# Is This a Canon EF 11-24 f/4L?



## TokyoDekopon (Sep 16, 2014)

Kakaku.com listed EF 11-24mm F4L for a short period of time. 
It should be announced very soon!


----------



## Khalai (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

Holy cow, that's a lightbulb alright  If not fake and decently sharp and corrected, this lens would be pure UWA madness!


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?


----------



## moreorless (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

The front element is large but the rest of the lens is surprisingly small although I spose it is an F/4 lens, Sigma's 12-24mm isn't that large either but I'd image such a Canon lens would be aiming to beat it optically.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



Mitch.Conner said:


> Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?



I'm guessing IS may become difficult to add with very wide lenses were aliment becomes very exact, plus I'd argue that with no filter thread it naturally becomes a bit more of a "tripod" lens as landscape users will probably either be merging exposers or using very large filters for more dynamic range.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



moreorless said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?
> ...



Admittedly, I'm a little dissapointed about it being only f/4. DOF isn't an issue at this focal length, but for astrophotography and low-light photos, if it had been the rumored f/2.8, the extra light would have been quite welcome.

Of course, I'm assuming this is real and not a prank.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



Mitch.Conner said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



There have been rumours about such a zoom for awhile but looking at it the front element does look quite close to the Canon 14mm 2.8 so it could be a photoshop merger of that and say the 16-35mm IS.

I wouldn't be supprized if we saw such a lens as an F/4 though and instead an update of the 16-35mm F/2.8, the latter just seems like a more natural range from an F/2.8 lens as well as likely being easier to create.


----------



## Woody (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

If this lens is real and gets released, I will agree with Canon Rumors that this year is indeed the Year of the Lens for Canon. ;D


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



Woody said:


> If this lens is real and gets released, I will agree with Canon Rumors that this year is indeed the Year of the Lens for Canon. ;D



Seriously? This would make me a sad panda.


----------



## dryanparker (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

Very interesting. Any chance of it being rectilinear?


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

Fake. F/4 makes no sense.

The image is good PS, but still looks like PS.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



TokyoDekopon said:


> Kakaku.com listed EF 11-24mm F4L for a short period of time.
> It should be announced very soon!



Interesting


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

i call it a fake...


----------



## TokyoDekopon (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

Seems like I'm not the only one. Quite a few people saw it listed too according to Japanese forums. 
Kakaku.com is a very legitimate company listed in TYO (Tokyo Stock Exchange), equivalent to NYSE in US. It's highly unlikely that they list a fake product. 
I believe this patent became real. The announcement date should be very close. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/


----------



## tayassu (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



YuengLinger said:


> Fake. F/4 makes no sense.



Makes perfectly sense... People photogs (the only ones that need 2.8) would never use 11mm, because it distorts the image too much. For them, a new 16-35/2.8 is much better, which this lens would leave space for. Then Canon would have three wide angles to choose from, but to have all FL's and apertures covered, you gotta at least buy two of them...  
Besides, I don't think you could do 11mm/2.8 that easy. But looks like a nice supplement for the already great lens lineup!


----------



## slclick (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

So Canon's answer is to a question no one asked?

There, this will cement the fact that Canon does not read the CRF.


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

Feels fake to me but crossing my fingers. Yes f/2.8 would've been nice and yes IS would've been nice, but if they're able to pull off an 11-24mm _at all_ I'll be quite impressed.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



tayassu said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Fake. F/4 makes no sense.
> ...



Hmm...Reasonable. I was thinking too little differentiation after release of newest 16-35 f4, and Nikon has done so well with its 14-24mm...And you know Canon wants another $2500 L in the lineup.

I still say the image is a fake. Too ugly.

Plus the website OP says this is "listed" on looks like a shady electronics dumping ground.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



YuengLinger said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



How large do you think a 11-24 f/2.8 would be? The Nikon 13mm f/5.6 weighs 2.5 lb. The Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 weighs close to 1.5 lb and is soft in the corners/edges. A high IQ f/2.8 version that goes 1 mm wider would be a beast!


----------



## TLN (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40. 
Canon will never put a red ring on a hood, it will be on a body, even with integrated hood.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



TLN said:


> Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40.
> Canon will never put a red ring on a hood, it will be on a body, even with integrated hood.



Great catch!


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



TLN said:


> Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40.
> Canon will never put a red ring on a hood, it will be on a body, even with integrated hood.



Definitely not a 17-40L body, closer in style to the 8-15L but not the same. As for Canon never putting a red ring on the hood.


----------



## NWPhil (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



YuengLinger said:


> TLN said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40.
> ...



Indeed, a very good point
F4 is ...very pausible, but that front element looks like the one from the Ts-e 17mm
Yeah, the body shell looks sort of outdated, if one compares it with recent WA zoom releases


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



TLN said:


> Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40.
> Canon will never put a red ring on a hood, it will be on a body, even with integrated hood.



