# Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 11, 2014)

```
<p>Over at the German site for the Canon CPN network, we can see the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L listed. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/is-this-a-canon-ef-11-24-f4l/" target="_blank">This lens has been previously rumoured</a>, but no announcement date has been set. We’ve heard the price for this lens will be around $2899 USD and it will be a stellar performer.</p>
<div id="attachment_17881" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1124leak1.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17881" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1124leak1-575x512.jpg" alt="Click for Larger" width="575" height="512" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<p><strong>The Google Translated text reads</strong>

<em>“The EF11-24mm 1 : 4L USM is the longest ultra wide -angle zoom lens for Volformat cameras by Canon . It is characterized by the completely new design , new lens coating and its unrivaled performance .”</em></p>
<p><em>thanks Thomas</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## lintoni (Nov 11, 2014)

Interesting... the original leaked image of the 11-24 was published quite a while ago now, certainly long before any images of the 100-400 appeared - look how quickly that lens has gone from first images appearing to being officially announced.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2014)

YES ... come on Canon ... announce it! ;D


----------



## zim (Nov 11, 2014)

IF true and IF released before the end of the year it will indeed have been the 'Year of the Lens(es)'

Two big ifs but exciting none the less


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 11, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The Google Translated text reads:
> “The EF11-24mm 1 : 4L USM is the longest ultra wide -angle zoom lens for Volformat cameras by Canon . It is characterized by the completely new design , new lens coating and its unrivaled performance .”


"Volformat cameras" is a typo and should read "Vo*ll*format" meaning full frame.


----------



## dolina (Nov 11, 2014)

Rumor is it'll cost $3,000 wide rectilinear zoom.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 11, 2014)

They intend to make a splash when they announce it with a new body.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Right.
> 
> I don't care about this particular lens, as I'm pretty happy with my Sigma 15mm fisheye for an ultrawide. However, I am interested in the 6D and 5D successors. I don't care about the 1D successors.
> 
> ...


Hmm... with this lens, and the excellent 16-35 f/4, would the next body be a low iso/high MP/multilayer (delete as applicable) 'landscape‘ camera to make the most of the new, wide glass?

I know of some people on Canon Rumors who'd be ecstatic if it was...


----------



## Etienne (Nov 11, 2014)

Looks like a bonafide accidental leak to me


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2014)

I'm torn on this one, if it is indeed real. My head is swirling these sort of thoughts right now:


If it's for event photogs, one would think it's a stop too slow, right?
If it's for video, where's the IS?
If it's for landscapers, how do you filter it? We'd be stuck in Wonderpana world, wouldn't we?
If Canon insists on going pound for pound with Nikon's 14-24 ultrawide, they will be a stop slower. Isn't the Nikon an f/2.8 design?

So I am clearly missing something here. So I am left to assume one of the two statements is the big draw of this lens:


Photographers really want one zoom to cover all of their ultrawide needs. A 16-35 is not wide enough for these folks.
Sharpness sharpness sharpness. The 16-35 F/4L IS is a very nice improvement over prior Canon ultrawides, but the Nikon 14-24 (a 7 year old lens!) is _still_ sharper. This lens represents another chance for Canon give us the sharpest FF ultrawide on the planet. 

Please help me get why this lens might be popular for Canon shooters. I really do want to understand this.

- A


----------



## crazyklaus (Nov 11, 2014)

here's a proper translation for you guys:

The EF 11-24mm 1:4L USM is the widest ultra wide angle zoom lens for Canon full-frame cameras.
It is characterized by the completely new design, new lens coating and its unrivaled performance.


funny how the first sentence of the google translation is horrible however the second is perfect.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 11, 2014)

Dang it. I just bought the 16-35 f4 L. But it serves me very very very well. I'm thrilled with it's performace. I also don't understand the "Nikon is better" remark. The Nikon gets strapped to a 36 MP sensor ... of course it will out resolve a 22MP sensor. I'd guess the two lenses are pretty even themselves, and I'd be willing to wager that given the same sensor (strap each lens via metabones to a Sony A7R for example) the Canon would out perform the nikon if history is any guide. Kinda like the 70-200 battle. Nikon out resolves the Canon at the short end, but go to the telephoto end and it softens up significantly after 135 even with the 36MP sensor vs 22MP according to data I've seen (I believe it was from DXO, in fact).

