# EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 30, 2015)

```
<p>The specifications for the long rumoured Canon EF 11-24 f/4L USM have finally been revealed.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 11-24 f/4L USM (UPDATED February 1, 2015 Google Translated)</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span class="notranslate">Lens arrangement 16 sheets group 11</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">4 aspherical lens (large diameter grinding aspheric single, large-diameter glass molded aspherical one, two glass mold aspherical)</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">One Super UD lens, one UD lens</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">SWC coating (two-sided)</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">ASC coating (one side)</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">The fluorine-coded into the rear lens and the front lens</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">Diaphragm blades nine.</span> <span class="notranslate">The aperture circular</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">Minimum aperture is F22</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">In the shortest shooting distance is 24mm 0.28m, 0.32m in 11mm</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">0.16 times at the maximum photographic magnification is 24mm, 0.06 times in 11mm</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">AF motor ring USM</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">Full-time manual focus</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">Dust and water</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">Rear gelatin filter holder</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">Total length 132mm, maximum diameter 108mm</span></li>
<li><span class="notranslate">Weight 1180g</span></li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://digicame-info.com/2015/01/ef11-24mm-f4l-1.html" target="_blank">DCI</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 30, 2015)

Hoping for some winning lottery tickets here....


----------



## Click (Jan 30, 2015)

Looking forward to this lens.


----------



## Zv (Jan 30, 2015)

Is it just me or is this a different image of the lens than what we previously saw? The old rumored one looked a bit fake where the hood met the barrel. This new image looks like the real deal to me. 

Why is there only two posts about this rumor btw? 

See previous image below. Notice that gap between the lens hood and front end.

Edit - just had a thought - maybe it extends!


----------



## romanr74 (Jan 30, 2015)

*i'm in love*


----------



## bereninga (Jan 30, 2015)

Can't wait to see the price and the photos from this beast! I won't be getting one myself since it'll be over my budget, but I'll just appreciate the images it produces.


----------



## TommyLee (Jan 30, 2015)

I want it...

would love to see a test.....

but I have to assume the edges/corners are...as good as they could do.....
and CA lower than my 14L II....

big question is.
how straight are straight lines....pretty good on 14L II....

11mm can see behind me...almost...

this will be fun on 5D mk IV... which I mainly want for low light...
the 11mm will be fun for walk arounds in downtown...ok...limparounds...

i am on a list

TOM


----------



## The Bad Duck (Jan 30, 2015)

oh crap no filter...
Well, there has to be some disadvantage or it would be too perfect...

Now the wait for reviews and prize information


----------



## The Flasher (Jan 30, 2015)

Rectilinear?


----------



## NancyP (Jan 30, 2015)

Yes. Their FE is the 8-15.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jan 30, 2015)

The Bad Duck said:


> oh crap no filter...
> Well, there has to be some disadvantage or it would be too perfect...
> 
> Now the wait for reviews and prize information



Which lenses come with a filter? I never seen one. 

You can buy filters for these types of lenses, so....? 

Gotta dig harder than that for something to complain about!


----------



## Eldar (Jan 30, 2015)

It must be insanely good to tempt me. I don´t remember having missed not having a wider lens than 15mm, where the Zeiss is doing a magnificent job and the combined quality and functionality of the 16-35 f4L IS fills in. 

Both of these lenses take regular filters, whereas this new one will need a Lee-rig, which I (from experience) leave at home.

But Canon knows that the Nikon 14-24 is the benchmark. That combined with the quality of the latest pro-glass they have released, I´m prepared for a stunning performer and yet another temptation ...


----------



## cpreston (Jan 30, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Which lenses come with a filter? I never seen one.
> 
> You can buy filters for these types of lenses, so....?
> 
> Gotta dig harder than that for something to complain about!



The original comment was about the inability to screw a filter on the front of this lens. This could be expected based on how wide the lens is, but it still means the lens isn't perfect for those of us who want to use grad or CPL filters on a wide angle lens.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jan 30, 2015)

cpreston said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Which lenses come with a filter? I never seen one.
