# Review: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L via DXOMark



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 22, 2015)

```
DXOMark has completed another Canon lens review, and this time it’s the EF 11-24mm f/4L.</p>
<p>From DXOMark</p>
<blockquote><p>While traditionally strong in its telephoto lineup, Canon has always been rather weak in offering a range of ultra-wide-angle lenses. When introduced a few years ago, theEF 8-15mm f4L USM Fisheye zoom helped redress the balance, but it didn’t go far enough. Now with this new lens, Canon has proved it can compete with its long-term rival Nikon as well as with new challengers, such as Sigma, who offer some very specialized models at accessible prices. Sure, the EF 11-24mm f4L USM lacks the fast f2.8 aperture of the Nikon, but Canon traded that for wider coverage and didn’t make any concessions with image quality. Even the price is relatively accessible… <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-11-24mm-F4L-USM-lens-review-Ultra-wide-champ" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM $2999: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA11244.html" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119028-REG/canon_9520b002_ef_11_24mm_f_4l_usm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T3ERXKE/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00T3ERXKE&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=SKIW33AKPAGADHBN" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## painya (Jul 22, 2015)

"Even the price is relatively accessible."

Right


----------



## Proscribo (Jul 22, 2015)

painya said:


> "Even the price is relatively accessible."
> 
> Right


It is, when compared with those telephoto lenses dxo talks about in that same quote.
11-24mm costs 3500€ meanwhile 400mm DO II costs 7400€, 500mm f/4 IS II is 9000€ and so on, there are just few cheaper telephotos.


----------



## romanr74 (Jul 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The CA on this lens is horrid. It is also sharper at 11mm than it is at 24mm!
> 
> To get an idea for performance, click on the measurements ("Sharpness", "Distortion", "Chromatic Abberation", "Vignetting") and then select the "Field Maps" where available.



Can you show this issue in a horrib picture?


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 22, 2015)

I have just got this lense, real world it seems ULTRA sharp, as sharp as my 24-70 f2.8 Mk2 IMO. RAW files are amazing from corner to corner, last night zoomed I found it hard to tell I was looking at the corner over the centre frame and that's on a 5d3, at 50mp it must be truly amazing!

(bugger, I need an upgrade to a 5dsR)


----------



## memoriaphoto (Jul 22, 2015)

DXO. They are very good at giving Canon some positive feedback yet in a subtle way piss on the parade.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > I have just got this lense, real world it seems ULTRA sharp, as sharp as my 24-70 f2.8 Mk2 IMO. RAW files are amazing from corner to corner, last night zoomed I found it hard to tell I was looking at the corner over the centre frame and that's on a 5d3, at 50mp it must be truly amazing!
> ...



LR/PS, but they look sharp both Mac (retina) and PC with a number of apps.. Going to be doing some large format prints soon so I will see on paper how good it looks 

I should add that looking at the test grid/chart on the link, it does not look that good, but I do feel the charts don't reflect what I have taken so far 

Saying that I just nipped out and grabbed a couple of 11mm shots of some trees against a blue/white sky, there is a minor amount of fringing (VERY minor, three pixels max viewed at 11:1!) in the very corner on the naked fine branches, easy to remove in post but it is there if you look hard enough for it, still happy with the performance. Tbh its so minor you have to think why am I even looking so close.


----------



## romanr74 (Jul 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Acutally I was looking for a real-life picture showing "horrib" CA. I was sure I would not get one. Most people commenting on gear here in this forum only look at test charts. Doing so, did you compare these "horrib" 11mm corners to a Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L or the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G AF-S (at 14mm)? And did you do the comparison of all of them at 14mm with f/4.0? There the new Canon kicks ass big time...


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 22, 2015)

romanr74 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most of the shots I took with my 14mm were wide open and it was indeed a killer lense, if like you say I were to do them back to back then yes I'd compare them at the same, so all at 14mm f4, I was happy with the 14mm f2.8 Mk2 other than sunstars and flare were poor, tbh I never picked holes in the IQ or looked for CA in those shots, HOWEVER at times I did feel it was soft in the corners, better stepped down. Am I worse off with the 11-24? Hard to say at this point in time, I guess as a walk around then maybe, weight for one, money for the other...? So many mixed views online I felt there was only one way to find out, buy it. Some say its sharper than the 14, others...well.... anyway for now I think I have added all I can to the debate haha... Cheers


----------



## romanr74 (Jul 22, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



For sure I envy you!!!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 22, 2015)

I love the line "the Canon 8-15mm didn't go far enough..." 
