# Canon 11-24mm or not?



## tpatana (Mar 3, 2016)

I've heard lot of good about the 11-24mm lens, but it's bit pricey, especially since I don't shoot too often at that range. And I already have Rokinon 14/2.8 and Canon 15mm fish-eye.

If I sold those two and got the 11-24mm, would I miss anything? I don't really like the FE effect itself. Is the 11mm much wider that 15FE? (can't find actual comparison on those two, and for fact I know the 15FE is much wider than my Rokinon 14mm)

Any reasons why I should switch? Any reasons why I shouldn't?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2016)

Not worth it in my opinion unless you have a very compelling reason for the 11-16 range, I own the 11-24 and the 15 Fisheye.

There are some good comparison images here including the fisheye defished, which I find a very high quality solution. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/canon_ef11-24f4l.html

For the best method of using defishing to get anamorphic images take a look at this article. http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/


----------



## candc (Mar 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Not worth it in my opinion unless you have a very compelling reason for the 11-16 range, I own the 11-24 and the 15 Fisheye.
> 
> There are some good comparison images here including the fisheye defished, which I find a very high quality solution. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/canon_ef11-24f4l.html
> 
> For the best method of using defishing to get anamorphic images take a look at this article. http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/



That's a great article about defishing. I love my 15mm fisheye and use it a lot. The results from the lonely speck method look much better than defishing with Lightfoom or dxo. I like that it doesn't look super stretched out and is still sharp in the corners. I am going to give that method a go.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2016)

I have mentioned the plugin they use, FisheyeHemi, many times on the forum, it is a fantastic little tool. When I tested the EF 14mm f2.8 MkII (two copies) against the EF 15mm f2.8 defished using FisheyeHemi I found the 15mm to have much higher IQ, especially in the corners.

That the Lonely Speck technique takes the simple FisheyeHemi plugin to a new level just adds to the greatness of it! I agree that regular 'simple' rectilinear conversions, like in LR, are not good for the fisheye.


----------



## candc (Mar 4, 2016)

I had that plugin at one time. I don't think I really ever gave it a good try. I am going to get it again. I didn't use it because I was mostly using the fisheye for stitching panos with ptgui.. I think the plugin will be really useful now with the higher resolution sensors we have. 

Hi res Fisheye shot, dxo conversion no geometry correction, fisheye hemi, downsample with bicubic sharper, shazaam!


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 4, 2016)

My 2 cents would be.
Cons
The 11-24MM is very heavy. Graduated filter use is a problem.
Lee have a partial solution from 13mm to 24mm I think (but big and expensive).
The big bulbous front is scary. I'll cry if I break / scratch it.

Pro's
Its sharp, very sharp really.
It gives the opportunity to take photos and give a look/POV that no other lens can at 11mm
It can make the sky very dramatic.
Held parallel to the ground its remarkable in its ability to keep a straight horizon at 11mm.

I really like mine but its not a very practical lens to carry around. It adds alot of weight to a bag and for minimal use. I get far more use out of the 16-35 F4 IS which I rate highly.
I wouldn't have it on top of your wanted list but if have almost everything else and have a good eye for foreground for a wide angle shot it can give you some amazing shots that are completely different to what the photographers around you can get. 
The fact it's zoom to 24mm is a plus as this is a very common focal length and its sharp at 24mm.
I love really wide angle so I'm going to hold onto mine.


----------



## Halfrack (Mar 4, 2016)

For a wedding shooter, the 11mm was awesome, and able to capture a scene where stitching or backing up wasn't possible.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 4, 2016)

Halfrack said:


> For a wedding shooter, the 11mm was awesome, and able to capture a scene where stitching or backing up wasn't possible.



Do you have examples of that, I'd like to see them.


----------



## ecqns (Mar 5, 2016)

I shoot architecture with an a7r and the 17 & 24 TSE's. Begrudgingly bought the 11-24 for tight spaces like a bathroom or kitchen. Really sharp lens - just really wide, I always crop from a 3:2 ratio down to a 4:3 ratio to lose that wide angle lens look.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2016)

ecqns said:


> I shoot architecture with an a7r and the 17 & 24 TSE's. Begrudgingly bought the 11-24 for tight spaces like a bathroom or kitchen. Really sharp lens - just really wide, I always crop from a 3:2 ratio down to a 4:3 ratio to lose that wide angle lens look.