> ...



So a filter is only good if it screws and doesn't slide like the current Lee filter system made for ultra-ultra wide angle lenses with no thread on the front? 

There already exists plenty of filter options for these types of lenses. A filter holder should be out quickly for this specific lens. 

Maybe I am just being obtuse, but I don't see the issue here. Plus, there is no use in putting a CPL on any lens wider than 16mm due to the way CPL's work.


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 30, 2015)

It will be a hefty lens - see this comparison of the 8-15, 14 and 11-24 image - 







filters... guess I'll have to continue not using them ;-)


----------



## Eldar (Jan 30, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Plus, there is no use in putting a CPL on any lens wider than 16mm due to the way CPL's work.


I use CPL on my Zeiss 15mm all the time, because it has a very positive effect on my images. Yes, CPL may have a negative effect on UWA images, for example cloudless blue skies, but if you are conscious of these effects and use it correctly, the filter still has a lot of value. I have never tried CPL on anything wider than 15mm though, so it might be that you pass the next threshold then.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jan 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, there is no use in putting a CPL on any lens wider than 16mm due to the way CPL's work.
> ...



I did somehow forget that it is possible to blend multiple images together to gain a wider CPL effect over the whole frame. I've done that a couple of times. Also there are CPL filters for the Nikon 14-24, so they do exist for the large format filter systems. That's one huge piece of CPL glass though! 

I would like to see an option for drop-in filters, for reduced weight and size if anything. I rarely use more than 1 filter at a time anyway. 

The A7R can take a lens adapter that has a build in variable ND filter. I wonder if they could make a drop in filter system for it too? That's what a few guys are doing with their 14-24. If Sony could only make an A7 series camera with decent battery life, I would be more interested.


----------



## Spectrum (Jan 30, 2015)

This lens is giving me G.A.S. I will be selling my 14mm f/2.8L II very soon...


----------



## LDS (Jan 30, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> wider than 16mm due to the way CPL's work.



CPLs don't work with skies only... nor this lens.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 30, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> cpreston said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...



Even 24 mm can be a problem with CPL ... you'll get striped areas across the frame. And with ultrawide lenses, the skies tend to be blue even without a CPL. CPL are most useful between about 28 to 70 mm (FF)


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jan 30, 2015)

Etienne said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > cpreston said:
> ...


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 30, 2015)

LDS said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > wider than 16mm due to the way CPL's work.
> ...



+1 
if you need darker skies a gradient ND filter might do the trick - sort of same thing with CPL's, as they can'r be used ALLL the time for everything with all focal lengths.
Very usefull to remove glare in water, shinny surfaces, slow down shutter in some situations, and many other that don't have any or some blue sky

sometimes works fine just rotating a little bit...

Actually that side effect can even show at 35mm but more likely below 24mm


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 30, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Hoping for some winning lottery tickets here....



Yes my wishlist is growing too but I'm a mere mortal : In any case I'd prefer this over a 14mm prime. There are other lenses that are higher up my list, so a UWA zoom is not likely to join my outfit within the foreseeable future. That is, if the price is as high as one might expect.


----------



## ranplett (Jan 30, 2015)

Do you think this could be a good replacement for a Zeiss 21mm 2.8 and a Canon 17mm TSE? I usually leave one or the other at home, on the shelf. I don't really have much use for the TSE either. I'd probably prefer a 14-24mm 2.8 though.


----------



## Perio (Jan 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> It must be insanely good to tempt me. I don´t remember having missed not having a wider lens than 15mm, where the Zeiss is doing a magnificent job and the combined quality and functionality of the 16-35 f4L IS fills in.
> 
> Both of these lenses take regular filters, whereas this new one will need a Lee-rig, which I (from experience) leave at home.
> 
> But Canon knows that the Nikon 14-24 is the benchmark. That combined with the quality of the latest pro-glass they have released, I´m prepared for a stunning performer and yet another temptation ...