Really? I think 8mm is pretty far enough. It doesn't actually get wider in full frame land than 180" angle of view! 

The "Canon is bad at wide lenses" debate ended with the TS-e 17L...it's an amazing lens and still untouched in the market place by any other brand. The Canon 8-15L is another fantastic wide angle lens...and then there's the new 16-35mm f4 LIS....which is the current "best in class". So I count that is three top world class wide lenses from Canon. The new 11-24mm is another in a long line of recent world best wide lenses, which have NO peers. DXO seem to be in some kind of time warp, Can have been knocking ball out of the park since the TS-e 17L!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2015)

romanr74 said:


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



+1

Some people go even further, adding up numbers from test chart measurements, tabulating and color-coding the results, highlighting differences they think mean something when, in fact, they are insignificant even from the numbers themselves, let alone in real images.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The new 11-24mm is another in a long line of recent world best wide lenses, which have NO peers. DXO seem to be in some kind of time warp, Can have been knocking ball out of the park since the TS-e 17L!



Doesn't matter. It's all about the max aperture and DR, and in those areas these slow f/4 Canon lenses just can't deliver so they get mediocre Lens Scores at best. But that's the stinky BS that is DxO.


----------



## romanr74 (Jul 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > The new 11-24mm is another in a long line of recent world best wide lenses, which have NO peers. DXO seem to be in some kind of time warp, Can have been knocking ball out of the park since the TS-e 17L!
> ...



What gives me goosebumps is the clear idea that latest next april it will be in my kit  !


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 22, 2015)

I find it amusing that DxO hasn't tested a single lens with the 5DS. Are they afraid to reveal lens scores being better than Zeiss and Nikon?

Also, what works do their love in where the Canon 8-15 wasn't a huge deal? What else did Canon need to do in order to please then with it?


----------



## Rick (Jul 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Dualing links:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## The Flasher (Jul 22, 2015)

This lens is nothing short of spectacular. That "horrid" ca doesn't seem to be that horrid architectural shots, most shot at f5.6-8, a matter of fact, they don't show up at all. Back-lit scenes look fantastic. The super wide, rectilinear 11mm range takes the frustration out of having to stitch multi 17mmts, images are tack sharp. Use this for video as well, amazing.

Micro peep charts in the corners wide open all you like, not until you start taking pictures do you see the fantastic results in real world application of this photography tool.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 22, 2015)

This pretty much rests the case on which is the better performing lens, if you ask me. Even at a higher pixel density, the Canon would still show less distortion and CA.




Rick said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...


----------



## romanr74 (Jul 22, 2015)

Bryan finishes his Review with the satement "I love this lens". I'm positive the same will happen to me! Did I already mention these goosebumps in any of my former posts?


----------



## NadaMal (Jul 22, 2015)

This lens certainly seems to be dividing opinion. I am eagerly awaiting mine thanks to Jessops and that recent 24 month 0% interest deal they had.

I have to admit I'm like an excited child waiting for it to arrive regardless of any reviews


----------



## K (Jul 22, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> I find it amusing that DxO hasn't tested a single lens with the 5DS. Are they afraid to reveal lens scores being better than Zeiss and Nikon?



Yes.

They are waiting to find a way to further cook their data to cripple the Canon glass scores when used on a 5DS.

Figure this...

Several L lenses are the equal to or slightly better to Nikon's top glass by DXO's own measures. However, this is tested on an AA filtered 22.3mp 5D3 vs. a non-AA filtered 36mp D810. The Canon glass has a huge disadvantage, yet is right up there.

It stands to reason that once tested on a 5DS, the scores will clearly beat Nikon. The fact that images coming from a 5D3 are of such high quality indicates the sensor is being pushed to its max by the superior L glass.

Now, DXO, Nikonians and other assorted sycophantic apologists will say that these tests are done in a manner by which to be independent the sensor's resolution. This of course is BS, because as you select higher MP cameras on DXO, the score increases.


DXO continues to weigh in dynamic range even on lens tests!!! Not only that, but they make it a big part of the scoring.

This fact, piled upon a mountain of other facts can lead a person to no other conclusion than DXO is biased against Canon, and heavily favors Sony/Nikon.

Now, in fairness to Nikon. Their top pro glass, made in Japan, is very good. 

No, they don't have the wide selection of choices that Canon does.