Why not? The hood is integrated and where else would they put the ring?

Plus the inside of the hood and the front element look totally different than the 14-24 2.8 Nikkor.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

The hood is so big, a red ring at the end of the lens wouldn't be very visible.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

That's not the hood! That's the body of lens. Yes with some parts stick out and make a hood. That would not be removable. And my 300mm f4 has the ring on the sliding but non-removable hood.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



YuengLinger said:


> Fake. F/4 makes no sense.
> 
> The image is good PS, but still looks like PS.


+1, something about the lighting on the hood doesn't match the body of the lens & front element.

Also, um, well, I'm pretty sure Photokina is going on and it would make no sense for them to announce it later this year unless they do a development announcement this week.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

It could be exceptionally good photoshop, but it could also be real.
1. Canon does put L rings on hoods, and in this case the hood is integrated.
2. The spacing between the FL markers is very realistic for a UWA.
3. The ridges on the hood are Canon-style, not like the 14-24.
4. The bulge of the front element and the rings around it look neither like the 14-24, nor the TSE 17mm or the 14/2.8L II. It is very distinctive.
5. The body is also unlike any existing Canon lens. Especially the infra red markers are the first for a Canon UWA I think, and the focusing window is very typical for an UWA (so it is not all copied from a standard zoom).

So yeah, it could be a very elaborate hoax, and if so, kudos to the artist. Or real


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

The 17 TS-E when shifted makes an 11mm rectilinear panorama. So the front elements should be similar.


----------



## steliosk (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

I just wish its real

Canon lacks that mm range
11mm 12mm 13mm nope

Just EF 14mm, 15mm fisheye and 16-35mm


----------



## Khalai (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



steliosk said:


> I just wish its real
> 
> Canon lacks that mm range
> 11mm 12mm 13mm nope
> ...



Just Canon? AFAIK, only Sigma has 12-24mm (not stellar performer, but decent), all other manufacturers have only 14mm and above.

I don't know, personally, 11mm seems over the top. Everything will be distorted like black hole event horizon...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



privatebydesign said:


> The 17 TS-E when shifted makes an 11mm rectilinear panorama. So the front elements should be similar.



Ok, I oversimplified. The bulge is similar, but the look is different due to the elements inside the front element. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## cid (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

if it's true then I'm eagerly waiting for announcement and reviews while keeping money for it aside


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



Khalai said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > I just wish its real
> ...


I have the Sigma 12-24 II for a while and with practice, you can get some pretty awesome results. 11mm would blow my mind and I'd be first in line for the pre-order if this thing is actually real.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

It's been said to work well on the upcoming 42MP 1DsX.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

pic looks fake to me, there is all sorts of suspicious mosquito noise on the text around the hood.


----------



## TokyoDekopon (Sep 17, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*

FYI, it was posted in the following page as the image of EF24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM. They changed it to the correct image after a short while. Not just me but a lot of people saw it. Looking forward to the official announcement!
http://kakaku.com/item/K0000693675/#tab


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 17, 2014)