I did the same, gave up the 16-35 f4 IS (which I think is an unbelievably good lens) to shoot bathrooms and walk in closets with the 11-24 where the TS-E17 just wouldn't work.

Have you tried using the 'spherize' filter under 'Distort' in PS set to horizontal to remap the edges of the frame to make those edges more realistic? I am doing it more and more at the moment, it has it's limitations but works quite well sometimes.


----------



## rs (Mar 5, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Is the 11mm much wider that 15FE? (can't find actual comparison on those two, and for fact I know the 15FE is much wider than my Rokinon 14mm)



The 11-24 at 11mm covers an angle of view (diagonally) of 126'. The 15mm fisheye is 180'.


----------



## ecqns (Mar 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Have you tried using the 'spherize' filter under 'Distort' in PS set to horizontal to remap the edges of the frame to make those edges more realistic? I am doing it more and more at the moment, it has it's limitations but works quite well sometimes.



Still too distorted and difficult to control. This is why I'm constantly bothering Adobe to add more grid control points to the Warp tool. The way it is now is so limited. Or I've suggested adding a bezier curve control into the liquify dialogue. Puppet warp can't do it - its got to be the worst new feature in a long time.
I usually just scale the outside portions of the image in and crop off the edges.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 8, 2016)

Since you don't often shoot in that range, I'd say your money is probably better spent elsewhere. Between the fisheye and the Rokinon, you've got decent coverage.

If you are in the market for a new lens, a better way to go may be the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8. It performs very well, nice and sharp, gives you autofocus (unlike the Rokinon), has stabilisation, gives you a 2.8 aperture (not necessarily vital, but handy), and is not only way less expensive than the 11-24mm but also very reasonably priced by any standard. I got one recently and I love it. I have to say that I never thought stabilisation on an UWA made any sense, but I have since changed my mind about that. 

I think the only reason to buy the 11-24mm is if you need something wider than 14mm on a regular basis. It's an amazing lens, but unless you have a lot of money burning a hole in your pocket, I'd say it doesn't make practical sense for most people due to its cost.


----------



## Canon_Shooter (Mar 11, 2016)

for the money not worth it, great lens, not as sharp as a 24 mk 2 or other regular wides but beats 8 - 15 , on a few places but the cost..... rent it, or CPS it

f/4 does not let in enough light. but needs to be restated, daylight its awesome. try it for a bit.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Mar 11, 2016)

tpatana said:


> I've heard lot of good about the 11-24mm lens, but it's bit pricey, especially since I don't shoot too often at that range. And I already have Rokinon 14/2.8 and Canon 15mm fish-eye.
> 
> If I sold those two and got the 11-24mm, would I miss anything? I don't really like the FE effect itself. Is the 11mm much wider that 15FE? (can't find actual comparison on those two, and for fact I know the 15FE is much wider than my Rokinon 14mm)
> 
> Any reasons why I should switch? Any reasons why I shouldn't?



11-24mm is the best UWA in the Canon System ... Only reason not to use it, is you need f2.8, then you should go with the equally impressive Tamron 15-30mm ... 

Problem about defishing is that the rendered frame is extremely wide (somewhere like 140-180 Deg of view on the diagonal) and you often need to crop a lot for anything other than an very extrem UWA perspective ... on the other hand the 11-24mm gets actually better in IQ from 11-14mm and stays impressive till 21mm while lossing a bit again till 24mm (all still on an extremely high level). so you don't crop but zoom your wide frame (which is often necessary for meaningful composition) IQ wise the 11-24 is better than all other UWA zooms (Canon 16-35 f4 IS and Tamron 15-30mm can compete). However the best about the 11-24 is its coatings and ability to produce the most beautiful sunstars and flare pattern that I have ever seen with ANY UWA lens (Including Zeiss) ...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2016)

1982chris911 said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard lot of good about the 11-24mm lens, but it's bit pricey, especially since I don't shoot too often at that range. And I already have Rokinon 14/2.8 and Canon 15mm fish-eye.
> ...



Nonsense, the 16-35 f4 is every bit as good a lens, optically 'better' (mine was sharper in the corners), cheaper, smaller, takes filters and has IS.

I agree about the 11-24 flare characteristics, and have commented on that in previous threads, but it is very easy to get that flare in the first place too because of the extreme front element..