But they are so close to Canon in the common lenses, that it doesn't matter. Their 70-200 (focus breathing issue aside) on a D810 or D750 is so sharp and offers so much detail, it is more than just about anyone needs. In other words, it's not the gear holding you back. Stunning images are created with their system.

However, Canon does edge them out in optical quality, autofocus speed etc. 


The only way to really compare them is to do so without cameras. That's right, measure the MTF!!! Each company publishes their own scores. But I think was lensrentals or some site like that that got their own expensive testing equipment and published MTF scores. Look it up.

The results on average was that Canon is slightly better in optical quality. But it is very close on most of the pro lenses. Considering the prices Nikon charges, Canon is a tiny bit better value in that regard also. 


But who uses just a lens? It's a lens + camera system that produces an image. For that, the best way to test and evaluate is NOT with some BS that DXO cooks up. But rather, by evaluating dozens of RAW image tests done in comparison by VARIOUS different testers. 

Only then will you see for yourself a trend one way or the other. Or maybe not at all, indicating they are too close that small variables in testing are making the difference.


All that said, the 5DS with 50MP will make the most of Canon's L lenses and this is already evident in the test images provided across the web.

DXO has to protect Sony/Nikon, so they use literally the only thing Nikon/Sony has an advantage on, and that is low-ISO DR and throw that into the mix for scoring lenses. (rolls eyes)

What if the only advantage Nikon had was shutter speed? That is akin to them factoring shutter speed into lens image quality scores to prop them up against Canon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 22, 2015)

I Can't access DXO. Is it possible that Nikon Fans have launched a DOS attack


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 23, 2015)

The Flasher said:


> This lens is nothing short of spectacular. That "horrid" ca doesn't seem to be that horrid architectural shots, most shot at f5.6-8, a matter of fact, they don't show up at all. Back-lit scenes look fantastic. The super wide, rectilinear 11mm range takes the frustration out of having to stitch multi 17mmts, images are tack sharp. Use this for video as well, amazing.
> 
> Micro peep charts in the corners wide open all you like, not until you start taking pictures do you see the fantastic results in real world application of this photography tool.



Three stitched and shifted TS-e 17L portraits gives an angle of view of around 14ish-mm and a nice proportion to the frame (4x5 I think) but two or three shifted landscapes is well under 11mm, closer to 9-10mm. But the shape of the frame is panoramic and close to 16:9 aspect. 

The nice thing about the 11-24mm is that it's very sharp and very easy to use. But it's heavy and expensive and one really needs to use it a lot to justify lugging it about. While the Sigma 12-24 is an inferior product...it's a 1/4 of the price here in the UK when bought new and even less when bought S/H.


----------



## Surfwooder (Jul 23, 2015)

This "L" quality lens will certainly drain the wallet. Plus, you'll need flat filters for this domed lens.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 24, 2015)

K said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > I find it amusing that DxO hasn't tested a single lens with the 5DS. Are they afraid to reveal lens scores being better than Zeiss and Nikon?
> ...


DxO hasn't yet tested the Pentax 645Z sensor, or done lens tests for the TS-E_17mm, TS-E_24mm-II or the 200 f/2L. And still no 5Ds-R lens tests. I wonder why...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 24, 2015)

You call that horrid for an ultra wide lense? Step away from you computer and camera.

Compare that performance to literally ever ultrawide zoom on the market and you'll find it to be vastly superior to anything else - especially considering it is ELEVEN MILLIMETERS.



dilbert said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> You call that horrid for an ultra wide lense? Step away from you computer and camera.
> 
> Compare that performance to literally ever ultrawide zoom on the market and you'll find it to be vastly superior to anything else - especially considering it is ELEVEN MILLIMETERS.
> 
> ...



People have been praising the Nikon 14-24 for the longest time saying Canon couldn't do anything as good.

Interesting that this comparison is largely ignored, and it is with the Canon wide open and the Nikon stopped down.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> DxO hasn't yet tested the Pentax 645Z sensor, or done lens tests for the TS-E_17mm, TS-E_24mm-II or the 200 f/2L. And still no 5Ds-R lens tests. I wonder why...



Can't speak to the 645Z or why they've not tested the Canon 200/2L (but have tested the Nikon version).

I presume their lens testing is primarily for the purpose of generating the lens correction modules for DxO Optics Pro, and since the TS-E lenses aren't really amenable to such corrections (due to unencoded lens movements), not testing them makes sense. 

For the 5Ds/R lens tests, it's probably just time, or the people that port the data to DxOMark are on summer holidays.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 24, 2015)

The proof of the pudding .. and all that.

