# 11-24 and 16-35 f/4 is



## expatinasia (Mar 27, 2015)

Finally got my hands on the 11-24 and 16-35 f/4 is and to be honest I wish I hadn't.

People have written about the weight of the 11-24, but I fell in love as soon as I held it. The lens just oozes quality and when you take your first shots with it, you have the same reaction as you do when you first shoot the 1D X - just wow! The weight balances perfectly on the 1D X (I did not try it with a different body) and is a joy to use.

I loved everything about the 11-24 (except the price), and once you have played with it for a while, the 16-35 seems like a kit lens. Which of course it isn't, as that too produces amazing results - it's just not in the same league.

So a word of warning, that 11-24 may be pricey but she can steal your heart very easily.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 27, 2015)

Thanks for the warning. 
Undecided yet, will stay away for a while.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 28, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Finally got my hands on the 11-24 and 16-35 f/4 is and to be honest I wish I hadn't.
> 
> People have written about the weight of the 11-24, but I fell in love as soon as I held it. The lens just oozes quality and when you take your first shots with it, you have the same reaction as you do when you first shoot the 1D X - just wow! The weight balances perfectly on the 1D X (I did not try it with a different body) and is a joy to use.
> 
> ...



I'm very proud of myself. Last weekend, I walked into local camera store without handling over my American Express, while she was sitting on the glass shelves. I kept my head down just to avoid eyes contact with her.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 28, 2015)

Oooo, voo-doo! 8)


----------



## ReggieABrown (Mar 28, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> I'm very proud of myself. Last weekend, I walked into local camera store without handling over my American Express, while she was sitting on the glass shelves. I kept my head down just to avoid eyes contact with her.



LOL it's quite hard to resist temptation sometimes, especially when G.A.S hit!!


----------



## geekpower (Mar 28, 2015)

i have the 16-35 but not the 11-24. 

i do have the 50L

i can say without a shadow of the doubt that the 16-35 is not as sexy at the 50, but on the other hand, it can do things the 50 can't. 

i imagine that if you had a 35L, the 11-24 would be a perfect compliment and the 16-35 would be redundant, but nonetheless, if you had none of those, the 16-35 is itself pretty awesome package. it covers a very useful range and is pretty sharp, for an entirely reasonable price.

am i trying to talk myself out GAS? who knows... heading out tomorrow to with the 16-35 to take some shots in the whitefish montana area. we'll find out in a hurry if it's "good enough".


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 28, 2015)

I should point out that my comments were based purely on the look, feel and balance of the lens when combined with my camera. I have not even studied the images I took as I have not had time yet.

I had been planning to buy the 16-35 f/4 IS and was in some small way curious about the new Tamron as well, though was always more likely to go for Canon as a replacement for my 17-40.

But when I touched the 11-24, I discovered it feels similar in build to a 300 or 400 f/2.8 ii etc. which we all know are extremely well built. And I am a sucker for quality like that.

If I had just gone into a shop and looked at the new 16-35, I am sure I would have been very happy. We all know it is better than the 17-40. But I played with the 11-24 first, took some pictures and realised just how good it looks and feels. Then I was given the 16-35, and I will be honest it just looked so small, and less well built that it made me want the 11-24 more.

But, there is the price. If you can afford it, then there should be no questions, but if like me, you need to think about your purchases then it is a serious issue.

Sure it would be great to have 11-15 at times, but then a lot of us have got by with less (whether for work or pleasure). 

I just now nipped into a shop to check prices, and you can literally buy 2.81 16-35 f/4 is for the price of one 11-24.

I will study the pictures I took from both lenses next week, but like I said before the 11-24 is a very special lens, and not just for what is on the inside, she is incredibly well built, just like the big whites.


----------



## rs (Mar 28, 2015)

I had a chance to play about with an 11-24 last week at The Photography Show in Birmingham - it is a simply stunning lens, but it's not for me. While I love ultra wide (and actually bought a 16-35/4 there), at times I do dislike the stretching into the corners effects these lenses can create. At 11mm the effect is too extreme for my tastes, and the CA is a little more than the 16-35 too. 

If I want extreme wide, the Samyang 12/2.8 fisheye (which I also managed to try out) has a significantly more natural and pleasing rendition, even right out into the corners. It's steroegraphic rendition, to my eyes at least, is a perfect balance between the corner stretching distortion of a rectilinear UWA and a conventional (equidistant?) fisheye such as the Canon 8-15 which has a huge bulge in the middle.


----------



## e_honda (Mar 30, 2015)

I'm a happy owner of the 16-35 F4 but was curious to see how the 11-24 stacked up on the overlapping focal lengths.

Judging from the samples at the Digital Picture, the 11-24 is indeed a little bit sharper than the 16-35 F4 at common focal lengths. What was really surprising was that the 11-24 controlled distortion significantly better at the corners, which is a big deal for landscape.