----------



## arthurbikemad (Mar 11, 2016)

Not much to add other than... I love my 11-24, don't use it much but when I do and you plant your eye on the viewfinder its like your eyelids have been folded back and your eyeballs pulled from there sockets, sucks up the FOV like a dyson on steroids!


----------



## J.R. (Mar 11, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> Not much to add other than... I love my 11-24, don't use it much but when I do and you plant your eye on the viewfinder its like your eyelids have been folded back and your eyeballs pulled from there sockets, sucks up the FOV like a dyson on steroids!



;D ;D

I love my 11-24 as well. If only because of the amount of $$$ I had to shell out for it. 

That being said, it is the toughest lens I've used yet. The IQ is terrific, only problem is to get a good composition with the humongous FOV. This lens takes time to get used to, leave alone master. 

It seems to be growing on me for sure ... I'm a bit better at it after loads of experimentation in the last month. hope to post some photos in the next week (I can't access my desktop till Monday).


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 11, 2016)

Not.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Mar 11, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...




11-24 is way better corrected than the 16-35 at 16mm to 20mm while sharpness is about equal : 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Secondly the UWA zoom range of the 11-24 is much more (11 to 24mm) while the 16-35mm only has 16-24mm when the second lens in your kit is the 24-70 f2.8 II which is better than both from 24mm onwards 

Both this makes the 11-24 the better UWA of the both in my opinion as there are often situation where you need wider than 16mm which the smaller zoom just cannot cover. I have both and each has about 15 to 25k frames taken with a 5DMKIII and 5DsR (clearly the 11-24mm beats the 16-35mm bc of its better correction, flare characteristics and sunstars)... the 16-35 is preferable IF you need IS or the weight and size of the package matters or you need filters, optically the 11-24 is better.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 11, 2016)

At $3K the lens is fair value but you seem to be very casual about your use for it.

Trading in your two lenses would only go a short way to getting to the price you need.

In my opinion, this specialized lens (and the high price) would lead me to look at alternatives.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2016)

1982chris911 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Again, I disagree. 

My 16-35 f4 IS was noticeably sharper than my 11-24, not enough to concern me most of the time, but it was there. 

The magnitude of distortion the 16-35 exhibits is easily corrected automatically in post with no visible loss of image quality so really is a non issue.

The 11-24 might have better flare resistance but that is entirely overshadowed by the fact that it is magnitudes easier to get flare in the image in the first place. In my experience images from the 16-35 f4 IS display less flare than the 11-24 because it is so much easier to mitigate them.

As for focal length, your assumption that the 24 and over overlap is redundant is specious, in practice it is easier to establish if you are in a 16-35 or a 24-70 situation than it is to decide if you are in an 11-24 or 24-70 shooting environment. Having overlap is considerably easier to deal with most times than lens changes. 

Lastly, 11-16 is incredibly wide, if you don't have an overriding need for that focal length, and have a good eye for composition, it truthfully isn't worth the price, weight, hassle, limitations or lack of IS, for 99.9% of people the 16-35 f4 IS is a much better and more useful purchase.


----------



## Pookie (Mar 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Also owning both, this is the best description I've seen yet for the pros and cons of the new 16-35 and 11-24. I use my 16-35 most of the time, actually all of the time.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 12, 2016)

Pookie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...


I also own both and totally agree with Privat´s description above. In my case though, I have hardly used the 16-35 since I got the 11-24. It is an extremely fun lens to use, but the point about 11-16 being incredibly wide is very valid. It becomes almost impossible to look at a scene and imagine what an 11mm capture will look like. It is clearly the most challenging lens I have in my portfolio (I have a few ...).


----------



## midluk (Mar 12, 2016)

Do you have to take shoe cleaning equipment with you, if you use the 11-24? Or even multiple pairs of shoes and trousers to have the right ones for each composition?


----------



## RGF (Mar 12, 2016)

11-24 is a great lens but as others have said it is awkward to use.

To made Canon can not make 14-24 or 14-35 with the curved front element. Similar in construction to the 16-35. f2.8 of course. Steal Nikon's thunder.


----------



## rs (Mar 12, 2016)

midluk said:


> Do you have to take shoe cleaning equipment with you, if you use the 11-24? Or even multiple pairs of shoes and trousers to have the right ones for each composition?



