What's your thoughts: Photozone's Canon 11-24mm f/4 L review?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Tuesday we are launching a new database / search / comparison tool for the data. The 11-24 is on my list for testing but won't be done for maybe a week or more.

A very select few micro four thirds lenses are on my radar, as are completing some more Nikon lenses. There is also stop down data for key models to take. I do not have long enough left at OLAF to test every lens at all apertures but I can do a good number of them.

Thanks for posting Brandon.

For those that don't know you, here is a shallow bit of introduction. Feel free to add more. Are you going into the optics field?

"Our summer intern, Brandon Dube, has tackled that problem and come up with a reasonably elegant solution. He's written some Matlab scripts that grab the results generated from our Trioptics Imagemaster Optical Bench, summarizes them, and performs sample variation comparisons automatically. We're going to eventually present that data to you just like we present MTF data: when a new lens is released we'll also give you an idea of the expected sample variation. Before we do that though, we need to get some idea of what kind of sample variations should be expected."

 

[Bdube]

Tuesday we are launching a new database / search / comparison tool for the data. The 11-24 is on my list for testing but won't be done for maybe a week or more.

A very select few micro four thirds lenses are on my radar, as are completing some more Nikon lenses. There is also stop down data for key models to take. I do not have long enough left at OLAF to test every lens at all apertures but I can do a good number of them.

Thanks for posting Brandon.

For those that don't know you, here is a shallow bit of introduction. Feel free to add more. Are you going into the optics field?

"Our summer intern, Brandon Dube, has tackled that problem and come up with a reasonably elegant solution. He's written some Matlab scripts that grab the results generated from our Trioptics Imagemaster Optical Bench, summarizes them, and performs sample variation comparisons automatically. We're going to eventually present that data to you just like we present MTF data: when a new lens is released we'll also give you an idea of the expected sample variation. Before we do that though, we need to get some idea of what kind of sample variations should be expected."

I am an optics student at the U of R. Some of the research I am working on includes the polishing of unusual materials via MRF and testing the application of Nodal Aberration Theory applied to rotationally nonsymmetric freeform optics.

Next summer I should be at Oberkochen for Zeiss. I would have been there this summer, but we did not begin paperwork soon enough for the timeline to work out.

 

[The Flasher]

...
Looking forward to your comments, for a useful & good thread of discussion.
(PS... there are a number of threads about this lens, e.g. announcement, and now some in use, with great photos - but I particularly wanted to receive & read people's thoughts on the lens review!)

Paul 8)

I bought this lens as soon as it was available. Shooting architecture with it, special effects shots for the extreme closeup effect without the fisheye barrelling. It's a very powerful tool in its focal range - but I hesitate to use it on any run and gun shoots due to the size and front element bulge factor - prefer to use the amazing 16-35/4 for that, which also superb optically AND fits in the bag

My 11-24/4 is very sharp corner to corner, some chroma but you really have to look hard for it. Flares beautifully - or lacks flare, more specifically, when shooting interiors with daylight streaming in through banks of windows.

my 2 cents

 

[expatinasia]

I have used the 11-24/4 and am just as impressed with its build quality (and weight balance ratio with the 1D X) as I am with the quality of the images it used. It is sharp and creates little distortion. Really is quite something, but of course you pay for the privilege.

I also love the 16-35 f/4 IS and that is another stellar lens, but of course it is not as wide and the build quality is not imho the same. But the IS is outstanding, and the quality of the images is again superb.

 

[pj1974]

Hello again Everyone

Paul (the OP!) here…

I really appreciate the input on this thread, there have been a number of really useful contributions (just as I hoped for). Thanks CR Guy for promoting this thread on the front page of CR! 

The aspects discussed about potential systemic problem of certain testing techniques with UUWA (ultra ULTRA wide angle) lenses, and shorter focussing distances I can understand the logic of. So that this impacts both distortion and corner sharpness (particularly for a zoom) – yes, may be one contributing factor why those respective figures are not ‘great’ in Photozone’s tests (and potentially other reviews / tests out there… or soon to be released). But it may not be nearly as much an issue in the real world (where most photos taken at further focussing distances).

The analysis / thoughts / breakdown about different lenses I think is very important. For example- each lens is ‘fit for purpose’ – and targets a different user, which also helps us to realise we should not place too much emphasis on any comparison between Canon’s 11-24mm L with any other lens (either the Canon 16-35mm f/4, the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8, the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8, or the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8). I do think size/weight, functionality (e.g. filters and/or IS) and aperture speed definitely define each of these lenses as different.

For the record, I really dislike fisheye lenses (or ‘effect’) – that’s why I am super excited about the Canon 11-24mm L – but really have hardly much interest in the Canon 8-15mm f/4 L fisheye!

I have found it great to read some more ‘real user’ reports here on CR (there were a few on other places, e.g. Fred Miranda, DPReview, B&H, etc) – and this is very encouraging that overall ‘real world users’ think the 11-24mm L is a great lens, even though (for various reasons – the 11-24mm Photozone report might ‘highlight’ certain hurdles – at least, in certain situations). Very interesting that most users say it is very sharp (some even specifically say ‘corner to corner’) and that distortions well controlled given the extreme 11mm possibility, and chroma not really a huge problem. (Naturally, most people who spend about USD $3k won’t want to be disappointed with their lens… initial indications are that most are v happy with it).

