# 11-24 is here, with images of it compared to Nikon 14-24



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2015)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2310593113/hands-on-with-canon-s-new-11-24mm-f4-l?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=related-news&utm_medium=text&ref=related-news

$2,999 and is it a big piece of glass!


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 6, 2015)

Was about to click the magic button ==> "Resolution in non-central portions of the frame show an increase as you stop down from f/4 to f/8"


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2015)

As you know I just got the 16-35 f4, but after actually seeing this 11-24 I think I am going to have to get one, of course I'll await the reviews, and the 16-35 is an outstandingly good lens, but 11mm just opens up a range of perspectives the 16 nor 17TS-E can get to, throw in the usual weatherproofing and AF of the L's and even if you have to stop it down for maximum sharpness it still looks like a killer lens. 

Think of the dynamic stuff 11mm will get you with the L series AF, it will become the new must have lens for skateboard shooting, snowboarding, anything that grinds rails, goalmouth, etc. Heck I'd like to put one on the EOS M and stick it as a remote above the wedding couple! So many possibilities of shots never captured before.

I think my Profoto B1 money is going on the 11-24!


----------



## e_honda (Feb 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> $2,999 and is it a big piece of glass!



and no shortage of people complaining that it's not a f/2.8. 

Imagine the size/weight and cost of this thing at 2.8.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 6, 2015)

Cool, but $3000 is a ton of money. I have an 8-15 fisheye, and a Sigma 12-24. I think I'm good for now.


----------



## e_honda (Feb 6, 2015)

TexPhoto said:


> Cool, but $3000 is a ton of money. I have an 8-15 fisheye, and a Sigma 12-24. I think I'm good for now.



I have the Sigma 12-24 II and am pleased with it. I'm good for now as well, but I have no doubt this 11-24 is going to be pretty amazing.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

I didn't hesitate for a second - it's pre-ordered. Here's what the Japanese site has about the lens and from the YouTube video, it's looks like flare is handled quite well for a lens this wide:

Microsite:
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&u=http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef11-24/index.html&usg=ALkJrhiVd7Ij1cav2wcymNX9NfZ3oj167g

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI_gHK5hqnE

PDF: cweb.canon.jp/pdf-catalog/eos/pdf/ef11-24-F4l-usm-1502.pdf


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I didn't hesitate for a second - it's pre-ordered. Here's what the Japanese site has about the lens and from the YouTube video, it's looks like flare is handled quite well for a lens this wide:
> 
> Microsite:
> http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&u=http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef11-24/index.html&usg=ALkJrhiVd7Ij1cav2wcymNX9NfZ3oj167g
> ...



Thanks for the links mackguyver, I was looking for images and that one below is a mind blowing 11mm image!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:
 

> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't hesitate for a second - it's pre-ordered. Here's what the Japanese site has about the lens and from the YouTube video, it's looks like flare is handled quite well for a lens this wide:
> ...


No problem and I can't wait for this one. It will make a broom closet look like a ballroom with that kind of perspective


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 6, 2015)

Clueless here, so does this accept a rear ND filter? What are the implications?

Jack


----------



## Viggo (Feb 6, 2015)

Oh my! That YT video made me want one... I probably shouldn't have watched that :


----------



## Omni Images (Feb 6, 2015)

A M A Z I N G lens ... it's on the list for sure WOW !


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 6, 2015)

That is a sexy piece of glass that Canon has made there. I'm pretty sure it won't cure anyone's GAS...


----------



## Rahul (Feb 6, 2015)

Awesome! I don't have an option to preorder here in India but I will get in touch with the dealer in New Delhi and get this as soon as it touches Indian shores


----------



## KitsVancouver (Feb 6, 2015)

Booo...they just took the video down. Right in the middle of my viewing!


----------



## Machaon (Feb 6, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI_gHK5hqnE



Damned YouTube video... pouring GAS on a fire!


----------



## sulla (Feb 6, 2015)

WOW, this is a kind of a front lens. Not sure I'd want to handle such a delicate piece of glass...


----------



## candyman (Feb 6, 2015)

I must say, that YT video does make you want this lens... :-\ 
Way over my budget..I am still in the race for 300+ prime..


----------



## sulla (Feb 6, 2015)

well, 3000 is 300+ ...


----------



## candyman (Feb 6, 2015)

sulla said:


> well, 3000 is 300+ ...


 ;D 
That is 300mm plus prime


----------



## LDS (Feb 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2310593113/hands-on-with-canon-s-new-11-24mm-f4-l?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=related-news&utm_medium=text&ref=related-news



I would like more the image they produce compared, not images of the lenses themselves, really, that's only for GAS people...


----------



## weixing (Feb 6, 2015)

Hi,
Found some high resolution sample here (click the "High Res" button):
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-11-24mm-f-4l-usm-lens-sample-photos-26926

Have a nice day.