This is the most challenging lens I have, but it´s getting under my skin. Any claim, especially from those who have not used it, that this is a poor performer ... looks stupid. This is plain and simple a fantastic lens, especially considering it´s going all the way to 11mm.

I´m on travel, so no proper post processing capability here, but I thought this image, even though not great in any way, shows a key quality. If I had told you this was a 24mm shot, you would have believed me. This is shot at 12mm! (f6.3, ISO320 on a 5DSR). Feel free look at corner sharpness and CA and whatever else you suspect is wrong.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 24, 2015)

I'm with you Eldar! Lots of detail there. I'm thrilled even on my 6D.

Jack


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 25, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The proof of the pudding .. and all that.
> 
> This is the most challenging lens I have, but it´s getting under my skin. Any claim, especially from those who have not used it, that this is a poor performer ... looks stupid. This is plain and simple a fantastic lens, especially considering it´s going all the way to 11mm.
> 
> I´m on travel, so no proper post processing capability here, but I thought this image, even though not great in any way, shows a key quality. If I had told you this was a 24mm shot, you would have believed me. This is shot at 12mm! (f6.3, ISO320 on a 5DSR). Feel free look at corner sharpness and CA and whatever else you suspect is wrong.


Eldar thanks as usual for you insight and willingness to share your real-world experiences with potential buyers. Given your vast experience with Otii, Arts, TS-E, great-white ...etc I can trust your opinion on how un-"horrib" this ground-breaking 11-24 is. 

11mm (and even 12mm for that matter) is a whole other ballgame. My natural tendency towards telescopic-vision and lack of patience means I already find it challenging to work with 14mm effectively.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 25, 2015)

Ah, I have the advantage on many of you guys since I don't even know what "effectively" means and I can just shoot like a like a little kid! 

Seriously, I am beginning to see the challenges, but I will remain ever thankful to have the extra width.

Jack


----------



## Eldar (Jul 26, 2015)

This is the view of Geiranger, one of the most popular tourist sites we have and a World Heritage place.

This is a rather strange use of such a wide angle (for me), but since the vista point further up was covered in clouds, I thought I´d try using this wide angle to create the same view. Not the same thing, but still ...

5DSR, 11-24 @11mm, 1/200s, f8.0, ISO100


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 27, 2015)

Wouldn't find me complaining about this shot Eldar! Wide looks just fine to me.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > This is the view of Geiranger, one of the most popular tourist sites we have and a World Heritage place.
> ...



I think you will find that is the perspective of the terrain, not a visual aberration. Certainly I have now shot enough at 11-14mm and realise the lens doesn't 'distort' reality to any appreciable degree, but your perspective and use of juxtaposition can. In this image by Eldar, a straight forward scenic shot with no perspective trickery it is impossible to tell the focsl length used without some knowledge of the actual scene.

Look here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24975.msg529944#msg529944 there might be some projection distortion, but no 'unnatural feeling'.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 27, 2015)

At 11mm you will have strange artifacts at the edges. That is unavoidable, unless the scenery is discontinued at the right places. I agree that it looks unnatural and this looks a bit funny. But I did so at 16mm with the 16-35 f2l8L IS II also. I have shot a number of other shots, where you don´t get that over exaggerated line distortion on the edges.

However, this is a fantastic lens!!


----------



## Eldar (Jul 27, 2015)

Here is one (posted on another thread), where I have just cropped to 1:1. It is a lot more difficult to judge the focal length here (... it is 11mm).


----------



## Oakville (Jul 28, 2015)

It would be nicer to see the same places shot with 11-24 and 16-35 for instance - most people can get 16-35 even it is not cheap but still more affordable lens. Showing only images from 11-24 - they are amazing but to be able to appreciate it you have to have something to compare to.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

www.OakvilleWeddingArtPhotography.com
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Canon 70D, Canon Rebel T3i, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, Canon EFS 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, Canon EFS 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon EFS 10-22mm f/3.5-5.6 USM, Canon EFS 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon 430EX II


----------



## romanr74 (Jul 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> This is the view of Geiranger, one of the most popular tourist sites we have and a World Heritage place.
> 
> This is a rather strange use of such a wide angle (for me), but since the vista point further up was covered in clouds, I thought I´d try using this wide angle to create the same view. Not the same thing, but still ...
> 
> 5DSR, 11-24 @11mm, 1/200s, f8.0, ISO100



Now that I see this I agree - these corners are HORRID.


----------