As for this 11-24mm ... I'll stick by my 2 for 2 track record on educated price guessing and say $2899 is way over the mark. The 16-35 F4 is $1199, which came in under most rumors. As did the 7D2. As did the 100-400 Mk2. If this lens is not a unicorn then we will see another $2200 price point +/- 10%

Everyone seems to keep thinking Canon will shoot for the moon with price tags and they keep making things competitive. Part of me wonders if all these wild price rumors are part of a leak strategy on Canon's part to set a false expectation and then exceed wildly upon delivery making a bigger impact on the release. "Oh man this thing is a steal!"


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Please help me get why this lens might be popular for Canon shooters. I really do want to understand this.



Well I would greatly prefer the 11-24/4 over the 16-35/ IS and will not buy the latter now. 
I'd use it - but not very often - as a "specialty landscape and UrbEX lens" and want it as wide as possible ... for UWA effect. If light is low/nighttime and/or with ND filters I use it on a tripod, so I really do not need an UWA with f/2.8 - provided it is sharp from f/4. I still hope the 11-24/4 comes around 2000 rather than 3000, since it is not f/2.8 and has no IS. 

For events and general walkaround I'll use the 24-70/2.8 II. Normally I try to not wider than 24mm when people are in the frame. I would love a 24-70/2.8 with IS however.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 11, 2014)

For me this really unique lens seems to be quite real now. If somebody would have faked the cpn page, he would have inserted the pic as well.

I am just curious on when and maybe together with which body it will be released?

Of course this is a specialist lens, with unique range and still quite fast. It should not be expected that it would be the fastest, smallest and cheapest lens, with IS and 58mm filter thread at the same time.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 11, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I'd use it - but not very often - as a "specialty landscape and UrbEX lens" and want it as wide as possible ... for UWA effect.



A 15mm fisheye defished is the equivalent of a 5.25mm rectilinear.



> I would love a 24-70/2.8 with IS however.



Me too. In my view, Canon really messed up on that one.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> A 15mm fisheye defished is the equivalent of a 5.25mm rectilinear.



yes. But I am not interested at all in fisheyes nor in having to de-fish images ... at least as long as I can have nicely de-fished, rectilinear, regular UWA lenses. ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 11, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > A 15mm fisheye defished is the equivalent of a 5.25mm rectilinear.
> ...



Why not?

It's easy, and it works. And my Sigma is f/2.8 and as sharp as an L-prime!


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I'm just starting a conversation here. _Why is Canon making a 11-24 f/4 lens?_ What segment, issue, reason, gap would make this light up to Canon's marketers as an opportunity to them?



Isn't that obvious? Because 11-24 is a lot wider than a 16-35? Because many folks don't need the 24-35mm portion or have it extremely well covered with a 24-70 already? For landscape I prefer the 11-24. 

For indoor/events, the 16-35 is one stop too slow. 

If I would be calling the shots at Canon, I would have just made 3 lenses:
1. EF 24-70/2.8 L with IS ... same IQ as the one we have
2. EF 16-35/2.8 L IS ... with improved corners and all-around kick-ass IQ
3. EF 11-24/4 L ... with kick-ass IQ ... for landscape and UWA effects


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 11, 2014)

zim said:


> IF true and IF released before the end of the year it will indeed have been the 'Year of the Lens(es)'
> 
> Two big ifs but exciting none the less



you'd have to think even a development or release announcement would be a wow thing. there was a CR rumor that canon had production issues and year of the lens got pushed back a bit - You'd have to think that the 100-400 would have made more sense to come out at photokina versus now, this may show up in jan / feb. but you have to think it's pretty close.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Why is Canon making a 11-24 f/4 lens? What segment, issue, reason, gap would make this light up to Canon's marketers as an opportunity to them?



Landscape photographers like Marc Adamus love ultrawide lenses.

They don't necessarily care about the use of filters.

Canon is currently marketing their telephoto lenses and 7D2 to wildlife and sports photographers.

Next up should be the landscape folks. I expect 11-24 lens to be released together with a high pixel count monster to appeal to folks like Marc Adamus.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> ... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides. This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens. Hmmm.



That`s exactly the way I see it, yes.
"Zoom Holy Trinity" ... 11-24/4; 24-70/2.8 IS; 70-200 II or "gang of 4" with 100-400 II 8) ;D 
[Plus 100/2.8 L IS Macro ... if one really needs it. ]

All of these zooms very sharp from fully open. basically replacing primes for everything except speed. 
