Rumored 11-24mm f/4 true or feint?

[YuengLinger]

It would make so much sense for Canon to follow up the 16-35mm f/4 IS with a spectacular, long anticipated response to Nikon's 14-24mm 2.8 that I wonder if the rumored 11-24mm might actually go to f/2.8.

I ALMOST gave in and bought the 16-35mm f/4 IS because I despaired of getting anything this wide or wider AND faster. But I keep hoping that something great in 2.8 will finally be produced. I'm sure marketing at Canon wants to sell as many of whatever is available now and not have us delaying a purchase for an even bigger expenditure at some unspecified time in the future.

(I'd kick myself black and blue if I bought the f/4 and then something in f/2.8 was officially announced a few months later. But boy oh boy, my version one of the 16-35mm is getting long in the tooth.)

Another f/4, at triple the price, even if wider, just doesn't make sense to those of us who are begging for something that is great for both landscape/still-lifes AND events in one lens. I'd love to be able to compose sharp off-center, especially if distortion can be tamed a bit. Even if I am putting a face near center, please don't say "nobody cares about the edges in such pics." I do!

Still hopeful.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

There was supposedly something in the works as far as a fast ultra wide. It was rumored right after the 16-35/4 IS. The patent and leaked photo for/of the 11-24 are for f/4.

Maybe there's a fast ultra wide in the works that we still don't know about, but I don't see the 11-24 being f/2.8.

Looks like there will be a ~$3k f/4 11-24, and beyond that we might need to wait for a 16-35/2.8 III.

 

[mackguyver]

I bought the 16-35 f/4 IS - pre-ordered, actually, and it's a fantastic lens. I lamented over dropping my 16-35 f/2.8 II, but realized that between the wide angle and high ISO of the newer bodies, f/4 wasn't such a big deal. The only loss is shooting sports when you need a high shutter speed and the difference between 1/250s and 1/500s is huge. For everything else, wide angles are normally stopped down to f/8 to f/16, and you can handhold even at these small apertures. Bokeh is pretty much irrelevant, and for really low light stuff, the 24 f/1.4 is what I use.

I'm dying for the 11-24 f/4 to be real and have put off all other purchases to save up for it, should it prove to be real. 11mm rectilinear would be insane and an amazingly creative tool. It sounds like we should find out in mid-February if CR guy's information is correct.

 

[YuengLinger]

mackguyver, I consistently value your opinions, and I'm sure the 16-35mm is lovely, but how many photographers would pay $3k--or even, say, $2400--for the extra 5mm with no IS, and STILL BE AT F/4?

I know that news departments which pay for photojournalists' equipment are disappearing, but freelancers and sports photographers would want f/2.8, and so would wedding and other low-light event photographers.

The 16-35mm f/4 seems great for photography that doesn't involve people in motion in low-light. An 11-24 restricted to f/4 with that great, one-third the price 16-35mm f/4 already out there would seem to be a sales headache, if not disaster.

 

[andrewflo]

The patent filed by Canon is for an 11-24mm f/4 not an f/2.8 but obviously patents do not imply certainty.
http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-patent-11-24mm-f4-lens/

Most of the recent chatter seems to agree an f/4 is more likely at this point due to price and design. But I'm not entirely convinced this lens is something we'll see in just 1 month. Hope I'm wrong though because this lens would be amazing!

$3k definitely would be a harsh reality that I think many photographers would have a hard time biting. However, having the option available to us would be outstanding. The tool certainly would be a unique and groundbreaking one.

 

[mackguyver]

mackguyver, I consistently value your opinions, and I'm sure the 16-35mm is lovely, but how many photographers would pay $3k--or even, say, $2400--for the extra 5mm with no IS, and STILL BE AT F/4?

I know that news departments which pay for photojournalists' equipment are disappearing, but freelancers and sports photographers would want f/2.8, and so would wedding and other low-light event photographers.

The 16-35mm f/4 seems great for photography that doesn't involve people in motion in low-light. An 11-24 restricted to f/4 with that great, one-third the price 16-35mm f/4 already out there would seem to be a sales headache, if not disaster.

Thank you for the nice words and I understand your feelings. I LOVE fast lenses and really struggled with the decision to go from f/2.8 to f/4. So far, it's worked out for me, but if I didn't have the 24L, I might have held onto the 16-35 f/2.8.

