# EF 11-24mm f/4L: Our First Impressions



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 31, 2015)

```
I’ve been in Scotland for the last 10 days or so and doing a lot of shooting with Canon’s brand new EF 11-24mm f/4L. The main purpose of the trip was for landscape photography, which I figured was a good place to start for our review.</p>
<p>There are a lot of things that make the EF 11-24mm f/4L a challenging lens to use for landscape. First and foremost is not being able to use filters. A lot of the time, especially scenes with wet rocks and water, a polarizer is sorely missed. In Scotland, with the ever changing skies and varied foregrounds, the inability to use graduated neutral density filters is also difficult. A lot of people are fine to do exposure blending, which is not something I’m all that keen on. I prefer one frame for exposure. Currently there is no filter holder available for this lens, but hopefully the folks at Lee Filters are working on a solution for grads and stoppers.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>11mm is wide, and in a lot of cases too wide for landscape photography if you don’t have a bold object in the foreground. You really do get the whole world in the frame, and the difference between 11mm and 15mm is quite substantial, as that is what I’m used to shooting at with the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8.</p>
<p>The build quality and optics are top notch, everyone that has used this lens says the same thing. I have found the distortion to be very well controlled and I haven’t done any correction in post. There’s currently no profile for the lens in Lightroom, but I haven’t felt I needed one either.</p>
<p>I return home this week, so I’ll be going through all the images captured with the lens and we’ll get a review up soon after.</p>
<p>Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM $2999: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA11244.html" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119028-REG/canon_9520b002_ef_11_24mm_f_4l_usm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T3ERXKE/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00T3ERXKE&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=SKIW33AKPAGADHBN" target="_blank">Amazon</a></p>
```


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 31, 2015)

Thank you for sharing your impressions and I really like that photo! The light is great and the soft colors and leading lines work very well. I look forward to seeing more of your work when you return.


----------



## sanj (Mar 31, 2015)

Larger photo please!


----------



## leGreve (Mar 31, 2015)

Or you could do what the people who shoot 25 fps are doing.... add a mattebox and filter holder. Problem solved.


----------



## The Flasher (Mar 31, 2015)

Mine arrived this past Friday and timely so, as I had the opportunity to use it on a paid architectural gig right away. In short (and wide harhar) amazing piece of glass, worth every penny if you're shooting architecture. The 17tse/4 and 24tse still have their place and are crucial if you need to shoot up and shift. For straight and level, such as interiors, this thing is a beast. I'm on a job right now but I'll post a couple frames this aft if interested.


----------



## keithcooper (Mar 31, 2015)

*Big filters*

I spoke to a few filter makers at the Photography Show in the UK last week - several said that they have a solution for the 11-24 on its way.

As someone who doesn't currently use filters on wide lenses I'm keen to see what they can come up with.

However, I'm still minded to wonder about the overall usefulness of a polariser at 11mm, given the change in polarisation in the sky at such wide angles?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 31, 2015)

*Re: Big filters*



keithcooper said:


> I spoke to a few filter makers at the Photography Show in the UK last week - several said that they have a solution for the 11-24 on its way.
> 
> As someone who doesn't currently use filters on wide lenses I'm keen to see what they can come up with.
> 
> However, I'm still minded to wonder about the overall usefulness of a polariser at 11mm, given the change in polarisation in the sky at such wide angles?



I'd never polarize the sky that wide, it wouldn't work well. Water scenes, wet foliage and rocks, it would be worthwhile. It has been with the Zeiss 15 anyway.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 31, 2015)

*Re: Big filters*



keithcooper said:


> I spoke to a few filter makers at the Photography Show in the UK last week - several said that they have a solution for the 11-24 on its way.
> 
> As someone who doesn't currently use filters on wide lenses I'm keen to see what they can come up with.
> 
> However, I'm still minded to wonder about the overall usefulness of a polariser at 11mm, given the change in polarisation in the sky at such wide angles?



I use the Fotodiox Wonderpana system on the 17TS-E and emailed them a while ago to see if they were going to make an adapter for the 11-24, they are and the solution should be available soon. 

