I think the zoom range is excellent, covering all of the ultrawide points, but curiously maxing out at 20mm. Surely 21mm would have been a better place to end the long end? If it was 24mm I could have used this as my one and only ultrawide lens, with a 24-70L or 24-105L. But no, I have to get ANOTHER UWL to cover that range. That's pushing up my bag's lens slots and pushing up my bag weight and overall lens collection cost by a substantial amount.
The gap between 20mm and 24mm does not seem significant, is it really large enough that you would require another lens to fill it?
For me, both be 10-20 and the 11-24 are niche lenses offering an ultra ultra wide angle. The use case is different from, for example, the 14-35/4 which can serve as both a UWA and walk around lens.
One of the things I've loved about the L EF lenses were their durability vs the reast of the competition and in recent years, Canon have been under-enginering the durability of thier lenses.
I do not understand why people equate metal with durable. The composites used in current lenses, especially the higher grade ones in L-series lenses, are more robust than the metal alloys used previously and much lighter.
Has anyone else noticed that the newer "easy to clean" flourine coated front elements are a lot more susceptable to scratching?
I haven’t. I do keep a B+W clear filter on lenses (except the really cheap ones). I have had to clean the bulbous front elements on my 11-24 and TS-E 17 occasionally, have not had an issue. Obviously using proper technique is important.
I'm not happy about the rear gel filter holder. After 20 years of this type of optic (the Sigma 12-24mm being the first of this type), some one really needs to develop a better filter system than rear gels.
Check out the Fotodiox Wonderpana system. I used their 145mm filters and holder with my TS-E 17, they also make one for the 11-24 (using their 186 mm filters). ND gels are a bit fiddly, but they work. However, there is no CPL option for that.
For me, I still prefer the EF 11-24mm L f4 with its abilty to use a drop in filter via the EF to RF adapter.
Same for me, and that’s the reason I did not jump on the 10-20 mm. I might still pick one up down the line, next summer I will be hiking in the Swiss Alps, and this new lens will be a lot easier to carry than my 11-24.
The lack of reliance on software correction to fix the "no where as bad" corners.
Another meaningless complaint, IMO. I understand it, because I once felt that way myself. Then I actually tested it.
Prior to digital correction, the RF 14-35/4 also has strong barrel distortion and black corners at the wide end, and thus requires distortion correction to produce a usable image. After that correction is applied, the corners are just as sharp as the EF 11-24/4, which at 13-14 mm is essentially distortion free.
www.cameralabs.com
