharpness", "Distortion", "Chromatic Abberation", "Vignetting") and then select the "Field Maps" where available.

Can you show this issue in a horrid picture?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Check the corners.

Dualing links:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[romanr74]

Bryan finishes his Review with the satement "I love this lens". I'm positive the same will happen to me! Did I already mention these goosebumps in any of my former posts?

 

[NadaMal]

This lens certainly seems to be dividing opinion. I am eagerly awaiting mine thanks to Jessops and that recent 24 month 0% interest deal they had.

I have to admit I'm like an excited child waiting for it to arrive regardless of any reviews