As for usefulness of a PL on these very wide lenses, I use them for controlling reflections in granite counter tops, hardwood and tiled floors and swimming pools, but then I am not a landscape shooter!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 31, 2015)

Lee Filters is testing a prototype adaptor ring to be used in the newer SW150II which will employ a light baffle (backward compatable with earlier SW150 holders) and be able to use the full range of Lee Filters including polarizers, Big & Little stoppers. 
If testing goes to plan will be on-sale sometime in late May.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2015)

*Re: Big filters*



keithcooper said:


> I spoke to a few filter makers at the Photography Show in the UK last week - several said that they have a solution for the 11-24 on its way.
> 
> As someone who doesn't currently use filters on wide lenses I'm keen to see what they can come up with.
> 
> However, I'm still minded to wonder about the overall usefulness of a polariser at 11mm, given the change in polarisation in the sky at such wide angles?



You are dead on -- at 11mm, it would be a hot mess for the sky. FOV-related vignetting from polarizing the sky on UWA is a really tough fix in post (at least in my amateur hands). I generally avoid using a polarizer *for sky* reasons on lenses shorter than 35mm or so.

I believe the bigger CPL need with those asking for it here it to tame _water reflections_ more than sky. It comes up often for your classic 'wet rock or tide pool in the foreground' of a beach landscape, as well as pools/streams at the bottom of waterfall shots.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2015)

Thanks for the info. I continue to groan -- feeling your pain -- at the lack of front filtering.

Consider:


The rear gel slot option for an ND is a non-starter for me. In many conditions in the field, changing out your lens to get in there is absolutely not warranted.


Let's say they *do* end up making an outrigger setup for the 11-24 (one has to presume it's in the works) -- 4x6/4x4 filters won't even come close to covering the frame, and I'm not convinced the SW150 system will cover it as it was designed for a 14mm wider end, right? So even if a system comes forward to hold filters, be prepared to:

Possibly not be able to filter the widest end of the 11-24


Possibly be in rarefied air of an altogether new/exotic/enormous/expensive filter ecosystem with limited options. Think Wonderpana or possibly even bigger!


Need a filter bag the size of a large briefcase. Think x-ray film bag big. :




I can't help but see the 11-24 as a specialist architecture lens and _not_ a landscape lens for those very reasons.

The 16-35 f/4L IS, in comparison, _completely_ dominates the 11-24 for my needs as the front-filtering gives me access to the large and varied ecosystem of 4x4 / 4x6 filters. Immediately after IQ and focal length, I peg front filterability as the third biggest consideration in a landscape lens. (That said, that's not what all people are going to use it for.)

But for those who have the 11-24, I'm sure it's a wonderful optic that is blast to shoot with. Please take some awesome shots and share!

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 31, 2015)

Even on on EF17-40mm f4L ive had posterisation from a polarising filter. However polarising filters have their uses for foliage & water and in combination with an 81A give enhanced autumn / fall colours. 

I guess there being asked for them so they are obliging.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2015)

Also, for those waiting for the Lee SW150 update, there is news on that front in just this past week:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6798841724/lee-filters-introduces-updates-to-super-wide-sw-system-to-fit-more-lenses-and-to-cut-down-on-flare

Keep in mind that the expansion of lenses _doesn't_ include the 11-24 (though more lens are promised down the road). 

But _also_ keep in mind that glaciers move more quickly than Lee Filters does. It could be a very long time before they get to the 11-24.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Thanks for the info. I continue to groan -- feeling your pain -- at the lack of front filtering.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> ...


Lee showed a Sigma 12-24 at the Photography Show with the newer SW150II


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Lee showed a Sigma 12-24 at the Photography Show with the newer SW150II



Yep. Just linked the DP Review story about it.

'Fits on the Sigma 12-24' may be a very different animal than _'filters FOV as wide as 12mm'_. 

The devil's in the details, but my guess would be the SW150 was designed with a very small safety buffer and tolerance consideration to make sure Nikon 14-24 users never ding their front elements and such. That is probably the limited amount of Leeway (<--- see what I did there? 8)) the system has to get wider.

My guess is the Lee SW150 won't be able cover 11mm even after they charge us +$50-75 for a lens-specific sleeve to back into their $400 outrigger with $120 per filter. But if it covers 12-24, 13-24, etc., I think 11-24 owners would welcome it with open arms (and much lighter wallets).