Only one missing will be 24-70/2.8 IS.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I'm just starting a conversation here. _Why is Canon making a 11-24 f/4 lens?_ What segment, issue, reason, gap would make this light up to Canon's marketers as an opportunity to them?
> 
> - A



Maybe because Canon can't get around Nikon's patent to produce a competitive 14-24. Nikon's 14-24 decreased the demand for its own 14 f/2.8. I like that Canon is not matching the competition step for step. Perhaps its market research found that 11-24 f/4 would do better than 14-24 f/2.8 . Want the widest fast ultrawide? 14 f/2.8 . Want a UWA zoom? 16-35 f/4 IS or 16-35 f/2.8 II. Want something even wider? 11-24. The asymmetry would also give Canon claim to the widest rectilinear lens on FF, and I'm sure photographers will use that newly-available focal length for some unique/compelling images.


----------



## dolina (Nov 11, 2014)

Sigma sells a 12-24mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-12-24mm-f-4.5-5.6-DG-II-HSM-Lens.aspx


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> ...
> 
> So I don't think it's as cut and dry as people are making this out to be. But everyone on this thread -- _today_ -- seems to be on the same page that this is a focal length driven need. Perhaps the release of the 16-35 F/4L IS put the sharpness 'want' to bed (for now), and now the reeeeeally ultrawide folks want their need addressed, i.e. perhaps all the 75% from my poll aren't reading this thread because they are out happily shooting with their new 16-35 f/4 IS lenses.
> 
> - A



Agree that the 16-35 f/4 IS solved a lot of UWA issues in the Canon camp.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 11, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



It's true the 16-35 2.8L II can be a little soft wide open, but I am still keeping it because of the f/2.8. One stop is a lot of light. At equivalent apertures, the f/2.8 II and f/4 IS are pretty much identical, so it's a question of more light or IS.

Here's what I'd like to see, although it will never be made: 16- 24 f/2.0 (smaller range to keep the size and weight down in the 600g range. Or a 24-50 f/2.0


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I'd use it - but not very often - as a "specialty landscape and UrbEX lens" and want it as wide as possible ... for UWA effect.
> ...




No it isn't. 

Real examples show it isn't even close to that, I'd put it closer to 11mm judging from the defished images I have when compared to my 17mm TS-E shift stitched images that do equate to 11mm.

It does become subjective when you look in the corners as to what is acceptable IQ, but I have always been surprised at how good the old Canon 15 fisheye is when defished, indeed it beat the pants off the two Canon 14mm MkII primes I have used.


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 11, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides. This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens. Hmmm.
> ...



Actually it is the Four Horsemen of the Zoom Apocalypse

11-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
200-400/4


----------



## dstppy (Nov 11, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Wouldn't that be the Zoombie Apocalypse?


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 11, 2014)

dstppy said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



That would be the "my-kids-aren't-going-to-college-and-my-wife-is-divorcing me" Apocalypse.


----------



## willhuff.net (Nov 11, 2014)

Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters? I would love to have the 11-70mm range covered with 2 lenses and 1 set of filters.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 11, 2014)

dstppy said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 11, 2014)

willhuff.net said:


> Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters?



Probably.

The front element is going to be very similar to that of the 17-TSE.







And here's the maybe-real maybe-not image posted earlier.


----------



## andrewflo (Nov 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Maui5150 said:
> ...



LOL!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> willhuff.net said:
> 
> 
> > Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters?
> ...



That's why I'd have a hard time at 11mm -- even with a flat front element, virtually anything threaded into the filter ring would vignette, and something stout like my Lee 100mm system would be a no go. It's wonderpana or bust at that FL, isn't it? (Unless Lee would start making outriggers and filters the size of dinner plates. )

So I agree with Lee Jay -- the 11-24mm picture we've seen (real or fake) is probably in the right flavor of what we'd be getting. The 11-24 would be bulbous/non-filterable and the front filtering crowd would stick with the various 16-, 17- zooms, the 20mm non-L no one ever talks about, the 24L, the 24 T/S, etc. I think Zeiss also has an 18mm MF prime that is front filterable.

- A


----------



## meywd (Nov 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > willhuff.net said:
> ...