*Is This the Canon EF 11-24 f/4L?*


```
<p>The <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-ef-11-24-f2-8l-coming-cr1/" target="_blank">previously rumored EF 11-24 f/4L</a> (which we had as an f/2.8) may have shown up on kakaku.com for a short period of time.</p>
<div id="attachment_17380" style="width: 510px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/canon1124.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-17380" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/canon1124.jpg" alt="EF 11-24 f/4L - Real or Fake?" width="500" height="440" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">EF 11-24 f/4L – Real or Fake?</p></div>
<p>What do you think, real or fake?</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://digicame-info.com/2014/09/ef11-24mm-f4l.html" target="_blank">DCI</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## candyman (Sep 17, 2014)

Could be real.
It makes sense to give the 16-35 f/4 *IS* next to a 11-24 f/4 (non-IS and extra 5mm at the wide-end) so there is for both space in the line-up
Maybe photoshop experts can do an analysis?...


----------



## Hannes (Sep 17, 2014)

I love the focus scale that goes 0.5, 1, infinity. The body looks a bit like the 8-15mm but who knows. Maybe it is real, let's hope so.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 17, 2014)

EDIT: Looks like the Admin merged the two threads making my comment irrelevant.


----------



## Hannes (Sep 17, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



steliosk said:


> I just wish its real
> 
> Canon lacks that mm range
> 11mm 12mm 13mm nope
> ...



Canon have lenses that cover those focal lengths, mind you in vignetted fisheye but still


----------



## infared (Sep 17, 2014)

Just sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II to purchase the new 16-35mm f/4L IS. Really happy with the new lens!...less mush.
I also have a 17mm TSE and the original Canon Fisheye...15mm.
I love my wide angle perspective...but I just don't get 11-24mm. Way to extreme and mostly distortion. Perhaps I am missing something ....a lens like that makes no sense to me unless it is an S lens. Everyone has a different take tho.
14-24mm f/2.8L makes sense....especially to complement the new 16-35mm f/4.0L IS. ....
This seems off somehow. Visually the lens looks faked to me, as if someone combined a non-L product (like the 24mm or 28mm IS lens, altered it in PS adding a zoom ring), and combined it with an L lens hood in PS.
That is the visual I get here...not a new, complete "L" product. It's definitely FAKE.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 17, 2014)

It looks roughly like something I had imagined. Although I expected the front element to be slightly larger and the overall length to be little bit longer.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 17, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



TLN said:


> Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40.
> Canon will never put a red ring on a hood, it will be on a body, even with integrated hood.



Look closely. The 17-40 is different.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 17, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



jrista said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?
> ...



What I really meant was just why f/4. If this lens really is $2800 as a rumor months ago suggested, I'd have expected it to be faster to make it more capable for low light.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 17, 2014)

I would prefer a 14-24mm f2.8 every day.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 17, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> I would prefer a 14-24mm f2.8 every day.



+1


----------



## steliosk (Sep 17, 2014)

if its true, why it ain't in photokina?

Wish it is though, and if it is, it ain't gonna be cheap


----------



## keriboi (Sep 17, 2014)

Will be released with the 3D next month


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 18, 2014)

keriboi said:


> Will be released with the 3D next month



And the 24-70 f/2.8 IS, which I really really really want but worry will never ever exist.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 18, 2014)

11-24/4 vs 14-24/2.8?
Interesting dilemma. A good one to have to ponder over


----------



## brad-man (Sep 18, 2014)

I don't believe the lens exists. But if it does, it has to live up to the recently raised standard for Canon UWAs set by the 16-35IS. No easy task.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 18, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



jrista said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?
> ...



I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 18, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



+1. RLPhoto has a video on Youtube where he handheld the 16-35/4 IS for a second with perfectly acceptable image (@16mm)! Imagine the possibilities if you are shooting in a church and don't have a tripod. I can relate an example from life- I was at the top of the tower in Hotel Paris, Las Vegas where they don't allow tripods, and taking long-ish exposures to shoot the Belaggio fountains. It was very useful to have IS (it wasn't this lens, FYI). Plus 16-35 is very versatile, not just landscape and not to forget, video.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 18, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



+1, I support that people who says that IS isn't necessary is because they haven't experienced the benefit of an UWA lens with IS. I have shot sharp images with my 16-35 f4L IS @ 16mm, 1/4 second.
However, I have to admit that 11-24mm range is sooooo wide that small movement/shakes will not affect images IQ so, as with my Canon 15mm fisheye lens
I'd rather take a smaller and lighter lens without IS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 18, 2014)

*Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site*



jrista said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I wasn't misreading your post, I was taking issue with your presumption of level of necessity. I would find IS far more useful in a 16-35 f2.8 than in a 600 f4 that lives on a tripod in a blind shooting birds. For me IS in ultrawides for handheld environmental work is now, basically, a necessity, if the 11/14-24/30 f2.8 doesn't have IS, and I know it won't, then the 16-35 f4 IS is where my money will go.

No misinterpretation, no twisting of words, just a fundamental disagreement on your use of "as necessary". For me, personally, IS is as necessary on ultrawides as it is on a 70-200 f2.8, it will help us push more boundaries and capture more images with higher quality than ever before, to me that is worth far more than another stop or so of DR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 18, 2014)

_"IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths."_

That is a self contained sentence that makes a fairly blatant claim which for you it might be true, for others, not so much; it is also a massive generalisation and I took exception to it because in at least one case, mine, it is not true (and I don't believe I am alone). Now you can get upset that everybody doesn't agree with you, that is your right, but I didn't crucify you, or twist or misrepresent your words, I just disagreed with them, and that is what a forum is about. Stop the persecution complex and do me the favour of "Please READ what I write, people."


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



That would be "you're"


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 18, 2014)

Maybe this lens is at the limit of what is possible with reasonable IQ and for acceptable price. 

Maybe the question is, "have this lens without IS" or "not have it at all", just because there is no room for the IS unit or because of other restrictions. 

The same may be true about 2.8 opening, it may be impossible, or unconvienient in weight, size or price...

So lets hope it is real, and has good optical performance


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 18, 2014)

I call fake... the focus and zoom rings look like the older style (24-105, 17-40) as opposed to the newer (24-70 II, 16-35).

Saying that, i'm happy if it is not!


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 9, 2014)

So.... now that some time has passed what do you all think?

I'm thinking we got duped.

What I can't figure out is why. What motivation could that site have had? It's a store right? Why tarnish your perceived integrity?

So that brings me back to thinking maybe it's real, but that's quite some advance notice they got. It's been 3 weeks and there's no possible opportunity for an announcement for weeks.

It's a puzzle, or maybe the site got duped themselves.


----------

