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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 11, 2015)

```
Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his thorough review of the brand new Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L.  There is a lot of reading and information in this review, so it’s definitely worth the read if you’re on the fence about ordering this lens.</p>
<p>From the review:</p>
<blockquote><p>“…Three kinds of special lens coatings have been used on the 11-24: Subwavelength Coating (SWC), Air Sphere Coating (ASC) and Fluorine. Reducing flare and ghosting is the primary goal of these coatings and increasing contrast is the end result.”</p>
<p>“…If you can ease the wide end focal length requirement, the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG II HSM Lens is available for 1/3 of the price. The Canon to delivers significantly better image quality even at f/11 and has max apertures up to 1 stop wider.”</p>
<p>“…I’ve had the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye in my kit since it was introduced and really like it, but I didn’t find myself pulling it out very often. The distorted look was the primary reason for that lack of use. So, while it is a great lens, I traded that one in toward the 11-24. I preordered the 11-24 within minutes of the announcement and it is now a permanent part of my kit. No regrets – I love this lens.”</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-11-24mm-f-4L-USM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | 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></p>
<p><em>image credit // the-digital-picture.com</em></p>
```


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 11, 2015)

It's only a matter of time that someone complains its only F/4. : : : (Stellar Lens, No want for a 14-24mm)


----------



## WorkonSunday (Mar 11, 2015)

i guess ultimately its down to what you need. i have seen plenty of images from 12-24mm being sold at very high price. and the sigma is 1/2 the weight and 1/3 the price.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 11, 2015)

WorkonSunday said:


> i guess ultimately its down to what you need. i have seen plenty of images from 12-24mm being sold at very high price. and the sigma is 1/2 the weight and 1/3 the price.


If you use the Adobe or especially the DxO profiles (with their special sharpening), the Sigma is an excellent lens. Also, few people will ever use either of these lenses wide open, so the aperture difference is essentially moot. After using both, I would have to say that Sigma deserves a lot of respect for pioneering UWA zooms like this and making them affordable. You can even pick on up used for about $500 (what I sold my mint copy for a year or so ago). I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone who doesn't want to drop $3k on a lens like this but wants the unique 12mm FOV.

On the other hand, the 11-24 is an amazing lens and should require less corrections in post given my experience with it. It is clearly a better lens, but as with all things like this, it takes a lot of money to get a little bit of improvement. It's only worth $2k more if you will shoot with it a lot, do very critical work, or have other reasons like needing a red ring , better weather sealing, etc. that make the huge price difference worth it.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

After looking at his IQ comparison tool, I'm not sold on this lens. The 16-35 F/4L IS looks just as sharp at 16mm and 24mm to my eyes. 

Under that consideration, you are paying 2.5x the price for the opportunity to shoot from 11-15mm while losing IS and losing the ability to conveniently front-filter (and for me, losing the ability to comfortably hand-hold for long periods -- that thing is heavy). I'm not bashing the 11-24 by any means (it might be just what you need), but the value proposition for me isn't there. 

If you shoot interiors, however, _fuhgeddaboudit_. I could see this being a game-changer for those folks. 

- A


----------



## rocksubculture (Mar 11, 2015)

I do concert photography and had my first opportunity to use the 11-24mm on Saturday night. 

Here's a link to the article - the images will open into a virtual lightbox if you click on any of them (two sets - one for each band):

http://goo.gl/iDaJM1

I know many like to pixel peep RAW files, so this is more of sharing to show in use (I load images into my reviews 1600 pixels wide, converted from RAW to JPEG). 

Some of these have been processed a bit (mostly some luminance noise reduction, a bit of cropping here and there, a bit of highlights and shadows...). 

One of my 5DIIIs was into Canon for repair, so I had the 11-24 mounted on one of my 6D bodies. 

In the lightboxes in my article, everything wider than 70mm was shot with the 11-24 (the only other lenses I used were 70mm or longer at this show - I wanted to really use the new lens as much as possible to check it out, and only had three songs per artist to shoot).

I'm shooting two shows later this week in small clubs, which will give a better opportunity for more interesting compositions on the wider end, as I'll be closer to the subjects. I've shot one of the bands before and the singer does a good job of getting in close for some shots.

Anyway, as a concert shooter, I *love* this lens. I had the 14mm 2.8 II and 16-35 2.8 II and sold both to put the funds toward this one, and I am so glad that I did. I always felt the image quality of the 16-35 was very sub par compared to the newer zooms (24-70 II and 70-200 II), but loved the versatility. The 14 was awesome, but prime is not ideal on the wide end for concerts (the differences mm by mm is so much more dramatic on the wide end, and 14mm didn't always fit). 11-24 is such a useful range, and honestly, it seems about as bright at the 16-35 (in terms of f/4 vs f/2.8), and f/4 is better for wider anyway as you want more in focus typically. Image quality wise, it *feels* as good or better than the 14, but I sold it before getting it, so can't do side by side comparisons.

I love fast prime lenses on the tele end for close-ups, but I think f/4 will definitely work for me on the wide end, and having one useful zoom covering 11-24 is awesome, as I usually have to have two lenses on two bodies at the same time to cover it. Now it frees up a body to have another fast prime on the tele end.