maybe the Lee SW150 system


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 11, 2014)

willhuff.net said:


> Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters? I would love to have the 11-70mm range covered with 2 lenses and 1 set of filters.



No, not for the 135/FF format.

As Lee Jay points out the front element would need to be very similar to the 17TS-E which, coincidentally, actually has an effective 11mm fov when you do a longitudinal shift stitch. And unless they dramatically up the corner IQ of that then I would far rather have the 16-35 f4 IS. The projection distortion inherent in a lens as wide at an 11mm is probably going to be an IQ killer.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2014)

meywd said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I'd have a hard time at 11mm -- even with a flat front element, virtually anything threaded into the filter ring would vignette, and something stout like my Lee 100mm system would be a no go. It's wonderpana or bust at that FL, isn't it? (Unless Lee would start making outriggers and filters the size of dinner plates. )
> ...



I see that product as proof positive of the stranglehold the 14-24 has on landscapers at least in England (where Lee is located). The people who came up with a terrific system to work with any front filterable lens devoted _an entire product line to one lens_. Other lenses work with it, but they designed it because of that one lens.

But even if this worked for the 11-24, I wouldn't migrate away from my Lee 100 system for 5 more mm wider focal length. Those filters (esp. my 105 front CPL) are not cheap!

- A


----------



## dstppy (Nov 11, 2014)

lintoni said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Maui5150 said:
> ...



I am just a bad, bad man. I should be ashamed, but I'm not. :


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2014)

Hehehe ... Love it! ;D


----------



## preppyak (Nov 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I'm torn on this one, if it is indeed real. My head is swirling these sort of thoughts right now:
> 
> 
> If it's for event photogs, one would think it's a stop too slow, right?
> ...


Well, lets go through them. First, 11-24 is not for event photogs, thats that the 16-35 is for. Thus why the new one has IS.

It's also not for video, as its impractically wide and would only be used for very specific shots. Far more likely that someone would want the 16-35 range for that (and again, that has IS).

Landscapers have been filtering lenses without threaded filters for many years, and many that would buy this $2k+ lens either already own filter systems, or dont mind spending a little more on some new filters. Nikons 14-24 doesnt have threaded filters either, nor does Canons 17mm TS. Even if this did have a threaded filter, it'd be wider than the 77mm or 82mm filters people already own...so, new filters would be needed anyway

If Canon is going pound for pound with the 14-24 from Nikon, then Canon is 3mm wider, which some might trade the f/2.8 for. Especially if its as sharp at f/4 as the Nikon is. Likewise, it'd make Canon's the widest rectilinear lens out there I believe. The few people that NEED 14mm f/2.8 could either get Canon's, or do what most of them are already doing, save $1000+, and buy the Rokinon. Most astro guys [main user I can think of that would want/need f/2.8] already own the Rokinon because it's 1/5th the price of the other options. 

The new 16-35 makes this lens slightly less desirable than it probably was 6 months ago. But there are still plenty of landscapers that will buy it if its on par with the sharpness of recent Canon lenses. Especially if it comes combo'd with a 30+ MP sensor


----------



## risc32 (Nov 11, 2014)

looks good to me. If only my 14mm roki/sam/smthg/whatever wasn't so good and inexpensive, and i had the coinage.....


----------



## lintoni (Nov 11, 2014)

risc32 said:


> looks good to me. *If only my 14mm roki/sam/smthg/whatever wasn't so good and inexpensive*, and i had the coinage.....


Yep. A genuine bargain of a lens.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I'd use it - but not very often - as a "specialty landscape and UrbEX lens" and want it as wide as possible ... for UWA effect.
> ...



I am too afraid to buy the 24-70 f/2.8 II because I really feel like an IS version HAS to be coming. I just know that I'll buy the current 24-70 f/2.8 II and then exactly 31 days later Canon will announce an IS version.

If it was $800 less, I'd go for it and risk it.... but it's just so expensive for a lens that should have IS. Even with the recent price drop I feel like for the price it should give me daily massages and pour me drinks.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 12, 2014)

I'd be very curious to see what a rectilinear 11mm FOV looks like - that's wider than the rectilinear 8mm FOV of the Sigma 8-16 for APS-C.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I'd be very curious to see what a rectilinear 11mm FOV looks like - that's wider than the rectilinear 8mm FOV of the Sigma 8-16 for APS-C.