Eldar, with your lens collection, 11-24 f4 indeed should be insanely good


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 31, 2015)

ok, just a quicky with a P&S - It seems to me that the 11-24 is a little smaller than the 16-35 f/4
Not a precise/scientific comparison, but I think it might close enough


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 31, 2015)

As for CPL's, here is my 145mm CPL on the 17TS-E, which I often shift stitch to an 11mm fov. 

The CPL, as NWPhil says, can be used very effectively for water and shinny services, I use mine for controlling glare and reflections on swimming pools, granite worktops and bathrooms.

I strongly suspect Fotodiox will have an 11-24 version of the Wonderpana out pretty quickly.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> As for CPL's, here is my 145mm CPL on the 17TS-E, which I often shift stitch to an 11mm fov.
> 
> The CPL, as NWPhil says, can be used very effectively for water and shinny services, I use mine for controlling glare and reflections on swimming pools, granite worktops and bathrooms.
> 
> I strongly suspect Fotodiox will have an 11-24 version of the Wonderpana out pretty quickly.


I did not know they had this solution for the 17 TS-E and I could not find it at B&H. I would be most interested and if you could provide full name and number, it would be most appreciated.


----------



## wtlloyd (Jan 31, 2015)

Image comparison of lens size on Northlight Images site:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jan 31, 2015)

wtlloyd said:


> Image comparison of lens size on Northlight Images site:
> 
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html



From a technical standpoint, this is one heck of an advanced glass design!

1x large diameter ground aspheric lens
1x large-diameter glass molded aspherical lens
2x glass molded aspherical lenses
1x super UD lens
1x lens UD
8) 8) 8)


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> As for CPL's, here is my 145mm CPL on the 17TS-E, which I often shift stitch to an 11mm fov.
> 
> The CPL, as NWPhil says, can be used very effectively for water and shinny services, I use mine for controlling glare and reflections on swimming pools, granite worktops and bathrooms.
> 
> I strongly suspect Fotodiox will have an 11-24 version of the Wonderpana out pretty quickly.



Darn, and I believed my 95mm filter was big....

Seems that the new 11-24 has an integrated hood, similar to other newer UWA lenses.
That alone is going to create issues adapting a filer system to it.
For sure I will wait to hear and see test results on this new lens - hopefully, it will at least be equal to Nikon's 14-24 f2.8. 
I would not be surprised with the rumored price if the lens was a f2.8 - @ f/4 seems bit too much, but again, maybe it's really even better than Nikon's offering, and sharp right from f/4

The overall size and exterior looks seem fine for me, and if indeed supports a internal focusing design, then even better.
Maybe f/4 is the new f2.8, now that Canon is coming with higher MP cameras and what seems to be a more robust iso - time will tell.
Meanwhile, is very entertaining reading about all this in the main forums ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 31, 2015)

NWPhil said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > As for CPL's, here is my 145mm CPL on the 17TS-E, which I often shift stitch to an 11mm fov.
> ...



Not really, Fotodiox have done a good job with all the other ultrawides with built in lens hoods. They all use the same 145mm filters both round and rectangles for the grads.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 31, 2015)

Eldar said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > As for CPL's, here is my 145mm CPL on the 17TS-E, which I often shift stitch to an 11mm fov.
> ...



Hi there Eldar,

It is the Fotodiox Wonderpana 145, they do several versions, the 145 that just has a 145 filter thread, the 66 which has slots and the 145 thread but doesn't rotate, and the 66 FreeArc that has slots the 145 thread and does rotate, I have the basic 145 because I only use round filters, but they also do one called the FreeArc that has slots for grads etc. You need to work out what functionality you want/need first then narrow down the large range of kit options that include various filter packages.

For the 17TS-E it works with zero vignetting at all shift amounts, and even with full shift and 4º tilt, or full tilt and a touch of shift, far and away the best solution for the 17. 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=fotodiox+wonderpana+17+TS-E&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Afotodiox+wonderpana+17+TS-E


----------



## Eldar (Jan 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Thanks Private. This will be ordered!


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 2, 2015)

A rear gelatin filter holder is in the OP spec. How does that work? Can an ND or polarizer gelatin be mounted at the rear of the lens? Obviously a pain with polarizer, having to remove lens from the body to rotate to a new position?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 2, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> A rear gelatin filter holder is in the OP spec. How does that work? Can an ND or polarizer gelatin be mounted at the rear of the lens? Obviously a pain with polarizer, having to remove lens from the body to rotate to a new position?