----------



## MJ (Feb 6, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> ...
> 
> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI_gHK5hqnE



Does anybody know where this promo video has been filmed? Looks like somewhere in the U.S.
A national park in Utah or Arizona? 

thanks


----------



## MJ (Feb 6, 2015)

e_honda said:


> and no shortage of people complaining that it's not a f/2.8.
> 
> Imagine the size/weight and cost of this thing at 2.8.



...and IS too, would be great at such a price


----------



## weixing (Feb 6, 2015)

Hi,
All description never mention about fluorite elements, but the product page in Canon USA website on this lens indicate that this lens had 2 fluorite elements (fluorite elements icon "CaF2" with a 2 below)... someone cut and paste from another product, but forget to remove the fluorite icon?? Ha ha ha
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_uw_pro/ef_11_24mm_f_4l_usm

Have a nice day.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Found some high resolution sample here (click the "High Res" button):
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-11-24mm-f-4l-usm-lens-sample-photos-26926
> 
> Have a nice day.


Not a trace of CA in these photos, wow!


----------



## LDS (Feb 6, 2015)

MJ said:


> e_honda said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine the size/weight and cost of this thing at 2.8.
> ...



Wait for them to be able to build even bigger lens elements than this... if it's not just PR, this lens already pushed the envelope a bit.


----------



## JoeKerslake (Feb 6, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Some lens flare on the IBM building though, even more noticeable if you zoom.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

JoeKerslake said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > weixing said:
> ...


For a lens this wide, it's not bad, and easily retouched. Also, it's not veiling flare. If you watch the YouTube video, however, there's a scene where they pan and the lens flare crosses the whole frame. That's a little more disturbing. I wish we had better shots so we could see the corners, which look sharp, but have too much out of focus to really tell.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Clueless here, so does this accept a rear ND filter? What are the implications?
> 
> Jack



Hi Jack, 

Yes it will take ND gel in the rear slot, I have done this with other lenses and it works fine, but things like polarizers are out.

The implication, if you need CPL's or grades, is to get a Fotodiox Wonderpana system for it as soon as they come out, I already have one for the 17TS-E and it is a very good solution that causes no vignetteing even at full shift, which is an effective 11mm fov.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2015)

sulla said:


> WOW, this is a kind of a front lens. Not sure I'd want to handle such a delicate piece of glass...



It is much better protected than the 17 TS-E and that absolutely is not delicate!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Clueless here, so does this accept a rear ND filter? What are the implications?
> ...


Too bad the 11-24 doesn't have the nice threaded lens cap like the TS-E 17, though. I know it's not possible given the design, but I'm sure it works very well with the Wonderpana system. I'm sure the 11-24 will come with a lousy friction cap and require one of those gasket-style adapters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2015)

LDS said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2310593113/hands-on-with-canon-s-new-11-24mm-f4-l?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=related-news&utm_medium=text&ref=related-news
> ...



They have been linked to in several places and I am sure we will have many to follow. The point of my link was it was first, for what that is worth, but for me it is very interesting to see the lens in comparison to a lens many people will know.

I am not a GAS person, but I do have a very real interest in this lens (probably the only thing from the amazing array of releases I will be getting), and seeing it officially out there is interesting.

Seeing the lens isn't just about GAS, it gives us the opportunity to evaluate things like the built in hood, is it removable like the 8-15, or fixed like the 14, how will the Wonderpana work on it, like the 17 TS-E or the Nikon 14-24, both of those are the second answer. Now we know the weight, a very hefty 1180g! That is even heavier than the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 at 1000g.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



The way Fotodiox do all the other Wonderpana's is better than a friction ring, you get a threaded collar that goes on the lens before mounting on the camera, then the Wonderpana fits on the lens from the front of the lens with a cuple of tabs that rest against the petals of the hood. It is a strong and positive arrangement and I'm sure the 11-24 solution will be something similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gWYmjwceleg


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Thanks for the link - the video is definitely clearer than the photos on their site. That does look like a good solution and I'll definitely get one if/when they release one for the 11-24. In the meantime, I'm thinking I'll try the rear gelatin filter. I know you mentioned the Rosco gels, but I have also seen a fair number of people (including DPReview in their 11-24 overview) mention the Kodak Wratten #96 filters. They are way more expensive, but I'm guessing better as well. Do you have any experience using the Kodak gels?


----------



## Besisika (Feb 6, 2015)

Machaon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI_gHK5hqnE
> ...


Yama Yama Yama Yama Yaaaaama! Police academy.
Same problem here!


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 6, 2015)

Comparing the MTF curves to the 16-35 f4



















According to the above the 16-35 is bit sharper.. but really not much in it.. For a lens this wide it really is something a bit special, a good release alongside the 5Ds and makes for real competition vs Nikon.