This is what an 11mm rectilinear looks like, in truth it wouldn't be quite so wide but would be taller. The second image is a 17mm.

The real issue will be projection distortion on the edges, if Canon mitigate that (and I don't see how they can) then I will be first in line for one, I just sold my 16-35 f2.8.


----------



## InterMurph (Nov 12, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I am too afraid to buy the 24-70 f/2.8 II because I really feel like an IS version HAS to be coming.


The 24-70mm IS lens was released, but it was f/4. I don't think there is any chance we will see a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS from Canon.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 12, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Maybe because Canon can't get around Nikon's patent to produce a competitive 14-24. Nikon's 14-24 decreased the demand for its own 14 f/2.8.



Very unlikely IMO.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 12, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> YES ... come on Canon ... announce it! ;D



There is no FF mirrorless in Canon world, so what the point ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2014)

Note that the same story from CW:
http://www.canonwatch.com/announcement-soon-canon-ef-11-24mm-f4l-lens/

...but with the whole *"The announcement may be a matter of a week or two"* bit. CW is far less reliable than CR or NL, of course, but a premature announcement on a Canon page -- if real -- would imply that this lens is happening, and soon. I'd imagine Canon does not upload promotional content to websites too far in advance of actual announcements for fear of leaks just like this.

- A


----------



## e17paul (Nov 12, 2014)

lintoni said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Right.
> ...



I'm not sure what will come next, but there is bound to be a cheaper full frame option below the 6D. Full frame vs crop will become a choice of portability and reach, not budget. I foresee a plastic bodied full frame to sit below the 6D2, 5D4 and 1DX2 making the excellent L lenses an option for more photographers. 

The 11-24 will be fantastically wide on full frame, but still a great ultra wide on a crop body


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > YES ... come on Canon ... announce it! ;D
> ...



Very true. But i will need one more mirrorslapper until i get what i really want. Unfortunately.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 12, 2014)

The plastic-bodied FF camera to be positioned below the 6D2 will be the 6D classic. I don't imagine that I will get a different Canon FF camera until the dynamic range increases and the pixel count rises a bit. 6D is a pretty good camera already for those who shoot landscape. If Canon doesn't improve its sensors, I might opt for a revised Sony mirrorless A7 series camera.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 12, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe because Canon can't get around Nikon's patent to produce a competitive 14-24. Nikon's 14-24 decreased the demand for its own 14 f/2.8.
> ...



Then why hasn't Canon done so, IYO?


----------



## lo lite (Nov 12, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Over at the German site for the Canon CPN network, we can see the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L listed. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/is-this-a-canon-ef-11-24-f4l/" target="_blank">This lens has been previously rumoured</a>, but no announcement date has been set. We’ve heard the price for this lens will be around $2899 USD and it will be a stellar performer.</p>
> <div id="attachment_17881" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1124leak1.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17881" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1124leak1-575x512.jpg" alt="Click for Larger" width="575" height="512" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
> <p><strong>The Google Translated text reads</strong>
> 
> ...



I call this a fake. Some reasons:

1. No space between the "EF" and the "11-24" in the screenshot. This is inconsistent with the other lenses on that page.
2. A typo in "Vollformat", in the screenshot there is just one "l" which is wrong.
3. I am a native german speaker. The text sounds somewhat fishy to me, not in the way Canon would say it.
4. Everybody can edit a web page and make a screenshot of it.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2014)

lo lite said:


> I call this a fake. Some reasons:
> 
> 1. No space between the "EF" and the "11-24" in the screenshot. This is inconsistent with the other lenses on that page.
> 2. A typo in "Vollformat", in the screenshot there is just one "l" which is wrong.
> ...



In fairness, the (sort of) smoking gun that would tip the needle from "it's a rumor" to "I think this is happening" would be a _live Canon URL_ that we can look up. That conveniently doesn't exist anymore, does it?

- A


----------



## DzPhotography (Nov 12, 2014)

I WANT this one, great for my main business: event photography ;D


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 12, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



takes years and years and more years to design and take a lens from concept to manufacturering. comments from Nikon and I doubt canon is much different is around 7 or so years.