ND yes, I have done it; polarizer, I wouldn't even bother trying.


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 2, 2015)

This looks like an amazing lens but I just can't justify dishing out 3k for it. So tempting, so tempting.


----------



## lholmes549 (Feb 2, 2015)

Haven't felt G.A.S. like this in a long time...

Anyone want to take a stab at pricing? 
I know it won't be cheap but if it is even as good as the 16-35 that would be good to me for the extra mm's on the wide end.


----------



## tron (Feb 2, 2015)

Spectrum said:


> This lens is giving me G.A.S. I will be selling my 14mm f/2.8L II very soon...


For astrophotography 2.8 cannot be beaten.... Other than that I agree...


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Feb 2, 2015)

]For astrophotography 2.8 cannot be beaten.... Other than that I agree...
[/quote]

And that's what I would need it for. why why why does it have to be f/4. I really hope the specs are wrong.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Feb 2, 2015)

tron said:


> Spectrum said:
> 
> 
> > This lens is giving me G.A.S. I will be selling my 14mm f/2.8L II very soon...
> ...



There, I fixed it for you. 
Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.


----------



## thelebaron (Feb 2, 2015)

StoneColdCoffee said:


> ]For astrophotography 2.8 cannot be beaten.... Other than that I agree...



And that's what I would need it for. why why why does it have to be f/4. I really hope the specs are wrong.
[/quote]

or you could just use it with an a7s


----------



## e_honda (Feb 3, 2015)

StoneColdCoffee said:


> And that's what I would need it for. why why why does it have to be f/4. I really hope the specs are wrong.



Making something of that focal range an f/2.8 would make the lens much, much bigger than in the pic being shown, much, much heavier and obscenely expensive.

I currently have the Sigma 12-24 II. It's currently the widest rectilinear lens you can get for full frame DSLRs. It's of a decent size but it's *f/4.5-5.6*. Something that is a constant f/4 that is even wider on the short end and is of better optical quality is already going to be bigger, heavier and more expensive. Just imagine it at a constant /2.8.


----------



## msm (Feb 3, 2015)

This thing is heavier than the 85mm Otus already at f4, how do you guys think a f2.8 version would look and what would it cost?


----------



## Rahul (Feb 3, 2015)

msm said:


> This thing is heavier than the 85mm Otus already at f4, how do you guys think a f2.8 version would look and what would it cost?



Weight - Probably add another kilo
Price - Same as the Otus


----------



## romanr74 (Feb 3, 2015)

I'd be intersted in seeing a wider-than-16mm CPL example (for my personal education) if someone has one to share...


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 3, 2015)

bereninga said:


> Can't wait to see the price and the photos from this beast! I won't be getting one myself since it'll be over my budget, but I'll just appreciate the images it produces.


I will also appreciate images produced by this beast because I will super expensive, beside very heavy for a UWA lens


----------



## LDS (Feb 3, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> There, I fixed it for you.
> Even a well made cheapo barn door tracker is vastly better than f2.8 static. Printing is abysmal even with a FF sensor and f2.8 or faster lens set at 30 seconds or slower.


+1

Moreoever, I do not believe that's the target market Canon had in mind while designing this lens.


----------



## LDS (Feb 3, 2015)

romanr74 said:


> I'd be intersted in seeing a wider-than-16mm CPL example (for my personal education) if someone has one to share...


I've not an image at hand here because my shortest focal is 16mm (but the 11-24 could change it..), but look at images containing foliage or water. Both are two common "subjects" that can highly polarize light. Most images where you see highly "transparent" water, are probably made using a PL, as well landscapes with lot of foliage in it.