I have a lot of time and respect for how Klaus at Photozone does his lens tests. He is thorough, clear and I like that his results are so easily comparable (within the 1 ‘camera / system’). I look forward to more ‘benchmark’ tests / pro reviews too – from others, e.g. SLRgear, Lensrentals, DxO, etc

My own situation is that I own the Sigma 8-16mm, which is a great lens – in fact – I feel it, in some ways heralded in the UUWA zooms. (Previously I owned the Sigma 10-20mm, and I have used the Canon 10-22mm). The Sigma 8-16mm on my 7D is equivalent to 12.8 – 25.6mm (in 35mm / FF format). (Nikon owners of the Sigma 8-16mm would get 12mm at FF equivalent). The difference between 8mm and 10mm (on APS-C) really made a huge difference for me. But more importantly – the sharpness edge to edge and low CA really made this lens be a real winner for me, as I love UUWA photos – mainly of landscapes or interesting perspectives of ‘everyday things / scenes’ and rather occasionally of architecture / buildings too! So I really don't need f/2.8 in an UWA/UUWA.

If I ever move to FF (at this stage I don’t plan to) – the 11-24mm L would probably be too much for me (in terms of what I would like for size / weight and price). That’s another reason I love the 7D / Sigma 8-16mm combination – a relatively small package still delivering great quality down to 12.8mm. I think it’s great that Canon has now made two UWA lenses with IS – the EF-M 11-22mm IS STM (for EOM cameras) – and the 16-35mm f/4 L. IS would probably realistically be the only thing that might make me choose another UWA/UUWA over my current Sigma 8-16mm… i.e. if it had IS. (Of course, should Canon ever incorporate IBIS, then that would be a great benefit too… but I doubt Canon is going down this path – at least not for EOS DSLRs at this stage!

So… I look forward to receiving / reading some more posts on this thread about the amazing Canon 11-24mm L lens. Again, well done Canon – and thanks to all who have contributed so far.

Paul

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The performance figures were a little disappointing, for such and expensive piece of glass...I was expecting near optical nivana. But I wonder how much of the disappointing figures is because of the 50mp? I'd really like the see the same test done on a 5DIII to see how that compares.
With these figures, I'd rather spend 1/3 of the cash and get a Sigma 12-24mm mkII, it's smaller and lighter and quite frankly, I'll never shoot it wide open. At f11-f16 there is little between them optically and I'll be requiring the extra DOF that the smaller aperture will display. At least the Sigma has front filter options (Lee / Wondapanner). And the dreaded Sigma AF inconsistency is hardly an issue with such a wide angle lens!

 

[Jack Douglas]

Hi All,

As many of you know, I'm one of these rank amateurs that got back into photography strictly for the fun of it. I've had FF 24 mm for decades and loved it but hated the fact that so often it just wasn't wide enough. I agonized over 11-24 vs. 16-35 and based on the fact that I'm retired and getting up there decided that I wanted the thrill of a brand new unique lens. I love the quality of this lens but don't have the 16-35 to compare.

It's good enough that if I shoot wide I can still crop and being that I lack the high skill level of many on CR this allows me to compose after the fact and still have very nice photos.

I like the potential for crazy shots that aren't everyones cup of tea.

I do have concern for the front element but I don't mind the weight at all (used to packing 300 2.8 II)

I'm not one for drawing attention to myself but I've already overcome that just like with the 300.

I have had rainbow shots where I was ticked to not have the width and I wondered how the 11-24 would do. A couple days ago, there it was in my back yard (with all the junk unfortunately) and so I ran out but it was still raining, which is not the usual in my experience. Anyway, here is what I got. This is not something to proudly display - it's here just to illustrate why I'm thrilled to have the extra width. The first shot is at 15 and that essentially covered the double rainbow. The second shot is 11 cropped to maybe 14.

FWIW

Jack

 

[ahsanford]

I have had rainbow shots where I was ticked to not have the width and I wondered how the 11-24 would do. A couple days ago, there it was in my back yard (with all the junk unfortunately) and so I ran out but it was still raining, which is not the usual in my experience. Anyway, here is what I got. This is not something to proudly display - it's here just to illustrate why I'm thrilled to have the extra width. The first shot is at 15 and that essentially covered the double rainbow. The second shot is 11 cropped to maybe 14.

FWIW

Jack

Thanks for sharing the shots!

Good gravy, I never though about raindrops -- how do you keep that front element dry in the rain? You'd need a hood as big as a dog cone!

- A

 

[arthurbikemad]

Well I have mine And as per the reviews its BIG! Not sure how I will get on with looking after the BULB but we will see, on the scale of things its twice the size of my old 14mmf2.8mk2! A couple of very quick snaps and I am pleased so far, the real test will be my skill in finding some good stuff to shoot, tbh it's not such a shock after some time with the 14mm, but yeah, 11mm is W I D E .

I am into the whole "weird" aspect of the UWA as well as shooting good perspectives, anyway, its built like a tank and feels super super nice!!! I think tbh its the best L glass I have ever examined. The time and effort in making such a lense must be huge! It's glass perfection! Worth the price just to look at.

I should add maybe I will miss the 2.8 only time will tell, BUT going on the size of this I think IF it were 2.8 it would be the size of a house! And yeah its a lump, easy the same as lugging my 70-200f2.8mk2 around!

Lifes short, if in doubt, buy it anyway! 8)


Quick edit: took some more images, looked at them in detail in LR (raw), it's sharp corner to corner IMO with little to none CA in the images I snapped on my 5D3, very happy so far.

 

[ahsanford]

FYI all, DXO joined the 11-24 f/4L review party this morning:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27143.0

- A

 

[M_S]

FYI all, DXO joined the 11-24 f/4L review party this morning:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27143.0

- A

....and they backed up, what I noticed in a few posts before, concerning the results in comparison to the Nikon 14-24. Different tool for different tasks.