----------



## msm (Feb 6, 2015)

The 16-35 may be a bit sharper, but this is a lens that enables getting shots no other lens can do. In my opinion, this is by far the most interesting release today.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

The MTF looks great to me as the 16-35 f/4 IS is very sharp. Also, for another comparison, I've added the Sigma 12-24 II, which as the chart suggests, is rather sharp in the center but slowly, then rapidly softens as it approaches the corners.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> In the meantime, I'm thinking I'll try the rear gelatin filter. I know you mentioned the Rosco gels, but I have also seen a fair number of people (including DPReview in their 11-24 overview) mention the Kodak Wratten #96 filters. They are way more expensive, but I'm guessing better as well. Do you have any experience using the Kodak gels?



Unfortunately I have no experience with the Kodak gels, sorry.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > In the meantime, I'm thinking I'll try the rear gelatin filter. I know you mentioned the Rosco gels, but I have also seen a fair number of people (including DPReview in their 11-24 overview) mention the Kodak Wratten #96 filters. They are way more expensive, but I'm guessing better as well. Do you have any experience using the Kodak gels?
> ...


Okay, thanks for letting me know. I might give them a try, but at $72 for a 3"x3" sheet, it makes me wonder what the difference is between them. I might just wait for the Wonderpana. Between the small waves of the Gulf and the almost still rivers there's not much moving water up here in North Florida! I mainly use NDs to blur out people/cars for my real estate shots.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2015)

At $72 for the Kodak I'd say give the Cinegel swatch book a tryout, you might be pleasantly surprised by the results. The Cinegel books have the ND filters, the cheaper Roscolux books don't.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45185-REG/Rosco_950SBCNG0306_Large_3x5_Cinegel_Swatchbook.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45184-REG/Rosco_950SBCNG0103_Cinegel_Swatchbook.html


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 6, 2015)

Years ago I used Kodak Wratten filters for some high speed infrared work... #89 as I recall. At the time they were famous for optical precision and clarity and were used often for scientific purposes as much as photographic. There are several very specialized versions available. Here's a link to their site: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Lab_And_Post_Production/Kodak_Filters/wrattten2.htm


----------



## zim (Feb 6, 2015)

Wow what a beautiful optic, truly envious of all those who get this.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:



> Years ago I used Kodak Wratten filters for some high speed infrared work... #89 as I recall. At the time they were famous for optical precision and clarity and were used often for scientific purposes as much as photographic. There are several very specialized versions available. Here's a link to their site: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Lab_And_Post_Production/Kodak_Filters/wrattten2.htm


Thank you for the info and in comparison to a B+W, etc. $72 isn't bad if it's high quality.

Also, full-res sample photos shot on a 5DIII with full EXIF have been posted - you'll need to click on the image and then right-click and save to see them full-res:

http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-11-24mm-f4l-usm-lens-sample-images/

It looks like CA is all but non-existent (WOW!), distortion is extremely low (WOW x 2!), there is almost no coma (Astrophotographers who can deal with f/4, rejoice!), but the _extreme_ corners do soften a bit (as the MTF curves would suggest).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 6, 2015)

Thanks for the filter information and commentary guys.

There is something drawing me to this lens ahead of a body for sure. 6D + 11-24 = Fun, at Haida Gwaii in May (add music and that sounds just wonderful playing in my head). Now I need to figure out if there is any logic to it.

Jack


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 6, 2015)

@ mackguyver,

I'm desperately hoping to reassure myself that my finger wasn't a little too quick on the preorder trigger... What are you looking at to declare this new beast having "almost no coma"? When I look at the nightscape-shot with the arch, I see elongated stars on the sides of the frame! I don't think that coma would be a deal-breaker for me, but for $3,000 without a single technical review, I'm skittish about anything...


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> As you know I just got the 16-35 f4, but after actually seeing this 11-24 I think I am going to have to get one, of course I'll await the reviews, and the 16-35 is an outstandingly good lens, but 11mm just opens up a range of perspectives the 16 nor 17TS-E can get to, throw in the usual weatherproofing and AF of the L's and even if you have to stop it down for maximum sharpness it still looks like a killer lens.
> 
> Think of the dynamic stuff 11mm will get you with the L series AF, it will become the new must have lens for skateboard shooting, snowboarding, anything that grinds rails, goalmouth, etc. Heck I'd like to put one on the EOS M and stick it as a remote above the wedding couple! So many possibilities of shots never captured before.
> 
> I think my Profoto B1 money is going on the 11-24!



It's hard to resist.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 7, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> The MTF looks great to me as the 16-35 f/4 IS is very sharp. Also, for another comparison, I've added the Sigma 12-24 II, which as the chart suggests, is rather sharp in the center but slowly, then rapidly softens as it approaches the corners.