When you also control the light source i.e. some interior shooting - you may use a PL filter put in front of the light source. That's because only direct reflection will preserve polarization, while diffusion will not, converting into unpolarized light.


----------



## tron (Feb 3, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Spectrum said:
> ...



I do have astro tracker. Rumor has it that the landscape (forground) part of the photo gets blurred when using it though : : :


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Feb 3, 2015)

tron said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



You can move the camera position from one shot to the next. Don't be stuck with thinking your tripod needs to be in the same place for foreground and background. If you worry about parallax error with objects light years away, then I don't know if there is any helping you get better shots.  

That's just the reality of astro landscapes and being able to print well. Static single exposures just don't cut it with current technology.


----------



## tron (Feb 3, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...


I have thought too of blending 2 photos into one. Forground shot at lower ISO with many minutes exposure and background (stars) with astrotrac also at rather low ISO and many minutes exposure (I have already done that for a pure galaxy shot). But I feel this as being a little cheating. I generaly use my 5D3 at ISO 10000, shoot at 25 sec (14mm) at 2.8 and get decent results. The most difficult problem is to avoid car headlights from aside. The bulb element of 14mm does not help a lot so I dream of a new coma free 16-35 2.8 lens with a flat element that will take hood just fine.

But yes I will try blending this summer.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Feb 3, 2015)

The updated specs say there is a rear drop in filter, but I don't see anything in the image. Does that make sense to anyone?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 3, 2015)

It's probably a rear gelatin filter slot, which is already present on several of Canon's lenses.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Feb 3, 2015)

tron said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I use this method for doing daytime focus stacking, when bokeh fringing becomes a problem. It works really well! Just use the foreground shot to align the BG where it needs to be to be realistic. I don't see that as cheating, as much as being clever and one-upping the competition. I've been told by countless people that it's impossible to aoid bokeh fringing, when they have the mindset that the camera must never move. For my focus stacking, I will crank the tripod column up to get it over flower and stuff that are causing the fringing in the focus stack.


----------



## LDS (Feb 3, 2015)

KitsVancouver said:


> The updated specs say there is a rear drop in filter, but I don't see anything in the image. Does that make sense to anyone?


If it's like the 14mm it's just behind the rear lens, a metal frame accepting gelatin filters. When mounted, it's inside the camera - and you need to remove the lens to remove/change the filter. Not the most practical solution. It's not like some drop-in filter holders on tele lenses.

IIRC some old FD UWA or fish-eye lenses had embedded filters which could be selected via a lens ring - IIRC Sky, some classic B/W filters, and maybe an ND (but not PL). I didn't see it used anymore - too expensive, not really useful, or it didn't work properly? Never had then any of those lenses...


----------



## tron (Feb 3, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...


A trick that I think is halfway between the two (and does not require tracking) is to take a shot of the whole scene just with tripod and another one of the foreground using lower ISO (and longer exposure of course). Then I guess the cleaner foreground can be superimposed in a front layer.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Feb 4, 2015)

Thanks. I only have a super-tele with a drop-in filter and have never seen a lens with the filter mechanism that you described. 



LDS said:


> KitsVancouver said:
> 
> 
> > The updated specs say there is a rear drop in filter, but I don't see anything in the image. Does that make sense to anyone?
> ...


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 4, 2015)

tron said:


> Spectrum said:
> 
> 
> > This lens is giving me G.A.S. I will be selling my 14mm f/2.8L II very soon...
> ...



no, that's nightscapes. Astrophotography is an exacting photographic discipline all in itself that most would laugh at the thought of doing unguided photographs.


----------



## tron (Feb 4, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Spectrum said:
> ...


If you read the previous posts you will see that I have explained later that I meant landscape astrophotography... so yes nightscapes basically...


----------



## Zv (Feb 5, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Spectrum said:
> ...



It's pretty clear what tron meant. We are on a photography forum talking about Canon gear. When someone says "astro" or "astrophotograhy" we tend to assume that which is done with a DSLR. 

Please don't point out every little detail and flaw in what people write. I noted you also did this with one of my posts.


----------