I'm not sure how many people would buy an expensive f/4 wide angle lens, but I would be one of them. Consider the success of the 200-400 1.4x f/4 as well - those shooters, who NEED action stopping speed aren't sweating the f/4 aperture, and I saw tons of them shooting indoor ice skating in Sochi (which shocked me).

Also, I used to have the Sigma 12-24 II lens and really miss those 4 extra millimeters. It made for some very unique photos (see sample thread here), and that was despite the fact that it was fairly soft and had relatively high distortion, vignetting, and corner CA issues. An 11mm lens, with low distortion and excellent sharpness, even if it were f/5.6, would open up a new world of creativity for a lot of people.

It would certainly be a niche product (like the Otus or Canon's TS-E lenses) and would sell very few units compared to the 16-35s, but I think it would/will be amazing. Shots that wide (11mm) are very difficult because composition takes on a whole new meaning with half the world (it seems!) in the frame, but when you nail the shot, it's very unique.

Also, after making the tough decision to move to the f/4, I have to say that I'm finding IS to be more helpful than f/2.8 for many uses. I haven't used it a lot, but being able to take handheld shots at speeds as low as 1/4s is pretty amazing. It's little brother, the EF-M 11-16 IS, enabled me to do that the other night to get a decent fireworks shot at 22mm (~35mm equivalent), 1/8s, f/5.6 @ ISO6400 (see below). In retrospect, I'm kicking myself for not taking my 5DIII and 16-35 f/4 IS with me.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

The patent filed by Canon is for an 11-24mm f/4 not an f/2.8 but obviously patents do not imply certainty.
http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-patent-11-24mm-f4-lens/

I assume you mean that they don't imply certainty of manufacture? To my knowledge, there is no "use it or lose it" type rule in patent law like there sort of is in trademark law (abandonment). It's sounding more and more like there might be one though, which I personally don't support.

We do have some level of certainty though for this lens. There was the patent, but there was also the leaked photo, and on an official Canon website the lens was touted (Germany I think).

Either it's a ridiculously elaborate hoax that involves even Canon OR it's real and they are holding it for release (for reasons we don't yet know exactly). Presumably it will be announced simultaneously with a higher MP full-frame camera or (less likely) the 5D4.

It seems very unlikely that it will f/2.8, but that doesn't mean that Canon won't try to release a new fast UWA zoom at some point. The last rumor regarding it placed it at 6 months after the announcement of a high MP body.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

mackguyver, I consistently value your opinions, and I'm sure the 16-35mm is lovely, but how many photographers would pay $3k--or even, say, $2400--for the extra 5mm with no IS, and STILL BE AT F/4?

I know that news departments which pay for photojournalists' equipment are disappearing, but freelancers and sports photographers would want f/2.8, and so would wedding and other low-light event photographers.

The 16-35mm f/4 seems great for photography that doesn't involve people in motion in low-light. An 11-24 restricted to f/4 with that great, one-third the price 16-35mm f/4 already out there would seem to be a sales headache, if not disaster.

Thank you for the nice words and I understand your feelings. I LOVE fast lenses and really struggled with the decision to go from f/2.8 to f/4. So far, it's worked out for me, but if I didn't have the 24L, I might have held onto the 16-35 f/2.8.

I'm not sure how many people would buy an expensive f/4 wide angle lens, but I would be one of them. Consider the success of the 200-400 1.4x f/4 as well - those shooters, who NEED action stopping speed aren't sweating the f/4 aperture, and I saw tons of them shooting indoor ice skating in Sochi (which shocked me).

Also, I used to have the Sigma 12-24 II lens and really miss those 4 extra millimeters. It made for some very unique photos (see sample thread here), and that was despite the fact that it was fairly soft and had relatively high distortion, vignetting, and corner CA issues. An 11mm lens, with low distortion and excellent sharpness, even if it were f/5.6, would open up a new world of creativity for a lot of people.

It would certainly be a niche product (like the Otus or Canon's TS-E lenses) and would sell very few units compared to the 16-35s, but I think it would/will be amazing. Shots that wide (11mm) are very difficult because composition takes on a whole new meaning with half the world (it seems!) in the frame, but when you nail the shot, it's very unique.

Also, after making the tough decision to move to the f/4, I have to say that I'm finding IS to be more helpful than f/2.8 for many uses. I haven't used it a lot, but being able to take handheld shots at speeds as low as 1/4s is pretty amazing. It's little brother, the EF-M 11-16 IS, enabled me to do that the other night to get a decent fireworks shot at 22mm (~35mm equivalent), 1/8s, f/5.6 @ ISO6400 (see below). In retrospect, I'm kicking myself for not taking my 5DIII and 16-35 f/4 IS with me.