- A


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 31, 2015)

Location ? Harris, looking out North with Taransay to the left ???


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 31, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Even on on EF17-40mm f4L ive had posterisation from a polarising filter. However polarising filters have their uses for foliage & water and in combination with an 81A give enhanced autumn / fall colours.
> 
> I guess there being asked for them so they are obliging.



Posterisation is nothing to do with polarising filters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> The 16-35 f/4L IS, in comparison, _completely_ dominates the 11-24 for my needs as the front-filtering gives me access to the large and varied ecosystem of 4x4 / 4x6 filters. Immediately after IQ and focal length, I peg front filterability as the third biggest consideration in a landscape lens. (That said, that's not what all people are going to use it for.)



An awful lot of landscape shooters have been using the equally bulbous Nikon 14-24 for years, so whilst I feel your reasoning it obviously isn't that widespread. Horses for courses and all that, but it seems, certainly with the proliferation of bulbous lenses and the varied filter solutions for those that need them (me included) that the lens function and saleability just isn't impacted much.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35 f/4L IS, in comparison, _completely_ dominates the 11-24 for my needs as the front-filtering gives me access to the large and varied ecosystem of 4x4 / 4x6 filters. Immediately after IQ and focal length, I peg front filterability as the third biggest consideration in a landscape lens. (That said, that's not what all people are going to use it for.)
> ...



+1. Well said. 

If that lens is the one that'll do it for you, use it of course. I just think that front-filterability via a setup that _doesn't_ require huge filters or taking the lens off the body to setup is a strong selling point to a landscape lens. 

That said, other folks are happy to hand-hold grads and have the skill to do it, while others yet have made makerbot-built SLA one-offs for specific lenses. People have options, and more will always come.

I'm a little surprised that Wonderpana and Lee haven't come out with a formal statement that they will support the 11-24. _They should want people to buy that lens_ as those are future filter customers in a fairly exclusive segment of the market where they make a solid profit. The question of future front-filterability very may be holding some people back from buying it, so a simple statement of "Yes. We're working on it!" may be enough to get more people into buying the lens.

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I'm a little surprised that Wonderpana and Lee haven't come out with a formal statement that they will support the 11-24.


I wouldn't be surprised if they are having a tough time getting a copy and/or are still testing prototypes to be sure it will work. I'm also curious as to whether or not there will be a disclaimer similar to Lee's TS-E 17 adapter regarding max shift. Works with 11-24...up to 14mm or something like that.

In the meantime, I'll keep shooting with my 11-24 and make due without filters


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2015)

Well, what do you know -- I e-mailed Fotodiox/Wonderpana about the 11-24 f/4L and got an instant reply:
_
"Hello,
That lens is not out yet, but we have plans on making a WonderPana for that lens. but at this time there is no time frame on when this will be available. Thank you and have a great day."_

That's good news if you own this lens!

- A


----------



## SoullessPolack (Mar 31, 2015)

I've never understood why people don't try to find solutions for themselves, rather sitting idly with their thumbs up their butts waiting for someone else to come up with something.

First, I've found the lack of filterability of the 11-24 at the current time to not be a major, or even minor, concern. Clearly, we don't want to polarize a sky at 11mm. Even at 24mm, I wouldn't polarize the sky unless there was something blocking that portion of the sky that would be least filtered. However, yes, we often times do want to polarize the rocks on the ground, or the ocean at the bottom of the frame, or what have you. What I do in those cases is take the largest CP I have on me, and work my way through the portion of the image I need polarized, holding the CP in front of the lens and blocking stray light by using my hand above the filter/lens. Of course, my hand will be in the image, and so will the filter, but those are easy to mask out from the other images. You have to know how much light your filter absorbs, and then adjust your exposure by that amount when you're doing your CP shots, but this is a one time experiment that you do, and then you know it for the future. It's worked great for me, and the bonus is I don't have to carry a lot of extra weight and size of extra gear just for some shots.