As a former owner of the Sigma I can attest to the fact that its performance in the real world matched its MTF curves. When I bought my 17 TS-E my clients remarked on the first job that my images looked a lot more vibrant. The edges of the Sigma images were visibly soft and in some images were distracting.
However, this lens allowed me to get angles of view that were simply unavailable with any other lens.

This lens will be a popular item with those shooting interiors and other tight locations.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

Compared to 11mm, 24mm looks like a telephoto!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 7, 2015)

JustMeOregon said:


> @ mackguyver,
> 
> I'm desperately hoping to reassure myself that my finger wasn't a little too quick on the preorder trigger... What are you looking at to declare this new beast having "almost no coma"? When I look at the nightscape-shot with the arch, I see elongated stars on the sides of the frame! I don't think that coma would be a deal-breaker for me, but for $3,000 without a single technical review, I'm skittish about anything...


Okay, I looked at it again and there may be some slight coma at the corners. It looks to me like there's a bit of streaking/star trails as well from the 30s exposure, but I think that shouldn't be the case at 11mm. It's certainly a ton better than the 24L II and most of Canon's other lenses.

Also, it's pretty likely that there will be at least one if not more technical reviews before your lens ships. I have cancelled a number of pre-orders one the reviews came out in advance, so that should be the case here. Hopefully the reviews just confirm that it's an awesome lens!



Normalnorm said:


> As a former owner of the Sigma I can attest to the fact that its performance in the real world matched its MTF curves. When I bought my 17 TS-E my clients remarked on the first job that my images looked a lot more vibrant. The edges of the Sigma images were visibly soft and in some images were distracting.
> However, this lens allowed me to get angles of view that were simply unavailable with any other lens.
> 
> This lens will be a popular item with those shooting interiors and other tight locations.


I owned the Sigma, too, and have the TS-E 17 as well. I really missed the 12mm and now we get an even sharper lens at 11mm!


----------



## RobertG. (Feb 7, 2015)

As "privatebydesign" mentioned in his 2nd post, the lens is very useful for all kinds of action shots. It offers a lot of new possibilities.

My focus is on landsape shots. I shoot wide angles pretty often but I stitch these shots to avoid distortion of the perpective. See http://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EF-1124-f4L-USM-5715/highres/Canon-EF-11-24mm-at-11mm-Wide-037A9220-resized_1423140098.jpg and compare the tree in the middle to the 3 trees on the right side. The bend in a lot. Maybe I'm the only one, but I prefer all elements within the frame to be as straight as they were in reality. I also like landscape shots to be equally sharp from edge to edge. 

It is an interesting lens but for me it's use would be more limited than my TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24mm. For seascapes it would be pretty useful because stitching doesn't work well with waves. But the lack of a filter thread for the use of grad nd filters or even pol filters is one major reason to wait a while. Let's hope that LEE, Wonderpano etc. come out fast with an adapter.


----------



## JoeKerslake (Feb 7, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> As "privatebydesign" mentioned in his 2nd post, the lens is very useful for all kinds of action shots. It offers a lot of new possibilities.
> 
> My focus is on landsape shots. I shoot wide angles pretty often but I stitch these shots to avoid distortion of the perpective. See http://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EF-1124-f4L-USM-5715/highres/Canon-EF-11-24mm-at-11mm-Wide-037A9220-resized_1423140098.jpg and compare the tree in the middle to the 3 trees on the right side. The bend in a lot. Maybe I'm the only one, but I prefer all elements within the frame to be as straight as they were in reality. I also like landscape shots to be equally sharp from edge to edge.
> 
> It is an interesting lens but for me it's use would be more limited than my TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24mm. For seascapes it would be pretty useful because stitching doesn't work well with waves. But the lack of a filter thread for the use of grad nd filters or even pol filters is one major reason to wait a while. Let's hope that LEE, Wonderpano etc. come out fast with an adapter.



Struggling to see the bendy trees, but it might be because I'm tired.

What I can see is that the bottom right of the image looks incredible strange, I can't quite decide whether there's some pin cushioning or whether it's the actual ground/bollard.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> As "privatebydesign" mentioned in his 2nd post, the lens is very useful for all kinds of action shots. It offers a lot of new possibilities.
> 
> My focus is on landsape shots. I shoot wide angles pretty often but I stitch these shots to avoid distortion of the perpective. See http://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EF-1124-f4L-USM-5715/highres/Canon-EF-11-24mm-at-11mm-Wide-037A9220-resized_1423140098.jpg and compare the tree in the middle to the 3 trees on the right side. The bend in a lot. Maybe I'm the only one, but I prefer all elements within the frame to be as straight as they were in reality. I also like landscape shots to be equally sharp from edge to edge.
> 
> It is an interesting lens but for me it's use would be more limited than my TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24mm. For seascapes it would be pretty useful because stitching doesn't work well with waves. But the lack of a filter thread for the use of grad nd filters or even pol filters is one major reason to wait a while. Let's hope that LEE, Wonderpano etc. come out fast with an adapter.