So I'm sure the 11-24 is indeed worth the hype. It's just a matter of justifying 2.5x the cost, the lack of IS, weight and generally the more difficult handling and care of the 11-24.


----------



## Pookie (Mar 30, 2015)

kraats said:


> Would you keep the 16-35 f4 of you had the Canon 11-24 f4?



I own the 11-24 and just bought my second 16-35 f/4 from Mackguyver (poster here) for my wife. As much as I like the wide angles the 11-24 is not really doing it for me. There is a lot of corner stretching and although amazingly wide I am not that fond of it. The 16-35 f/4 though is a dream... smaller and easier to carry, perfect match to my 24-70II and 70-200II. It's crazy sharp and becoming one of my favorite carries. Mackguyver's copy is now in my wifes kit on her (my old) 7D's, on a crop it's a easy choice. On my 5D3's or 1DX it's a pleasure to use also. 

I own the 200mm f/2 and I'd put the 11-24 in the same boat... great lenses but functionally and logistically a pain in the arse to carry. The 200 I'll never give up but the 11-24 may go on the auction block soon...


----------



## Ruined (Mar 30, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> I should point out that my comments were based purely on the look, feel and balance of the lens when combined with my camera. I have not even studied the images I took as I have not had time yet.



Sounds like true G.A.S. to me 

Practically, neither of these lenses replaces the other; I see neither as "better":
The 11-24 has 11-15, but lacks the 25-35 the 16-35 has; 25-35 can be incredibly useful when hiking, etc, due to hazards such as water. The 11-24 has a bulbous front element that cannot accept common 77mm screw in filters like the 16-35 and is easier to damange. The 11-24 is huge and heavy, while the 16-35 is comparatively small and light. The 11-24 lacks IS and will require a tripod in some cases where you might not have one (hiking again is a great example). The 16-35 has much less intrusive flare (both ghosting and veiling) than the 11-24 at all apertures; both offer similar sunstars, though the 16-35's sunstar again has less veiling flare. The 11-24 has significantly less barrel distortion at the wider end. Both are tack sharp.

The 11-24 offers 11-15mm exclusively, topping out at 24mm. 

The 16-35 offers 25-35mm exclusively, starting off at 16mm, and exclusively offers image stabilization to reduce tripod requirements in poor light or narrow apertures.

Both lenses look near perfect at their respective focal lengths offered after LR lens corrections. But, the 16-35 is much cheaper, lighter, smaller, less fragile, more filter-compatible and thus more practical. If I was offered either lens to photograph with on a 2 mile hike I would easily select the 16-35 because all of the disadvantages of the 11-24 do not make 11-15mm worth having; plus frankly I personally find 25-35mm more useful than 11-15mm in most situations I would use a UWA. Yeah, you could carry an 11-24 and a 35l or 24-70mm, but who wants to lug all that gear on a hike?

So, really, two totally different lenses:
11-24mm - expensive, relatively heavy and large specialty lens if you require 11-15mm
16-35mm IS - reasonably-priced practical-to-carry-and-use lens that would satisfy 99% of landscape uses at similar quality to the 11-24.


----------



## CaiLeDao (Mar 30, 2015)

Does anyone have a experience of the overlap at the 24-35 end with the 24-70 F2.8 mark II? I think the 11-24 is attractive and it covers something unique which I wouldn't get with a 16-35 lens. To date i haven't looked at shots from the 24-70 and thought that's not good enough. Does anyone have real world comparison.

The weight may push me to the lighter 16-35 f4, at present I use the 17mm TSE, harder to go wide (shift) with filters so the 11-24 when sensible filter options arrive could be very tempting, plus keeping me fit.


----------



## charlesa (Apr 2, 2015)

As an architectural photographer I am sorely tempted, although I doubt it can supersede the 24 mm TS-E, which has the added functionality of sorting out the converging verticals issue. My biggest bugbear with the 11-24 mm is the inability to use my ND filters and polarizer (I doubt the Lee or Lucroit options are very handy to say the least!)


----------



## sanj (Apr 2, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Finally got my hands on the 11-24 and 16-35 f/4 is and to be honest I wish I hadn't.
> ...



hahahahaa


----------



## LovePhotography (Apr 8, 2015)

At the all important 16mm, the 16-35 f/4 looks better to me. Especially when you factor in the 2.5 X price. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## dcm (Apr 8, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> At the all important 16mm, the 16-35 f/4 looks better to me. Especially when you factor in the 2.5 X price. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0



Even if we were comparing primes a single datapoint usually doesn't tell the whole story. At 16mm with f/5.6 and f/8 it looks like a draw to me. At 24mm the 11-24 appears a bit better at f/4, f/5.6, and f/8. I consider it a wash from what I see on TDP.