It's not quite that bad. In landscape orientation at 11mm, the FoV is 95' vertically. Held horizontally, thats only +/- 47' from the horizon. Compare that to the 8-15 @ 8mm, which has a 180' FoV vertically. If you don't point the 8-15 upwards, you've got to stand in a very awkward pose to keep your feet out of the view.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 12, 2016)

RGF said:


> 11-24 is a great lens but as others have said it is awkward to use.
> 
> To made Canon can not make 14-24 or 14-35 with the curved front element. Similar in construction to the 16-35. f2.8 of course. Steal Nikon's thunder.



Nikon's thunder is already stolen with the 11-24 don't you think?


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 22, 2016)

The Canon 11-24 would have fit my line-up perfectly, but I am a weirdo. On my zooms I have a very hard time accepting overlap. Ideal for me would be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200. 

I ended up with the Tamron 15-30 after making the excruciating decision (OCD). 

My plan was to use the lens for real estate and astro photography etc.. Since the Canon is an f/4 the Tamron seemed a better choice for me. 

Believe me, cost was a factor too. I just could not justify the price difference because I knew I would not use the lens very often.

Turns out the Tamron is an excellent lens for the money. Has less coma. It isn't the f/2.8 as labeled (I read it is actually a 3.2). But is is still a fine lens and has opened my eyes to the possibility of including 3rd party primes when they can beat the Canon offering. I also like the heavy feel of the Tamron. 

The same day while shopping I held the Canon 14mm and it just did not "feel" like the $$$ it cost. I got the Tamron.

I hope you enjoy whatever you get. Have you decided?


----------



## canonix (Mar 24, 2016)

I haven´t got any experience with the 11-24mm Canon, I can only refer to the Sigma 12-24mm F4,5-5,6 DG HSM II, which is way under the price of the Canon lense and achieves really good results in matters of colour-quality and you are still around the 11mm range.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 24, 2016)

Given the recent news of he Irix 11mm, if I was in the market for a 11-24mm, I'd seriously hold off until reviews of the 11mm Irix come through


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 24, 2016)

I think that the Canon lens is the best optically that is currently available. But how many people us a lens this wide and shoot wide open? Usually the main use of such a wide lens is to get close and bend perspectives into creative shapes. So stopping down is usually required. The cost and size is a stopped for me, I would use a lens like this so little it would be hard for me to justify the bag space and ticket price. I personally, would be far better served with a good copy of the Sigma 12-24mm mkII. Only you can make that choice. 
The Sigma is nearly as wide, it's a lot cheaper, lighter and smaller. If you are stopping down, I doubt there is much difference in image quality unless one is being very very pikki. 





Canon 5DII, Sigma 12-24mm. 12mm @ f8. The lake in the foreground is just a small puddle about 24" across. Get up close with a tripod at rack to 12mm and it looks like a small lake.


----------



## freophotos (Mar 25, 2016)

Haydn1971 said:


> Given the recent news of he Irix 11mm, if I was in the market for a 11-24mm, I'd seriously hold off until reviews of the 11mm Irix come through



I bought the 11-24 lens for the occasional architectural shoot but it quickly became the lens that spends the most time on my camera. I shoot for a community newspaper a couple of days a week, and I find the extended wide zoom range the 11-24 offers me provides great flexibility for news and advertising shoots alike. The 16-35mm I used previously never makes it out of the safe.
Coupled with the 24-105mm L. and 120-300mm f2.8, I feel I have the whole range covered with a great kit, (though I'd love to see an ultra-sharp 24-105, or a Canon 24-70 f2.8 IS)


----------



## pedro (Mar 26, 2016)

Haydn1971 said:


> Given the recent news of he Irix 11mm, if I was in the market for a 11-24mm, I'd seriously hold off until reviews of the 11mm Irix come through



Plus one


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 28, 2016)

I have both, I use both, I love both! The 11-24mm has been on my camera a bit more than the 16-35mm IS but they're both great lenses. I do quite a bit of RE work as well and the 11-24mm is brilliant for most of the interior work. Thought originally that I may have gotten rid of one, after getting the other but haven't yet..


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 19, 2016)

pedro said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Given the recent news of he Irix 11mm, if I was in the market for a 11-24mm, I'd seriously hold off until reviews of the 11mm Irix come through
> ...



There's also the Laowa Zero-D 12mm f/2.8 coming out soon as well. So it would be interesting to see both these two primes, the Sigma 12-24mm II and the Canon 11-24L tested together.