Bendy trees fixed. Whilst doing this in post will never be as good as getting it right in camera, these new sensors with the additional resolution have more wiggle room.


----------



## quod (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Now we know the weight, a very hefty 1180g! That is even heavier than the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 at 1000g.


It's a lot bigger than the 14-24, too. I used to own that lens and it is both heavy and takes up a lot of space in the bag.


----------



## KimH (Feb 7, 2015)

MJ said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Pretty good guess, you are on the border of those very states near Page.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 7, 2015)

KimH said:


> MJ said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Incidentally, Canon is shooting promo video for their 11mm ultrawide in a location where I had been severely limited with my widest FL being 28mm at that time.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 7, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> KimH said:
> 
> 
> > MJ said:
> ...



I see you are working on the reason to get this lens. It always pays to build your case as to why you _need_ new gear early on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2015)

[quote author=DPReview]
According to Canon, the 11-24mm's front element is the largest ever manufactured for an SLR lens, at 87mm in diameter.
[/quote]

Either DPR misinterpreted that statement, or the Canon spokesperson who made had their brains scrambled by getting hit on the head with a 600/4 or one of the many other SLR lenses with front elements diameters larger than 87mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=DPReview]
> According to Canon, the 11-24mm's front element is the largest ever manufactured for an SLR lens, at 87mm in diameter.



Either DPR misinterpreted that statement, or the Canon spokesperson who made had their brains scrambled by getting hit on the head with a 600/4 or one of the many other SLR lenses with front elements diameters larger than 87mm. 
[/quote]

They forgot the word aspherical, it is the largest aspherical lens ever manufactured for an SLR.


----------



## Vivid Color (Feb 7, 2015)

Machaon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI_gHK5hqnE
> ...



That is one dangerous (to the wallet) video.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > [quote author=DPReview]
> ...



They forgot the word aspherical, it is the largest aspherical lens ever manufactured for an SLR.
[/quote]

Thanks, that makes more sense.


----------



## Cali_PH (Feb 7, 2015)

MJ said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Very close, but it's a lot of locations. Some people offered a bit of info, but for more specifics:

Lake Powell
Horseshoe Bend
Antelope Canyon (cleaning the dust off that element afterwards must have been fun)
Coyote Buttes North (The Wave)
Coyote Buttes South
White Pocket

Which really, really is annoying, as I wasn't planning on buying that lens; pretty happy with my 16-35L f/4...but I've got a trip to all these places except The Wave in April...and now I want that lens. My wallet and my back won't appreciate it. :-\


----------



## Viggo (Feb 7, 2015)

Just for laughs, anyone know what the size/weight could be if it the lens is everything it is today, but a f2.8 or f2.0? ;D


----------



## Ruined (Feb 7, 2015)

Very, very impressive piece of glass and feat by Canon.

For me though - too big and too expensive for my use (only do occasional landscape, and would have to hike with it - better with 16-35 or 24mm f/2.8 IS).


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 7, 2015)

Rahul said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > KimH said:
> ...



LOL! Not really though, I have miles to go before I can fully take advantage of 11mm. At present I am merely learning with my 14/2.8 Rokinon.
But if you want to shoot the horseshoe bend, for example, you need at least 17/18mm FL and I had a 17-40 on a crop sensor. The coverage with the 11mm is, of course, crazy.
I think this will very quickly become an extremely popular lens.


----------



## cfargo (Feb 7, 2015)

I'm headed to Hawaii for a workshop on March 1st so I preordered at 4 places hoping that I will have it to me before I go.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > [quote author=DPReview]
> ...



They forgot the word aspherical, it is the largest aspherical lens ever manufactured for an SLR.
[/quote]

And the words ground glass. Judging from comment in a previous Canon video they can only achieve the required accuracy on moulded up to a certain size. THe 24/1.4L II for instance uses moulded, as does the 50/1.2L. The 24-70/f2.8 II used a ground glass element.

So this element in the 11-24 will be _very_ expensive to produce.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> So this element in the 11-24 will be _very_ expensive to produce.



And replace :'(

I know of a guy who has had to replace his 17TS-E front element, twice, but they are a very reasonable (to my thinking) $250 or so.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 7, 2015)

Definitely lust-worthy. Another 3 lb lens, omg, my back. 
I'll probably rent it once in a while.


----------



## e_honda (Feb 7, 2015)

Still LOL when people thumbed their noses at this thing because it was "only" an f/4 or that they were going to wait for the f/2.8 version. At f/4, it's already much bigger and heavier than the already heavy 14-24 f/2.8.