Additionally, I just yesterday got a Canon EOS to Sony NEX adapter for my Sony A7s and the Canon 11-24mm does work on it... I figure for those situations that are really dark where f/4 won't cut it, the A7s can pretty much see in the dark, so gives me another option to use the 11-24 on that (and I think manual focus peaking would be a breeze at f/4+). 

Here is a direct link to one of the shots I took in the balcony above the stage - you can basically fit in an entire venue (the railing in the bottom center looks really distorted but the railing and wood below actually bends like that after the last joint IIRC, though it is a bit exaggerated):







By the way, it is LARGE, but it doesn't feel large or heavy in use at all, if that makes any sense. Plus, savvy and photo-friendly music artists tend to recognize that bulbous front elements = wide shots - and this thing just screams it - so I imagine that it could be seen as inviting to certain concert performers in my future, which is an added bonus for the kind of photography I participate in.

Anyway, my short review is that I love the lens. In terms of zooms, with the 11-24 matched up with the 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 II, and the 100-400 II (with 5DIIIs and a 7DII and extenders), there is a ton of versatility to hit a huge, continuous range of focal lengths. For the first time, I feel like I am "done" in terms of zooms in my kit. 

Jason


----------



## jonathan7007 (Mar 11, 2015)

MackGuyver's post is succinct and covers the question perfectly. I appreciate that his thoughts are backed up with experience with both lenses.

I would love to have the 11-24, why not? But...

I shoot interiors and bought the Sigma (V1) while it was current, loved it for the wide end and its lack of barrel or any other distortion (and it was sharp.) I aligned it carefully up on a tripod for appropriate (but WIDE) images, usually lopping off the top 1/3. Covered me for certain rooms. But when I gritted my teeth to accept the high cost of the 17mmTSE, that unique lens helped me on every interiors shoot and improved what I could deliver to clients. 

So with corrections available for the Sigma's apparent lack of color punch I can't (at this moment) write the big check. My experience tells me that I'd still use the TSE for control. The Sigma has remained in the case for almost all shoots since the TSE was available to me.

Now if I found $3,000 on the pavement... Nah, the 100-400 v2! for fun.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

rocksubculture said:


> I do concert photography and had my first opportunity to use the 11-24mm on Saturday night.
> 
> Here's a link to the article - the images will open into a virtual lightbox if you click on any of them (two sets - one for each band):
> 
> ...



Jason, great feedback. I honestly would have expected an event person to bristle at using an f/4 lens at a show, but on the super wide end you don't have many options. 

Way to put this thing through its paces. Nice shots, good writeup and well done.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> rocksubculture said:
> 
> 
> > I do concert photography and had my first opportunity to use the 11-24mm on Saturday night.
> ...



Ditto, and thanks from me too! 

Jack


----------



## tron (Mar 12, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> It's only a matter of time that someone complains its only F/4. : : : (Stellar Lens, No want for a 14-24mm)


Hmmm, I would complain if I couldn't imagine the size, weight and cost implications. I would use 2.8 for landscape astrophotography. Right now I use mostly my 14 2.8 II fully open which is decent enough...


----------



## TeT (Mar 12, 2015)

The EF 8-15 L owners are not complaining. The number of auction style listings on eBay for the EF 8-15 L have greatly increased since the 11 24 became available. I can only assume that a fair number of those sellers are in upgrade mode.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 12, 2015)

Not really a big deal but I do wish Canon would make more of an effort with the bag it provides with such lenses. What is it US$ 3,000 and you can't add a filter so that front element needs even more protection than normal.

Like I said, it's not a deal breaker but how many of us ever use those Canon pouches?! And would you with this lens? I wouldn't.


----------



## keithcooper (Mar 12, 2015)

*In praise of the 8-15 ;-)*

I keep seeing people complain of the 'distortion' of the 8-15 and the 'distortion' of the 11-24, whereas both are natural consequences of trying to project a wide angle view onto a flat plane, and the different ways of doing it.

Both lenses exhibit rather low distortion once you ignore the projection geometry - this makes them excellent for remapping.

The 11-24 complements my 8-15 entirely - unlike Bryan I most definitely won't be using just the one ;-)


----------



## Zv (Mar 12, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Not really a big deal but I do wish Canon would make more of an effort with the bag it provides with such lenses. What is it US$ 3,000 and you can't add a filter so that front element needs even more protection than normal.
> 
> Like I said, it's not a deal breaker but how many of us ever use those Canon pouches?! And would you with this lens? I wouldn't.



I use those pouches for storing bits and bobs like an adaptor or batteries. Basically stuff that doesn't beak easily! So they're not entirely useless!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2015)

Zv said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Not really a big deal but I do wish Canon would make more of an effort with the bag it provides with such lenses. What is it US$ 3,000 and you can't add a filter so that front element needs even more protection than normal.
> ...



Agree with expatinasia -- a $3k lens should probably come with a proper padded enclosure if not a hard case. When that thing stays at home, it should be a very comfortable and protective environment.

- A


----------