The eye opening comparison for me is with the Sigma 12-24 - there is no comparison. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=954&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

It really all depends on how wide you want/need to go. If you already have/use a fisheye for ultrawide angle or stitching isn't viable for your shooting needs, the 11-24 is quite appealing if you can afford it. I could get by with a 16-35 and my 8-15, but I'm seriously considering the 11-24 to replace my 17-40.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 8, 2015)

As Pookie pointed out, I sold my 16-35 f/4 IS not long after purchasing the 11-24 f/4. I am not a big filter user, I use a tripod 95% of the time (with this kind of lens) and love shooting very wide, so it works well for me and I don't think the 16-35 would have seen much use, so I thought it would be better to sell it to someone who would use it. I also have the EF-M 11-22 IS for my EOS M, so to me that was a lot of overlap.

Comparing the two, here's what I thought:
-Build quality is slightly higher with the 11-24, but I don't find it to be much over the 16-35, which is excellent
-Image quality is even or very close (100% pixel peeping required) between the two. Color, contrast, and sharpness are all top notch on both lenses
-CA is a bit lower on the 11-24, but both a corrected quite well
-Distortion, especially at the edges is lower on the 11-24
-Vignetting is more even on the 11-24 - the edges are quite dark at 16mm of the 16-35
-11 to 15mm is not for everyone. It's quite difficult to find a suitable composition, and even then, the camera needs to be carefully leveled and/or angled to get good results
-Corner stretching/projection distortion is obvious, but can be left alone or (once a profile is available) corrected in DxO. It will result is a ration other than 3:2, but it's very usable.

I see the 11-24 f/4 as a true specialty lens, whereas the 16-35 f/4 IS is much more of a general purpose wide angle lens. Like most specialty lenses, it is expensive and there are trade offs in terms of size, weight, zoom range, filter use, etc. It's not a practical lens and you'll find yourself changing lenses a lot if you're walking around or doing general shooting. 24mm is just too wide for a whole lot of subjects, whereas 35mm is just right for many subjects. Plus, there's no IS, it's heavy, and it gets lots of attention (which made me a little nervous when I was surrounded by several homeless people a few weeks ago at night). 

For wedding and event shooters, the 16-35 f/4 IS of f/2.8 II make way more sense. For travel shooters, the f/4 IS along with one or more of the 24-70 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/4 IS, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS lenses are a killer combo, and in many cases the 16-35 f/4 IS could be a single lens solution, or maybe it and a 50 or 85mm prime for portraits and low light. The M + 11-22 IS works quite well, too 

For landscapes, the filter usage is a huge deal, and honestly, not a lot of natural landscapes are well suited to being shot at 11mm. It makes the background SO small (see Ian Plant's example from Patagonia to see what I mean), but will certainly find uses where the foreground and creating vistas from shallow compositions is needed. HDR and other digital tools are going to be more important, of course, and it's huge and heavy, so not ideal for hiking or stashing in a small bag. It's also nowhere near as weatherproof as the 16-35 f/4 IS + filter. 

For architectural/real estate shooters, I have the TS-E 17 f/4 and the TS-E 24 f/3.5 II as well, but see them as very different lenses in terms of capabilities. The T/S have obvious advantages, but aren't weather sealed, aren't zooms, and require stitching to get a wider FOV. That's usually doable, but a lot of my work is done under short timelines (owner is coming back soon, or realtor is waiting on me) so being able to zoom from ultrawide to a standard wide FL is quite handy. I never found the 24-35 range to be very useful for interiors, so that's not a big loss.

So ultimately, for me, I'm willing to trade the major conveniences of the 16-35 f/4 IS for the unique perspectives of the 11-24 f/4. For most people, however, the 16-35 f/4 IS makes way more sense and is one of Canon's best lenses in every way possible.

P.S. I would caution anyone comparing IQ to do it between f/8 and f/16. There are few reasons to shoot wide open with these lenses and the IQ, even with the Sigma, is better compared stopped down where these lenses will most likely be used (sports and event shooters aside...but then again, they need f/2.8 )


----------



## Act444 (Apr 8, 2015)

I played around with the 11-24 at my local store. Real cool, but successfully resisted the urge. Just have no practical need for 11mm...at all. 16 will do.


----------



## GuyF (Apr 8, 2015)

Just collected my new 16-35 f4 two hours ago. Replaces a 17-40mm and so far I think the 11-24mm has to be something _really_ incredible to be worth almost 4 times the price of the 16-35 here in the UK.

Tweaked for AFMA, the 16-35mm looks very good indeed. Will I look at the 11-24mm with envy? Nope. Way too much money for what it is (I've a couple of big whites so it isn't as if I couldn't afford one if I really wanted it).

Anyway, congrats on both our purchases! Nothing quite like the smell of new gear!


----------