It was very likely a difficult engineering feat to make this thing at the size it is already. Something of this focal range and optical quality would be impractical at f/2.8 in terms of size, weight and price.


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 7, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I didn't hesitate for a second - it's pre-ordered. Here's what the Japanese site has about the lens and from the YouTube video, it's looks like flare is handled quite well for a lens this wide:
> 
> Microsite:
> http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&u=http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef11-24/index.html&usg=ALkJrhiVd7Ij1cav2wcymNX9NfZ3oj167g
> ...



At the end of the youtube video, it very clear that the front element moves in and out of the barel. How can this lens be weather sealed with a design like this?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

wopbv4 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't hesitate for a second - it's pre-ordered. Here's what the Japanese site has about the lens and from the YouTube video, it's looks like flare is handled quite well for a lens this wide:
> ...



Er, they could use a rubber ring between the two parts, they don't with the other lenses that work like that because they say to use a filter to seal it, but an actual seal would work better.


----------



## drjlo (Feb 7, 2015)

If I sell my 24 T-SE II and MPE-65... :'(


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2310593113/hands-on-with-canon-s-new-11-24mm-f4-l?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=related-news&utm_medium=text&ref=related-news
> 
> $2,999 and is it a big piece of glass!


I'd better wait for any renewal of the Sigma 12-24mm under the "Art" segment. US$ 3,000..... too much!


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 9, 2015)

drjlo said:


> If I sell my 24 T-SE II and MPE-65... :'(



No man! don't do it :-[


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 9, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > If I sell my 24 T-SE II and MPE-65... :'(
> ...


I'm thinking about selling some of my under-used gear to fund this one. My 24L II has seen little action since I stopped shooting events and bought the 24-70 f/2.8 II, so I think it can go. I'm actually considering selling my 16-35 f/4 IS as well. It's a spectacular lens, but I don't know if I'll use it a whole lot with the 11-24 f/4 and 24-70 f/2.8 II combination. The TS-E 17 f/4 is another candidate because I have the TS-E 24 f/3.5 II as well, but T/S lenses are so unique, it's hard to think of giving up that lens. First world problems, right?


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Feb 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> As you know I just got the 16-35 f4, but after actually seeing this 11-24 I think I am going to have to get one, of course I'll await the reviews, and the 16-35 is an outstandingly good lens, but 11mm just opens up a range of perspectives the 16 nor 17TS-E can get to, throw in the usual weatherproofing and AF of the L's and even if you have to stop it down for maximum sharpness it still looks like a killer lens.
> 
> Think of the dynamic stuff 11mm will get you with the L series AF, it will become the new must have lens for skateboard shooting, snowboarding, anything that grinds rails, goalmouth, etc. Heck I'd like to put one on the EOS M and stick it as a remote above the wedding couple! So many possibilities of shots never captured before.
> 
> I think my Profoto B1 money is going on the 11-24!



Or just a GoPro for $300?
8)


----------



## arjay (Feb 9, 2015)

There was a link to samples posted by mackguyver



> Thank you for the info and in comparison to a B+W, etc. $72 isn't bad if it's high quality.
> 
> Also, full-res sample photos shot on a 5DIII with full EXIF have been posted - you'll need to click on the image and then right-click and save to see them full-res:
> 
> ...



did anyone notice the exif on the picture looking up at some buildings. The exif on that picture says the lens is a 12-24 f4.6 ...


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 9, 2015)

arjay said:


> There was a link to samples posted by mackguyver
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting - obviously it was shot with a prototype and maybe they were considering a 12-24 at the time.

Or, it was shot with the Sigma 12-24 as that's the exact same thing that is displayed in photos shot with that lens. Really. About the EXIF, not that it was shot with the Sigma


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2015)

Mr_Canuck said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > As you know I just got the 16-35 f4, but after actually seeing this 11-24 I think I am going to have to get one, of course I'll await the reviews, and the 16-35 is an outstandingly good lens, but 11mm just opens up a range of perspectives the 16 nor 17TS-E can get to, throw in the usual weatherproofing and AF of the L's and even if you have to stop it down for maximum sharpness it still looks like a killer lens.
> ...


Ever shot a GoPro in the light you get at an average wedding? Go do it, then try and make a decent print out of the garbage you have.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 10, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > drjlo said:
> ...



You guys have some spectacular kit for sure.

I have abour $3000 free a year to buy the things I want, so it is taking me a while to get everything I want 

This year will be a toss up between a 5Div or a 11-24 for me. I can only do one

Feel free to courier that 17mm TS-E to me. I'll hold onto her until you decide what to so with it ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 10, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> You guys have some spectacular kit for sure.
> 
> I have abour $3000 free a year to buy the things I want, so it is taking me a while to get everything I want
> 
> ...