then you have this.. canon's optical R&D labs, lens manufacturing plants, and fluorite crystal plant were all hit by earthquake damage.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 12, 2014)

Thanks, privatebydesign. Is that "11mm equivalent" two stitched frames from a TS-E 17?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



No it doesn't, not in the age of CAD, Sigma have said they can make a lens from concept meeting to production lens in between six months to a year. Canon have much more resources and probably tighter tolerances so maybe a bit longer, but certainly not years and years.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Thanks, privatebydesign. Is that "11mm equivalent" two stitched frames from a TS-E 17?



Hi Nancy, 

Yes it is from two shift stitched 17mm shots, they equate very well to an 11mm fov. But like I keep saying, I see the big issue is going to be projection distortion on the edges, when I do these shift stitches I almost always end up remapping them in PS by doing a 'spherical distortion' in the horizontal plane only, it brings the edges in progressively and actually works quite well.

If you are interested I'll post an example.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> No it doesn't, not in the age of CAD, Sigma have said they can make a lens from concept meeting to production lens in between six months to a year. Canon have much more resources and probably tighter tolerances so maybe a bit longer, but certainly not years and years.



Sure, but there's more to it than the CAD and production cycle. Canon has got to be making a larger investment and building more lenses than Sigma. With a larger investment, they likely would vet the design with a larger pool of test users, and possibly with more iterations of test use and revision of the design. 

I am not stating one company is better at this than the other, but Canon has more exposure to lose money/customers with a poor product, so they might take a little longer to dial something in than a company hoping to snatch business while Canon is busy being 'less responsive'.

Canon's in a very weird market where it's a high tech field _without_ the annual crushing pressure to roll out new stuff like with (say) laptops, cell phones, tablets, etc. It seems like they deliberately don't want to rush EF glass or higher-end body designs to market. 

_Interesting sidebar question: what's the last EF lens Canon rolled out that *didn't* deliver the goods? I am not referring to lenses that were unreasonably priced -- I am asking: what's the last time Canon put out an EF lens that wasn't clearly better than its predecessor or had serious quality issues?_

That said, Sigma churning out better lenses is terrific for us. 

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> _Interesting sidebar question: what's the last EF lens Canon rolled out that *didn't* deliver the goods? I am not referring to lenses that were unreasonably priced -- I am asking: what's the last time Canon put out an EF lens that wasn't clearly better than its predecessor or had serious quality issues?_
> 
> - A



Many might say the 24-70 f4 L is a disappointment, particularly for those that bought into it for the macro capabilities. The 50 f1.2 L also springs to mind


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > _Interesting sidebar question: what's the last EF lens Canon rolled out that *didn't* deliver the goods? I am not referring to lenses that were unreasonably priced -- I am asking: what's the last time Canon put out an EF lens that wasn't clearly better than its predecessor or had serious quality issues?_
> ...



Fair. The 50 f/1.2L is a love it or hate it lens. I've only rented it and never owned one, so I don't know if this love/hate is due to design or folks having unreasonable expectations.

But I must disagree on the 24-70 F/4L IS. It is a stellar lens for me. Lighter and sharper than the 24-105 and 24-70 I in a nice compact design. That's a perfect travel/hiking lens.

Unless I've missed some negative press on it's macro performance, the principal macro issue people have had was the limited working distance, which was mathematical necessity given this relatively limited focal length for a macro. But that was clearly published before it was released, wasn't it? That said, the AF works just fine at macro ranges and I find the macro to be a great function in a pinch (and it often lets me leave the macro at home for casual shooting), but it will never replace my 100L for dedicated macro work.

IMHO, the big beef(s) with the 24-70 F/4L IS were all announcement/launch related snafus that had little to do with how it actually performed:

A $1,499 price at launch
A belief that the 24-105L was going to be obsoleted by it (i.e. for something with less reach and a higher price.)
That whole typo of Canon writing '4' on the lens when eeeeeeeeveryone wanted it to be '2.8' ;D

Since that time, the price has been corrected (I got mine around $1,000) and the performance has been very good, I thought.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 13, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> But I must disagree on the 24-70 F/4L IS. It is a stellar lens for me. Lighter and sharper than the 24-105 and 24-70 I in a nice compact design. That's a perfect travel/hiking lens.
> 
> Unless I've missed some negative press on it's macro performance.......



It seems you have

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23475.msg461615#msg461615

The comments below it agree and give even more perspective too.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 13, 2014)

Have to say I'm happy with my 24-70 F4 and it's a handy holiday macro, not bad at all. Very glad I got it with the 6D. 

Such comments always bring to mind the folks that cursed the 6D becasue it HAD WiFi and GPS. Then they curse the 7D2 because it DOESN'T have WiFi. Makes me chuckle. 