Nice photo of downtown Jacksonville. Was that new years eve or July 4?

 

[privatebydesign]

I had exactly the same thoughts about the rumoured 11-24, so I bought the 16-35 f4 IS last week (it should get here today).

I need ultra wide but 11-16 is not critical, I can always stitch, if the new lens was a 2.8 I'd be interested, if it is f4 and doesn't have IS (and as it will have a bulbous front element) then I will be sticking to the 16-35 f4 IS and the 17TS-E.

The expected drawbacks of the 11-24 as rumoured:

• Limited zoom range
• Bulbous front element (difficult and expensive filters)
• No IS
• F4, no advantage over the 16-35 f4[/li
  • Cost, it is bound to be close to $3,000 at launch (I just paid $999 for the 16-35)
  
  All for advantages in dynamic situation framing. I can see skate and snow board shooters loving it, as well as people like me who have to shoot small spaces (but I can work around it), for almost everybody else the differences just don't make sense to me.

 

[mackguyver]

Nice photo of downtown Jacksonville. Was that new years eve or July 4?

Thanks, Mitch, and it was on New Year's Eve.

Private, I see you finally made the decision on the f/4 IS. I think you'll really like it - the contrast and colors are quite a bit better than the f/2.8 and it's as sharp as the TS-E 17 f/4, but weather-sealed and with a flat front filter.

I agree with your comments on the 11-24 and I hope the 11-24 is either astonishingly good and worth the price, or just very good and costs a lot less...

 

[YuengLinger]

If Canon marketing decided to be a little devious, they aggressively push the easy to sell 16-35mm f/4 IS now, maximizing RoI for this particular product, in part by making stubborn customers who have been waiting forever for a sharper version of the f/2.8 throw up their hands and take what is available. Then, once they've milked the f/4 for some time, they put out the 11 or 12-24mm f/2.8 for the rumored $3k, causing those of us who wanted that lens to gnash our teeth for buying the 16-35mm f/4, while knowing full well that we can't help ourselves and will also by the faster wider lens.

If you are still following me at this point, congratulations. What I'm trying to say is, for those of us who want the best UWA performance available, we end up buying two lenses instead of one, simply because Canon marketing was smart enough to float the rumored 11-24mm as f/4 instead of f/2.8.

I'm getting into a project where I might really need the capabilities of the f/4, and the idea that in a month or two my dream lens, the 12-24mm 2.8 might be announced just has me a little bit on pins and needles.

Ok, yeah, I'm way overthinking this. Too much coffee.

 

[davidcl0nel]

I think this lens "recycles" some of the parts of the 17 TS-E. The 17 TS-E _has_ a 11mm picture, you see only a part of it, which one you can select by shift and rotating. Canon need "only" a zoom mechanism to select (-24) a small part of it by moving lenses, and of course the AF. So the main part remains f/4 - like the TS-E....
And this would be also good, then you can use the Lee adapter or that panorama mount thing also...

 

[NWPhil]

Been long waiting for "whatever"-24mm from canon like many others.
I sold the 17-40, never got to love the 16-35mk2 but indeed I have now the 16-35mm f/4 as a permanent fixture on my camera.
I have also the sigma 12-24mk2, and yes, not sharpest tool in the shed, and one has to be carefull with flare.-but it does the job that a 16 or even a 14mm prime can't do.

I would like to see a 11 or 12mm prime (retilinear) if indeed canon can't release a high quality UWA 11-24.
Better yet if indeed the lens design would allow a flat front element or would have some lens shade design allowing for an adapter.

How difficult would be to make an UWA with a drop-in filter like the big whites have?

 

[Sabaki]

The thing is, $3000 for f/4.0 is very, very expensive.

I see many of you saying, "I can't see f/2.8 on this lens" and I ask why not?

The 16-35 f/4.0 has convinced me of one thing and in a most resounding fashion, Canon now have the optical recipe to make incredible WA lenses but the 11-24 needs to make a massive statement of intent from Canon, to their user base.

For essentially double the price of both the f/4.0 & f/2.8 16-35's, I'm asking Canon to make the 11-24 pitch perfect.

Even if it's a fat chick. Let's call it Amy