Sure, I'll get it out to you right away. Just keep checking the mail . Actually I'm pretty sure I'll keep it, but the 24L II and 16-35 f/4 IS are probably going on the auction block. The T/S lenses are too unique and special in terms of what they can do to substitute them with anything else. I'm definitely anxious to get the 11-24 to see what it can do and I pre-ordered within the first 10 minutes of B&H putting it up, so hopefully I'll get one of the first batch. I'll sure everything with you guys as soon as it arrives. I'm making a list of all the locations I want to shoot/re-shoot and thinking of other possibilities as well like video. I have two or three commercial shoots lined up in early March as well that might benefit. Now I just need to line up some real estate work to get my money back on this lens


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 10, 2015)

PBD, et al - I found another possible ND solution (from Nikon guys) - LEE makes polyester filters and you can get a set of 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 in 4"x4" holders for $56 from B&H.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102426-REG/LEE_Filters_NDSET_Neutral_Density_Polyester_Filter.html

I wish they had ND 2.0+, but assuming these are good, you might be able to stack them for ND 1.8 (6 stops, same as Little Stopper).


----------



## Rahul (Feb 12, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> PBD, et al - I found another possible ND solution (from Nikon guys) - LEE makes polyester filters and you can get a set of 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 in 4"x4" holders for $56 from B&H.
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102426-REG/LEE_Filters_NDSET_Neutral_Density_Polyester_Filter.html
> 
> I wish they had ND 2.0+, but assuming these are good, you might be able to stack them for ND 1.8 (6 stops, same as Little Stopper).



Hi Mackguyver,

I use these with the LEE Foundation kit. Do you think the foundation kit will work on the 11-24?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

Rahul said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > PBD, et al - I found another possible ND solution (from Nikon guys) - LEE makes polyester filters and you can get a set of 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 in 4"x4" holders for $56 from B&H.
> ...


Hi Rahul,

They won't work with the 11-24 unless you take them out the holders and cut the polyester to fit the rear filter slot on the back of the lens, which is what I'm planning to do with them, if I buy them.


----------



## ERHP (Feb 12, 2015)

Really thinking this would be a great lens to have, especially for the reflective beach shots I like to do in SoCal, though I don't really like the idea of the salt spray directly on the front element. 

Some of small canyons in the Bitterroot Valley might work out nicely as well. 11mm in a non fisheye is pretty crazy, even at that 'lowly' f/4, lol. Actually I'm not knocking the aperture, especially if it is a straight as the demo shots look.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 12, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Thanks - I misunderstood.

I wouldn't consider stacking them more than once or twice probably. These are in essence, disposable filters - cheap and good but not durable at all. It doesn't take any effort to scratch them so if you have two of these against each other ... Good Luck!

That being said, if you do wish to use the LEE gels in the gelatin filter holder, I'd recommend this over the filter set you mentioned above - 

http://www.filmtools.com/31-lee-s211.html

0.9 ND 21"x24" sheet for $ 7.50, probably more worth the money spent.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

ERHP said:


> Really thinking this would be a great lens to have, especially for the reflective beach shots I like to do in SoCal, though I don't really like the idea of the salt spray directly on the front element.
> 
> Some of small canyons in the Bitterroot Valley might work out nicely as well. 11mm in a non fisheye is pretty crazy, even at that 'lowly' f/4, lol. Actually I'm not knocking the aperture, especially if it is a straight as the demo shots look.


ERHP, I got nailed during a shoot in December (see below, moments before it got me), so I understand the concern. Hopefully the fluorine coating will make it easy to clean! Also, I see you were in my stomping grounds (St Marks NWR) recently. Are you from the Tallahassee area?



Rahul said:


> That being said, if you do wish to use the LEE gels in the gelatin filter holder, I'd recommend this over the filter set you mentioned above -
> 
> http://www.filmtools.com/31-lee-s211.html
> 
> 0.9 ND 21"x24" sheet for $ 7.50, probably more worth the money spent.


Rahul, I was trying to find that the other day - I thought for sure they sold it this way, so thanks for the link!


----------



## ERHP (Feb 12, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> ERHP said:
> 
> 
> > Really thinking this would be a great lens to have, especially for the reflective beach shots I like to do in SoCal, though I don't really like the idea of the salt spray directly on the front element.
> ...



Grew up about an hour east of Talla actually and try to make it back to see the folks at least once a year. Convinced the parents to go on the St Mark's trip with me and now they keep talking about going back.


