# "11-24mm f/4" vs The Holy Grail



## DesignJinni (Oct 16, 2014)

Okay some people are complaining about 11-24mm being f/4 and not being at f/2.8 while others are complaining its price anticipated to be at 3,000$. 

I really do wonder what you all think it would be like to compare it with the Nikon 13mm f/5.6 also called "The Holy Grail"

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/13mm.htm

Quote:
- Nikon's suggested retail (rip-off) price was $8,229 in 1979, or over $24,000 in today's dollars. 
- B&H advertised it at $5,569 in January 1987, or over $10,000 in today's money. 

- The 13mm cost more than the no-longer-made 300mm f/2, which now sells for five-figures used. 
- The 13mm was double the cost of the 300mm f/2.8 or twelve times the cost of the 16mm fisheye. 

Recently sold for 24,500 US$ on ebay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/141433630285)

Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-_KTLF_D4

What do you all think, can we compare these both or are both of them at a different league of their own?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 16, 2014)

Might be a bit dicey putting the Nikon 13mm f/5.6 on a Canon camera.

So I would say comparing them probably won't work.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 16, 2014)

The 13mm f/5.6 was made one by one on order, which raises it's price significantly. I doubt the EF 11-24mm f/4, if made, would be manufactured the same way.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

DesignJinni said:


> Okay some people are complaining about 11-24mm being f/4 and not being at f/2.8 while others are complaining its price anticipated to be at 3,000$.
> 
> I really do wonder what you all think it would be like to compare it with the Nikon 13mm f/5.6 also called "The Holy Grail"
> 
> ...



OR, people might be thinking the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 is a closer comparative lens, at $874.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755357-REG/Sigma_204101_12_24mm_F4_5_5_6_EX_DG.html


----------



## meywd (Oct 16, 2014)

I am sorry, i know this is not related, but linking that review...well i didn't expect this one although i know i should i have..



> Every camera maker: Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Zeiss, Leica, the Russians and more, all make big telephotos. So what? Photography is about getting close. Long lenses are for photographers who lack the skills to get close.



i stopped reading at that but there is more...



> Great animal photographers know how to get right up to wild animals; they don't need 400mm lenses. Great sports photographers get themselves invited to the athlete's home or out onto the field; they don't get stuck in a press box a mile away.


----------



## Khalai (Oct 16, 2014)

meywd said:


> I am sorry, i know this is not related, but linking that review...well i didn't expect this one although i know i should i have..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, to that, I'd say good luck taking pictures of angry alligators with 24mm lens, nicely upclose and personal. Don't forget to sign your life insurance papers beforehand


----------



## ecka (Oct 16, 2014)

"11-24mm f/4" vs The Holy Grail

... and the winner is ... Samyang 14/2.8 
while Zeiss 15/2.8 takes 2nd place.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 16, 2014)

Khalai said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry, i know this is not related, but linking that review...well i didn't expect this one although i know i should i have..
> ...



Or a full framed moon shot with the 24mm.


----------



## TeT (Oct 16, 2014)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > meywd said:
> ...



apparently as a "good photographer" you have the appropriate skills to get close to the moon... 24 should be just fine!


----------



## monkey44 (Oct 16, 2014)

As a wildlife behavior researcher, I'd say stay away from the animals. If you get close enough to use a short lens, then you will disturb the behavior patterns you want to photograph. You will upset the natural sequence, and endanger the young or the adults, and under some conditions, endanger yourself and your team as well ...

So, I'll take the opposite side, and say the best wildlife photographers KNOW when to stay away, and let the lens do the work, and keep those animals safe.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 16, 2014)

.
So far you seem to be getting away with it, but you don't seem to have a grasp of the CR culture. A couple of friendly suggestions....

You bring up a NIKON product from 35 years ago you want to compare with a possible new Canon lens. That's really not done.

Then you bring up the Rockwell as a source? That's lighter fluid on the flames around here!!

Best of luck to you on that!


----------



## zlatko (Oct 16, 2014)

DesignJinni said:


> What do you all think, can we compare these both or are both of them at a different league of their own?



How does one compare an extremely rare lens against a rumored possible lens?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 19, 2014)

The WORST mistake you can ever make is to read or listen to anything Ken Rockwell says or does. In fact, if you do listen to what he says, do the opposite. Every single camera he reviews is the "best camera ever" and every single lens he reviews is the "best lens ever." Then you get the long lens comment above. The guy's nuts.


----------