----------



## romanr74 (May 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I wouldn't throw the two lenses in the same basket. 

The 16-35 f/4 IS is a wonderful, affordable lens. It is a perfect walk around lens, I guess you can leave the house with only this lens in your bag and not miss too many shots. I'm overall very happy with it! But not blown away... maybe because I was used to the angles/FOV from my 16-35 f/2.8 II - which, though, has severe optical issues in the corners in my opinion. 

The 11-24 f/4 is a piece of art, a unique mindblowing piece of glass, new FOV/angles to get used to, opening up new creative possibilities. I was very excited about the lens when it was launched, it took me a while to actually get it because it has a hefty price. I have not the slightest regret about getting it though. I spent a weekend in Italy where I used the lens practically as my walk-around-lens. The 4 pictures I posted under my 500px account made the lens my lens with the most likes at 500px within 2 days. It is not for everybody, but it is clearly a fantastic lens. 

If it's really only for 0.1% of people then, hey, I'm part of the elite...


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> The 16-35 f/4 IS is a wonderful, affordable lens. It is a perfect walk around lens, I guess you can leave the house with only this lens in your bag and not miss too many shots. I'm overall very happy with it! But not blown away... maybe because I was used to the angles/FOV from my 16-35 f/2.8 II - which, though, has severe optical issues in the corners in my opinion.



The AOV is identical for the 16-35 f/2.8 II and the 16-35 f/4


----------



## romanr74 (May 20, 2016)

J.R. said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35 f/4 IS is a wonderful, affordable lens. It is a perfect walk around lens, I guess you can leave the house with only this lens in your bag and not miss too many shots. I'm overall very happy with it! But not blown away... maybe because I was used to the angles/FOV from my 16-35 f/2.8 II - which, though, has severe optical issues in the corners in my opinion.
> ...



Thats what i meant ???


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



From the text highlighted in red in your comment above, you are basically saying that the angles / FOV of the f/2.8II and f/4 are different.


----------



## romanr74 (May 20, 2016)

J.R. said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



are you nuts...? i was saying that i was not blown away by the 16-35 f/4 because i was used to these angles already from using the 16-35 f/2.8... because they are the same...!!! 
if you for the first time use a 16-35 f/4 and never used that angle before, you might be differently impressed by it through its high quality and the new to you angles...


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



My bad! I read it differently. So if I understand correctly, it isn't about the f/2.8 over the f/4 lens, its about the focal length of 16-35mm that you are not 'blown away'. 

Peace ... J.R.


----------



## romanr74 (May 20, 2016)

J.R. said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



I was impressed with the very high optical quality of the lens. I don't mind too much that it is "only" f/4 - for my uses the IS makes good for that stop lost over the f/2.8. But the lens didn't add a new "FOV experience" to my gear set, I was used to the 16-35 range from my 2.8 already. So for me it was not venturing into new angles and perspectives - which took "this" WOW-element out of the lens for me. 

The 11-24 has the former 16-35 user venture into new creative possiblities through its sheer wideness.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 20, 2016)

It's hard to compose with such a wide lens. I had similar issues with the Sigma 12-24mm when it was first launched. It just takes some time to "see" and what makes a good silly wide shot.


----------



## romanr74 (May 20, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's hard to compose with such a wide lens. I had similar issues with the Sigma 12-24mm when it was first launched. It just takes some time to "see" and what makes a good silly wide shot.



I didn't talk about issues - but creative possibilities...


----------



## JJF (May 21, 2016)

Yes, I totally recommend the 11-24. Its one of my favorite lenses.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 17, 2016)

1982chris911 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Sorry....but there IS no better correction. All wide lenses distort. A lens designer either corrects for straight lines (like the 15mm L) or one corrects for circles and gets a fisheye....or one corrects a bit in the middle and gets a 16-35IIL approach. They are all corrected by design and the 16-35IIL type of correction is intended to be a happy medium which works for architecture and people.


----------



## Vern (Jun 17, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The Canon 11-24 would have fit my line-up perfectly, but I am a weirdo. On my zooms I have a very hard time accepting overlap. Ideal for me would be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200.



Zoom overlap cause cognitive dissonance for me too. I know it isn't logical, but there it is....

Contemplating the 11-24 and the 5DSR as a joint purchase before my next backpacking trip. I do a lot of Canyonland trips or similar and the 16-35 just isn't wide enough and there isn't/aren't always time/conditions to shoot a pano.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 17, 2016)

I picked up the 11-24 this past week at a good price along with a rebate. I tend to shoot mostly with long lenses and got this to challenge myself. It is indeed a challenging lens for me. It really emphasizes the need to properly compose the image. If you shoot ultra-wide often, I think you'll love this lens. A little pixel peeping has yet to uncover any issues that are not easily dealt with in post processing, but you already knew that. I'm looking forward to completing the learning curve.


----------



## iaind (Jun 18, 2016)

eat lens. Got mine as part of 5DSR deal with cashback and saved a bundle


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 5, 2016)

Vern said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon 11-24 would have fit my line-up perfectly, but I am a weirdo. On my zooms I have a very hard time accepting overlap. Ideal for me would be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200.
> ...



Vern, it got worse for me because I settled on the excellent Tamron 15-30... so overlap AND a non-Canon lens in the bag. 

The Tamron is very nicely built, heavy lens. I'm obsessive compulsive so it still bugs me months later. Just weird old me.

Just like the 600EX-RT... had I not been injured and thrown out of work I'd have got fifteen of those suckers just because you can use fifteen at once. That's the only reason.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 5, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Just like the 600EX-RT... had I not been injured and thrown out of work I'd have got fifteen of those suckers just because you can use fifteen at once. That's the only reason.



Soo... like this, but longer?

http://neilvn.com/tangents/images/flash/gear/NV2_7880.jpg


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 5, 2016)

tpatana said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Just like the 600EX-RT... had I not been injured and thrown out of work I'd have got fifteen of those suckers just because you can use fifteen at once. That's the only reason.
> ...



No, these are much better, two IDC Triple Threat's. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaALe0w992E


----------



## tpatana (Jul 5, 2016)

Aside from being AA-battery-powered, why in earth you wouldn't use normal studio strobes? Pretty much any strobe in the market would be cheaper.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 5, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Aside from being AA-battery-powered, why in earth you wouldn't use normal studio strobes? Pretty much any strobe in the market would be cheaper.



ETTL, HSS!

Until the newer round of 'off camera flash' IGBT powered 500-650 ws battery powered strobes came out it was the only way to get ETTL and HSS powerful enough to be useful in bright sun. it also makes for a very flexible package, need two background lights a hair light a fill light and a key light? Well your set of 600's can do that, your single strobe can't. Want to place accent lights around an interior? Your 600's can do that too.

Lighting solutions are tools, there is a place for all of them.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Only have one triple threat, but you get the idea. (Note to self: Need two more triple threats. Can't have just a single triple. DUH!) :-[

Stupid. Just three good high powered strobes like that flashpoint would have done it and much more professional looking too than ganging up so many speedlites.

At the time I was reading Syl Arena's "Speedliters Handbook" and thought it was cool drilling mounting holes in 2x4s to mount 15 speedlites. Now it just seems lame.  I now realize that Mr. Arena gets paid to drill holes and I don't.

Shoulda took a nice vacation to Hawaii instead and let the gear lust evaporate.

It takes 5 or 6 600EX-RT to match that single Flashpoint and it gives very nice light at 360ws. Another time I let reason and sanity overrule compulsion (Getting the Flashpoint). It has been good therapy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 5, 2016)

The original style Triple Threat is much better than the current design. IDC did a much better job than Westcott and Bruce Dorn obviously 'sold out' to make it happen.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The original style Triple Threat is much better than the current design. IDC did a much better job than Westcott and Bruce Dorn obviously 'sold out' to make it happen.



Anodized billet aluminum with laser etched biker designed logos would be all the rage.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from being AA-battery-powered, why in earth you wouldn't use normal studio strobes? Pretty much any strobe in the market would be cheaper.
> ...



I give you the ETTL, but anything else my Rovelight 600 can handle, including HSS up to 1/8000. And one of those costs about same as one 600EX-RT.

There's place for speedlites too, I use them frequently. But going beyond few (~2-4) sounds waste of money to me, I'd rather take the rovelight when I need more power.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 7, 2016)

tpatana said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Just like the 600EX-RT... had I not been injured and thrown out of work I'd have got fifteen of those suckers just because you can use fifteen at once. That's the only reason.
> ...



Yeah, or a Syl Arena endorsed 2x4.


----------