----------



## longtallkarl (Feb 12, 2015)

Rahul said:


> That being said, if you do wish to use the LEE gels in the gelatin filter holder, I'd recommend this over the filter set you mentioned above -
> 
> http://www.filmtools.com/31-lee-s211.html
> 
> 0.9 ND 21"x24" sheet for $ 7.50, probably more worth the money spent.



these type of gels are for lights only and not for lenses. they're not optically pure by any standard, and will degrade image quality. better to stick with kodak wratten filters or lee polyester filters, especially on a $3000 lens.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

longtallkarl said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, if you do wish to use the LEE gels in the gelatin filter holder, I'd recommend this over the filter set you mentioned above -
> ...


That's where I've been leaning, especially since finding this gallery of a guy who uses the ND 3 Wratten on his 14L.


----------



## antonioleandro (Feb 12, 2015)

Wow. It´s amazing.

Just for bragging rights: it goes to eleven.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

antonioleandro said:


> Just for bragging rights: it goes to eleven.


Yes, we'll get to brag that we have the shortest...ahem...focal length...and the widest angle of view


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 12, 2015)

Posted this is another thread , and it may have been mentioned elsewhere by someone first, but here's some quick indoor test shots that Matt Granger took at CP+ using the lens and a 5Ds:
http://youtu.be/n8L2bljfLiU


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

Here are some crappy test shots at CP+ from Lenstip. They are all in crap lighting and not really in sharp focus, so there's not much too them. The only takeaway is that there is some CA when shot wide open, especially at f/4, in the corners. Still, not too bad at all:
http://www.optyczne.pl/7999-news-Canon__EF_11-24_mm_f_4L_USM_-_przyk%C5%82adowe_zdj%C4%99cia.html


----------



## msm (Feb 12, 2015)

Hmm those shots are pretty terrible, if that is representative I'll go for a 17mm TS/E instead, that's not worth $3k. Looking at the shutter speed, they shouldn't all be motion blurred either. Some better examples please!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

msm said:


> Hmm those shots are pretty terrible, if that is representative I'll go for a 17mm TS/E instead, that's not worth $3k. Looking at the shutter speed, they shouldn't all be motion blurred either. Some better examples please!


The lighting is terrible, the body is not calibrated (AFMA) with the lens, we don't know the camera settings, and it's a downsized JPEG, and we don't know how steady the shooter's hands are. And it's likely a pre-production lens.

I would put very little stock in these given the Canon samples and the MTF curves that look very close the 16-35 f/4 IS which is by all accounts an excellent lens. I'm really surprised Canon allowed people to take photos with it mounted.


----------



## weixing (Feb 13, 2015)

Hi,
May be next time they should design a ultra wide angle lens with a drop in filter (like those use in the Super-Telephoto lens). Hmm... Or may be someone could design a EF adapter with a drop-in filter for mirrorless camera... Sony mirrorless landscape photographer who want to use this lens will be very happy.

Have a nice day.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 13, 2015)

Just found this:
CP+ 2015: Canon shows 11-24mm in cross-section


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2015)

Not hard for me to imagine why it's so expensive after looking at that cutaway! And heavy!

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2015)

Not hard for me to imagine why it's so expensive after looking at that cutaway! And heavy!

Jack


----------



## redelses (Feb 14, 2015)

dilbert said:


> MJ said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Lake Powell, Horseshoe Bend, the Wave and other areas of Coyote Buttes, Antelope Canyon, Zion National Park - generally the Grand Staircase-Escalante and surrounding areas around the UT-AZ border (Kanab-Page - our backyard!).


----------



## dafrank (Feb 14, 2015)

longtallkarl said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, if you do wish to use the LEE gels in the gelatin filter holder, I'd recommend this over the filter set you mentioned above -
> ...




You do not want those Lee filters; the filters you have been looking for, padawan, are Kodak Wratten gel filters, which I think are now designated as Wratten II filters, and are sold by Kodak's cinema division. You can probably get them on-line or at a serious pro photo/video/cinema supply house in your area. Ebay sells thousands of used original Wratten filters, but, of course, one can't verify their true condition. These Wrattens are specifically made for camera, rather than lighting, use, are optically pure and spectrally about the best corrected filters available. They were easily the standard of the pro industry in film days gone by, and all the pros I ever knew used these rather than glass or resin filters, except when not practical, such as in cases of easily used graduated filters.

Regards,
David


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 16, 2015)

David, I purchased the ND 3.0 version of the Kodak Wratten 2 filter from B&H Photo. It should be here tomorrow and it looks like the lens will be in stock on 2/26. I'll let you guys know how it works out.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 17, 2015)

I just got an email back from Fotodiox, the makers of the Wonderpana.

They expect to have the 11-24 version shipping in two months.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 17, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I just got an email back from Fotodiox, the makers of the Wonderpana.
> 
> They expect to have the 11-24 version shipping in two months.


That's excellent news! Thanks for reaching out to them.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2015)

I got the Wratten ND gelatin today. Wow, that is some thin and fragile stuff. I might have to buy some latex gloves just to handle it!


----------

