Who is going to buy the 11-24 f/4L?

Sort by date Sort by votes
#4
Got the 16-35 f4 IS last summer and was very happy with that so it's a bit annoying this comes now :P.

Bit unsure how shooting this ridiculously wide will turn out, but will likely get it if it the tests show it to be as good as I expect.
 
Upvote 0
#5
mackguyver said:
Since we have one for the 5Ds bodies, why not one have one for the lens.

I'm planning to stay up tomorrow night just so I can be one of the first to preorder this badboy. I can see myself making good money with one of my clients who always loved my Sigma 12-24 II work.

Anyone else plan to buy one?
Click to expand...

If the lens is at least as sharp as my 17mm TS and AF at least as well as my 16-35mm 2.8 II, then I will get it, but I won't be in a rush as it will likely get as much use as my 17mm TS lens does. I will wait for the first discount opportunity as well since I don't need it right away (I'm not a pro).

I'm a total gearhead so please don't take this as a "the photographer is more important than the camera" argument, but why do you feel the need for this lens if you already have the Sigma? Do you feel it will help you get more business?
 
Upvote 0
#6
I think I am pining for the 400mm f/4 DO II over this one but I am going to wait and see how these new bodies and this lens test out and the images look. I have the 16-35 2.8L II and while it may not be the best overall lens it has served me well when I wanted to use the wide field of view.
 
Upvote 0
#7
Regardless I won't be able to purchase this until the end of the year, but for me the choice will ultimately revolve around flare. I have a relatively full line of wide angle lenses - TS-E 17, TS-E 24 II, 16-35/4 IS, and 8-15 fisheye. Certainly the extra wide view will be intriguing to me, but flare handling will make the difference between whether I buy this at list price, or whether I wait for some time and buy a used copy on sale.

I love taking pictures that contain the sun, but due to flare problems the TS-E 17 is not well suited to the task. The 16-35/4 does a better job - but it too has issues. For $3k my hope is they can produce a lens that does extremely well for flare - but that will be a big challenge given the width.
 
Upvote 0
#8
kirispupis said:
Regardless I won't be able to purchase this until the end of the year, but for me the choice will ultimately revolve around flare. I have a relatively full line of wide angle lenses - TS-E 17, TS-E 24 II, 16-35/4 IS, and 8-15 fisheye. Certainly the extra wide view will be intriguing to me, but flare handling will make the difference between whether I buy this at list price, or whether I wait for some time and buy a used copy on sale.

I love taking pictures that contain the sun, but due to flare problems the TS-E 17 is not well suited to the task. The 16-35/4 does a better job - but it too has issues. For $3k my hope is they can produce a lens that does extremely well for flare - but that will be a big challenge given the width.
Click to expand...
I agree on the flare and since it was SWC and ASC, I'm hoping it handles it well.
 
Upvote 0
#9
I don't know about buying, but I will certainly be renting!

Very interested to see what the optics on this are like.

I haven’t been a fan of many things Canon has been doing lately, but this lens does excite me. Doing something DIFFERENT from everyone else. Canon has been too “me too” lately.

The price does make me sad. But maybe with some saving and/or 0% financing, I could make it worth.

I would love to shoot the Aurora Borealis at 11mm as well as take some crazy first-person climbing/summit videos!

If I owned this, I would probably be that annoying guy constantly saying things like “this one goes to 11.”
 
Upvote 0
#11
I am personally more intrigued by new Tamron 15-30 VC than this lens. I'm just starting my review process, but Matt Granger has already tested it against the Nikkor 14-24mm and it comes out very favorably.

It's very sharp and contrasty, f/2.8, 15mm is plenty wide for my purposes, and I think the VC will be handy in a number of situations.

Not to mention that at $1299 it is less than half the price of this lens.
 
Upvote 0
#14
MTF charts will lead the way.

Current 16-35 f4 IS is good, but 11mm uhmm ::). You can always shoot @ 16mm with 11-24, but you can't shoot 11mm with 16-35mm. I know PBD will give me some S**** with this comment, perspective ;)
 
Upvote 0
#17
RLPhoto said:
The 16-35mm F/4L is plenty for my needs.
Click to expand...

As usual, RL echos my thoughts. The 16-35 f/2.8 & f/4 are fine for my needs as well. Along with my 15mm FishEye. If I had a project that demanded a $3K 11-24 and/or it was going to make me money, fine. But since I'm an enthusiastic amateur, I've already spent more than I ever thought I would spend on photography and I have yet to make a dime. On purpose! No problem with that either but I'm currently in a sell phase anyway.
 
Upvote 0
#19
It all depends on the reviews. I rather have the canon 100-400mm first because little league season is right around the corner. Meanwhile, i'm quite happy with the Nikon 14-24mm even though it's not that fun to actually use.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

YuengLinger
Buy for pride or pragmatism?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Ozarker
Ozarker
GirlsAreBeautiful
From 5D Mark III to R5 Mark II - photographer review - first 1 month and a half - 12k shots
Replies
30
Views
1K
GirlsAreBeautiful
GirlsAreBeautiful
Diko
Any advices for RF 24-240 mm?
Replies
21
Views
5K
Loswr
L
M
R1. I got one!
Replies
37
Views
7K
Speedfinder
S
L
RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
Replies
18
Views
7K
Ozarker
Ozarker
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu