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



## mackguyver (Feb 4, 2015)

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?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 4, 2015)

I'd love to buy the 11-24, but there are other things on the "to buy" list ahead of it. Plus, I'm afraid it would be hard for me to recap the investment. Probably rent it a few times first.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 4, 2015)

The 16-35mm F/4L is plenty for my needs.


----------



## msm (Feb 4, 2015)

Got the 16-35 f4 IS last summer and was very happy with that so it's a bit annoying this comes now .

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.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Feb 4, 2015)

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?



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?


----------



## tphillips63 (Feb 4, 2015)

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.


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 4, 2015)

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.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 4, 2015)

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.


I agree on the flare and since it was SWC and ASC, I'm hoping it handles it well.


----------



## LOALTD (Feb 4, 2015)

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.”


----------



## TeT (Feb 4, 2015)

11 mm (<16mm) real estate pics on a FF with less distortion and CA than the current offerings...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 4, 2015)

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.


----------



## Freddie (Feb 4, 2015)

I may try one from Canon this summer. It might be good for something. I could sell my 17 TS-E to help pay for it. I still say it would be a perfect architectural or real estate lens.


----------



## Machaon (Feb 4, 2015)

Freddie said:


> I could sell my 17 TS-E to help pay for it. I still say it would be a perfect architectural or real estate lens.



(Provided all shots are levelled at the horizon!)


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 4, 2015)

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


----------



## FEBS (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm not sure right now. I think it will be a super lens. Problem that I see is the use of filters on this lens. I've seen no information there about yet.

If filter possibility is OK, then I am thinking of selling my 14L f2.8 and the 24L f1.4 II to finance this lens.


----------



## LOALTD (Feb 4, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> MTF charts will lead the way
> 
> Current 16-35 f4 IS is good, but 11mm uhmm :... ;D




I came really close to picking up the 16-35 f/4 IS, rented it once, outstanding lens! 

Glad I held off though.

It’s weird to see Canon focusing on wides (finally), has hell frozen over?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Feb 5, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> The 16-35mm F/4L is plenty for my needs.



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.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 5, 2015)

I will buy the f2.8 version, but not this slow poke.


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 5, 2015)

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.


----------



## Spectrum (Feb 5, 2015)

Absolutely, but I wish the price was in the lower $2K range. My 14mm f/2.8L II is already in the hands of the B&H Used Dept. for trade-in when this one is announced.


----------



## e_honda (Feb 5, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I will buy the f2.8 version, but not this slow poke.



That lens will be Canon enthusiasts' next unicorn.


----------



## pwp (Feb 5, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> 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?


I also have the Sigma 12-24 (MkI) and I bring it out a few times a year. It's a fun lens though commercially acceptable output can only be realised shooting at f/11. Wide open it looks like soup. If the new 11-24 f/4 can deliver the goods at f/4, then I'm a buyer. It will open up possibilities you wouldn't bother attempting with the Sigma. The clincher would be if it comfortably out-performs my current 16-35 f/2.8II which delivers_ kind of acceptable _ files. Beyond f/5.6 my old 17-40 outperformed my 16-35 f/2.8II. Darn! I should have kept it!

If the 11-24 f/4 proves to be a capable lens, I could see it replacing my 16-35 II which I mainly use in the 16-24mm range anyway. Anyone seen a price?

-pw


----------



## LOALTD (Feb 5, 2015)

Word on the street is $3,000.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 5, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> The 16-35mm F/4L is plenty for my needs.



+1. 16mm is wide enough for my purposes 99% of the time. I will probably buy an inexpensive fish eye at some point. I just don't see myself ever buying this one. Right now a 50mm prime and 300/2.8 II are next on my wish list.


----------



## CaptainZero (Feb 5, 2015)

I'm in property management, and I use my 10-22 every day. When on vacation, I use better lenses, but I don't do that much with wide angles. My 24-70 is wide enough, usually. If not, I'll stitch them together. 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it, but replacing my 24-70 2.8 (and my 100-400) with version 2 would come ahead of this.


----------



## PVS (Feb 5, 2015)

I'm looking forward to 11-24L but in my limited experience any lens which focused less than focal-length-times-ten was a very good to excellent corrected lens. With this lens not fitting the less-than-ten-times-the-focal-length-mfd criteria I hope my ten-times rule proves wrong.


----------



## Ruined (Feb 5, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I will buy the f2.8 version, but not this slow poke.



Its pretty clear if you want f/2.8 you are going to be sacrificing significant IQ from the f/4 with these UWAs, or have something extremely large + expensive to match the f/4 IQ.


----------



## dslrdummy (Feb 5, 2015)

I don't do tripod work so the Tammy 15-30 is more in line with my needs. With the VC and at f/2.8 it will make a great walk around lense in difficult light. Matt Granger's review has pretty much sold me.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 5, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> 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.


The 16-35 f/4L IS is fine for my needs, along with my 15mm FishEye. I'm an enthusiastic amateur and I've already spent more than I ever thought I would spend on photography gear.
If I buy one more lens it'd be the EF 100-400/L II


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Feb 5, 2015)

11 is way too wide for a FF.... the supposed target buyer.
16 is borderline usable.

I'd buy it for $500 as a novelty.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 5, 2015)

CaptureWhatYouSee said:


> 11 is way too wide for a FF.... the supposed target buyer.
> 16 is borderline usable.
> 
> I'd buy it for $500 as a novelty.



11mm is way too wide for me too. The widest I like is 20mm.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 5, 2015)

zlatko said:


> CaptureWhatYouSee said:
> 
> 
> > 11 is way too wide for a FF.... the supposed target buyer.
> ...



Yes, but cropping the extreme FOV will offer numerous creative opportunities which may not be possible with the current gear. Ugh... now I'm thinking a 5Ds and 11-24L - there goes my 600L fund.


----------



## cervantes (Feb 5, 2015)

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?



Didn't you say that your new "gears" resolution was not to preorder any new lenses???


----------



## andrewflo (Feb 5, 2015)

Although I'd love to have my hands on it, I simply can't imagine a responsible reason to buy one.

Only paid work I use wide angles for is Real Estate. If the same room/framing can be shot at a longer focal length, usually wider than 17mm is not preferable.

Only time I can imagine having no choice but to use <16mm are very very small spaces like bathrooms.

And for $3k, I think I'll settle with having only _most_ of a bathroom in a single shot as opposed to _all_ of it.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2015)

Currently shopping around for a mint used 16-35 IS, but since I have the same disorder as a lot of us here, I will own the 11-24 at some point in time. 8)


----------



## Eldar (Feb 5, 2015)

Since Canon has the balls to charge $3k for this lens, it is clear that we will see a great lens. Unless they are back to the over pricing strategy they were on prior to the new 16-35 and the 100-400 lenses. 

I really question what I will be using it for though. The 16-35 f4L IS is a stellar performer and, unless you carry two bodies, it is a lot more versatile than 11-24. I have never felt the need for something wider than 15mm (I didn´t believe I needed that either ...), so I wonder if this will become the great lens occupying its place in my bag, without being used. Alternatively, will it be good enough to justify selling the 16-35 and the Zeiss 15mm?

But I guess, the only way to find out is to follow of my weak character and get one :


----------



## RGF (Feb 5, 2015)

hard decision. I assume based upon speculated price that the 11-24 is stellar.

But I have more use for 100-400 II.


----------



## Ruined (Feb 5, 2015)

I am not. I see this as a niche lens. I'd rather have 25-35mm, screw-in filters & $2000 over 11-15mm. I am sure this describes the vast majority of users also when given this choice.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 5, 2015)

11-24mm on full frame

16-38mm on crop (not really, but close enough)

VERY interested to see the specs on this. It would be a massive spend for me but I would much rather spend $3000 on a lens than a body


----------



## Rahul (Feb 5, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I have never felt the need for something wider than 15mm (I didn´t believe I needed that either ...),



;D I've had similar experiences with a lot of photography gear I bought which I initially felt I never needed, nor had use for. It's funny how you feel the need for something _after _you buy it.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 5, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Since Canon has the balls to charge $3k for this lens, it is clear that we will see a great lens. Unless they are back to the over pricing strategy they were on prior to the new 16-35 and the 100-400 lenses.
> 
> I really question what I will be using it for though. The 16-35 f4L IS is a stellar performer and, unless you carry two bodies, it is a lot more versatile than 11-24. I have never felt the need for something wider than 15mm (I didn´t believe I needed that either ...), so I wonder if this will become the great lens occupying its place in my bag, without being used. Alternatively, will it be good enough to justify selling the 16-35 and the Zeiss 15mm?
> 
> But I guess, the only way to find out is to follow of my weak character and get one :


I don't see it as a replacement for the 16-35 as I feel the zoom range of that lens is more practical and with the IS, it's a killer walkaround lens. Also, I understand the feeling about not needing wider than 16mm 15mm, but I have missed the extra millimeters since I sold my Sigma 12-24 II. 12mm gives you almost 1/3 more in the frame than 14mm according to my tests, so 11mm vs. 15 or 16mm is even more extreme. The real value is in the extreme perspective, and the creative possibilities of that. It's going to be really tough to use at 11mm, but I'm ready for the challenge


----------



## Eldar (Feb 5, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Since Canon has the balls to charge $3k for this lens, it is clear that we will see a great lens. Unless they are back to the over pricing strategy they were on prior to the new 16-35 and the 100-400 lenses.
> ...


Puuhh ... I will need yet another bag and a sherpa ... :


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 5, 2015)

Eldar said:


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


Too funny! I've been trying to use a one in, one out model - i.e. sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS, but this doesn't really replace anything. It seems that my camera gear has become a bit like my tools. I have some special wrenches, sockets, and special tools I rarely use, but I keep them for when I need them. My toolboxes have grown and multiplied, but no sherpas are required as they don't travel far... The only problem I'm having is that my camera insurance bill has now grown to the cost of a decent L lens each year 

All the same, I'll have my finger on the mouse tonight, ready to click _Order_!


----------



## dcm (Feb 5, 2015)

Don't expect to preorder. I'll wait till the full specs and reviews are in before I pull the trigger. 

My other options were f/4 (current 17-40 f/4 or planned upgrade 16-35 f/4 IS) so that doesn't bother me at all. The increased FL range is intriguing for mountain tops and deep canyons/valleys. I already shoot the 8-15 fisheye and sometimes defish. I might use the fisheye less with this lens.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 5, 2015)

dcm said:


> Don't expect to preorder. I'll wait till the full specs and reviews are in before I pull the trigger.
> 
> My other options were f/4 (current 17-40 f/4 or planned upgrade 16-35 f/4 IS) so that doesn't bother me at all. The increased FL range is intriguing for mountain tops and deep canyons/valleys. I already shoot the 8-15 fisheye and sometimes defish. I might use the fisheye less with this lens.


With the 8-15, I could see this lens as less intriguing. Personally I'm not a fan of the fisheye distortion, but love superwide, so I'm hoping this is all it should be. Canon's last several lenses are all pretty spectacular, so I'm not concerned with waiting for tests. That's just my feeling, but I certainly understand and respect how others feel.


----------



## dcm (Feb 5, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > Don't expect to preorder. I'll wait till the full specs and reviews are in before I pull the trigger.
> ...



I'm busy and would likely not have much time to use it in the near future so no need to rush on my part. Besides, your's and Eldar's are some of the comments I'd like to see. At this point it's very likely I'll buy, just looking for some confirmation.


----------



## NWPhil (Feb 6, 2015)

It's on a Watch list for sure, so probably yes, but not right away.

- priority will be the 100-400mk2, but just got the Otus 85mm and a RRS tripod, so I have to relax and recover for a while

will rent it when becomes available, so I can compare it with my other UWA lenses...and then wait for a refurb


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 9, 2015)

Will flip a coin between the 11-24mm and the 100-400mkii. On one hand i've been bitten by the landscape bug and was recently hired for some Real Estate work on the other Little League games will be starting at the end of Feb. Of course the other option would be just to buy both... <wallet runs in fear>


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 9, 2015)

dcm said:


> Besides, your's and Eldar's are some of the comments I'd like to see. At this point it's very likely I'll buy, just looking for some confirmation.


I already have some work lined up that may pay for this lens - a client looking for some unique photos of their event. I came up with a shot they loved last year, but there's always pressure to create something different. 



SwnSng said:


> Will flip a coin between the 11-24mm and the 100-400mkii. On one hand i've been bitten by the landscape bug and was recently hired for some Real Estate work on the other Little League games will be starting at the end of Feb. Of course the other option would be just to buy both... <wallet runs in fear>


LOL and that's a tough choice. I imagine Little League will win out before long


----------



## RGF (Feb 10, 2015)

msm said:


> Got the 16-35 f4 IS last summer and was very happy with that so it's a bit annoying this comes now .
> 
> 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.



I, too, got the 16-35 F4 last summer and am happy with the lens. I also have had the 14 for several years and am quite happy with that. I just got a 17 TS/E and now comes 11-24.

The 17 TS/E is great for landscape and I was considering it an Ultra-Ultra wide alternative (shift left/right and merge).

Now the 11-24 will give the same angle of view as the 17 TS/E set up as pan.

Angle of view for 11mm is 95º short and 117º long axis. 17 is 70º vertical and 93º long axis. So if flip the 17 TS to portrait I get the same angle of view as the 11 in the landscape orientation.

So may sell the 14 and buy the 11-24


----------