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 13, 2014)

You got me there. Excellent point on the 24-70 f/4L IS focus shift. That really wound some folks up.

It doesn't affect how/what I shoot with it, but I could see how that would not meet some folks' expectations.

- A


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, privatebydesign. Is that "11mm equivalent" two stitched frames from a TS-E 17?
> ...



I'm interested, if you can illustrate it that'll be great!
Thanks in advance.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 13, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



Hi there Sagitariansrock

First image is two 17 mm TS-E images shift stitched, this gives the fov of an 11mm rectilinear lens.

Second image is a 100% crop from the extreme edge of the above image. The boat is badly elongated by projection distortion, as are the spherical buoys.

Third image is the top image after PS 'spherical distortion' with horizontal only ticked has been carried out.

Fourth image is the 100% crop of the same boat.

You can see how distorted the boat is in the first image, it isn't a lens aberration, it is the projection distortion you get when you try to bend that fov into the sensor area, however the PS spherical distortion trick sorts it out well.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 13, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> YES ... come on Canon ... announce it! ;D



Yeap, just announce it and many people will start selling 16-35mm lenses and placing orders for this UWA


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Thanks, great tip!
I shall have to try this out now.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 13, 2014)

lo lite said:


> I call this a fake. Some reasons:
> 
> 1. No space between the "EF" and the "11-24" in the screenshot. This is inconsistent with the other lenses on that page.
> 2. A typo in "Vollformat", in the screenshot there is just one "l" which is wrong.
> ...



I take it for real. It looks exactly like one of the many glitches that are taking place lately on the German versions of Canon websites lately. There may be some low-ranking assistant ["Azubi" ;D] at work ... adding pics and typing in text for the website ... inadvertently "hit the wrong key" ... and poof ... it went online. It then took some time until he/she realized the mistake and took it offline again. Long enough for somebody to catch it and save the screenshot.  

I am german native speaker too and the text does not appear to be "un-Canon like" to me. If you look at the text for the fishzoom 8-15 on the same page it includes the word "Vollformat" as well (spelled correctly, after it was proofread ;D) and the 14/2.8 desription on the same page left lower corner includes some marketing-blather "surpasses the human eye" ["übertrifft das menschliche Auge"] ;D ... 
so "unrivalled performance" ["konkurrenzlose Leistung"] may well have been texted by the same "story-teller".


----------



## lo lite (Nov 13, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > I call this a fake. Some reasons:
> ...



Yeah, there's no URL in the "screenshot". Another hint. And I was unable to get to a page that looks like the one in the "screenshot" when browsing http://www.canon.de/


----------



## lo lite (Nov 13, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > I call this a fake. Some reasons:
> ...



Your view of things where "Azubis" accidentally publish such things is far from the reality how such corporate websites work. Usually there's an Enterprise-CMS like CQ5, Magnolia, CoreMedia or InterRed in the back with a multi-stage workflow to avoid that anything gets published by accidence. I know this since I was involved as a consultant in setting up such CMSes for various major companies in Germany.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 13, 2014)

lo lite said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...



Why not try again on the Canon CPN site instead, as it said in the post?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 13, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Your view of things where "Azubis" accidentally publish such things is far from the reality how such corporate websites work. Usually there's an Enterprise-CMS like CQ5, Magnolia, CoreMedia or InterRed in the back with a multi-stage workflow to avoid that anything gets published by accidence. I know this since I was involved as a consultant in setting up such CMSes for various major companies in Germany.



yes, "multi-stage" - definitely. And most of the time it works as planned. But you know ... mistakes of all sorts and kinds also happen. 

Like the Euro 2,499 MSRP in the Canon Germany press release on their website ... quietly changed later on to € 2,199 ... certainly also just a mistake by some assistant to a junior assistant brand manager who typed in a wrong launch price and hit the "release to internet" button. 

Or the fact that Canon winter cashback forms on Canon across many (all) EU countries have the respective country of buyer's residence "locked in/hardcoded", so residents of other EU counties cannot register their out-of-country purchases for cashback. I had to personally make Canon Germany change that ...


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 14, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



I wasn't trying to say that I know why - just that I don't think that Canon is unable to get around Nikon's patent(s) related to their 14-24 f/2.8.

I didn't mean to quote the other reason you cited.


----------