I used to use a similar method when I was using the 14mm f2.8 for landscapes. I didn't want to buy a huge and weighty system. Not to mention, such a system does not fit in well with ultralight backpacking, as I would then have had to upgrade to a bigger bag, which weighed more, etc, but I digress. I had heard a lot of naysayers tell me how it would be awful to do my technique, I'd miss shots, whatever, I heard it all. I ran an experiment. During sunrise on day, I used a friend's Wonderpana system. During sunset, I used my CP technique. I also timed how long it took me to edit each image until it was ready as "one image" ready for actual post processing. For the ones where I used my technique, a smaller CP with multiple shots, this took a little longer because I had to mask in certain areas. Interestingly, if you look at _overall_ time spent, it was actually quicker, on average, to use my technique over a "proper" much larger filter. The advantage is, less time is spent in the field, and you're sacrificing time at home spent on merging the images. I think we can all agree on that we have way more time at home available to us than we do out in the field. I'd rather spend my time in the field taking shots, then setting them up. 

The one time I found the Wonderpana system faster was long after sunset, during twilight, when my exposures were so long that free holding a filter in front of a lens was simply too long and introduced too much movement. However, as you all know, there is little need for a polarized filter that late in the game. Even with a more "normal" focal length, like 35mm, during twilight there is no real use to using a polarized filter. There is not enough polarized light to make a drastic difference in your image. Try it. Take two shots during twilight. There will be some differences between a bare shot and one with a CP, but the difference is orders of magnitude smaller than comparable shots taken an hour earlier, or during much brighter times of the day.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 31, 2015)

Great looking image. I do plan to review this lens at some point, but I have to confess it isn't all that exciting to me. I simply don't need a lens that wide, and I suspect few photographers actually do, too.

The new Tamron 15-30 or the 16-35mm f/4L IS make more sense to me.

P.S. The point made about thousands of great landscape photographers using the 14-24mm despite its bulbous front element is a valid one. A bulbous front element is not so great an obstacle as we sometimes make it out to be. It hasn't stopped me from adding hundreds of images to my catalog from the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 that I'm very proud of.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 1, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Well, what do you know -- I e-mailed Fotodiox/Wonderpana about the 11-24 f/4L and got an instant reply:
> _
> "Hello,
> That lens is not out yet, but we have plans on making a WonderPana for that lens. but at this time there is no time frame on when this will be available. Thank you and have a great day."_
> ...



I emailed them on the 27th Feb, this is what they said then:-



> _Please check back with us in two months. The Wonderpana filter adapter for
> this lens should be available by then.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Fotodiox, Inc._


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 1, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a little surprised that Wonderpana and Lee haven't come out with a formal statement that they will support the 11-24.
> ...



The limitations listed on the Lee system were the main reason I bought the Wonderpana. No limit on shift (I saw no point in paying all that money for shift and then not being able to! And no limit on tilt, even combined shift and tilt are crazy generous and exceed virtually all actual real world image movements.


----------



## Jeffrey (Apr 1, 2015)

This lens will be a rental for me. I don't shoot anything needing such a wide view very often.


----------



## msm (Apr 1, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Great looking image. I do plan to review this lens at some point, but I have to confess it isn't all that exciting to me. I simply don't need a lens that wide, and I suspect few photographers actually do, too.



Good point, though I know some spectacular places which definitely can use wider than the 16mm of my 16-35. I think many of the shots I see from this lens gives me the feeling it was shot at 11mm just because the photographer could, not because the scene looks best this wide.


----------



## param (Apr 1, 2015)

msm said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Great looking image. I do plan to review this lens at some point, but I have to confess it isn't all that exciting to me. I simply don't need a lens that wide, and I suspect few photographers actually do, too.
> ...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 1, 2015)

param said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 1, 2015)

It looks like an awesome lens:
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/canon_ef_11_24mm_f_4_l_usm_photos/

I really-need to stop viewing photos from this lens 8)


----------



## josephandrews222 (Apr 1, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> It looks like an awesome lens:
> http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/canon_ef_11_24mm_f_4_l_usm_photos/
> 
> I really-need to stop viewing photos from this lens 8)



I concur. Completely.


----------



## keithcooper (Apr 1, 2015)

kraats said:


> It is not really suites for landscape. The Professional landscape photographers that I know will not bit it. I think it is more suited for architecturen maybe.


I'm interested in using mine for both, particularly once I have 50MP images to crop ;-)

That said, I've had the EF14 2.8L II for several years and found it of more use for architectural work.


----------

