# Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 7, 2014)

```
<p><strong>*UPDATE*

</strong><em>This lens is now being reported as an f/4</em></p>
<p>We’ve been told that a Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L lens will be coming, although we weren’t told when. Pricing for the new lens will be around $2800 USD.</p>
<p>The same source says to expect price drops on select Canon L lenses around September 1, 2014.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 7, 2014)

Neat! It's not a 12-24? but 11. at the wide end, that is quite significant! Year of the lens... hurry up!


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 7, 2014)

If it is as sharp as their recent releases and has IS then I suppose I could sell a kidney...

Jim


----------



## infared (Aug 7, 2014)

"11" to 24mm??? I find that hard to believe...but it is supposed to be the "Year of the Lens"!!! 
Cool....I just sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II to finance (even steven) the new 16-35mm f/4L IS ..which is FANTASTIC. 
Looks like I just missed the rebate drop so I got top dollar for my f.2.8L zoom!!! ;D ;D ;D
...and if there is any truth to this new UWA zoom lens rumor...the price is just not a place I am willing to go for an 
UWA..although I bet the UWA if real, will REALLY finally KICK A$$!!! 
I just do not see the lens having an 11mm focal length at the low end???????
I see that the rumor is only rated at CR1
According to the rumor rating page on this site:
CR1 – The source is probably a 4 legged animal of some kind.
I did not write that!!! CR did...LOL!
...but I guess we should take this with a grain of salt (or perhaps snausage).


----------



## infared (Aug 7, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> If it is as sharp as their recent releases and has IS then I suppose I could sell a kidney...
> 
> Jim



I doubt that it will have IS..it would be as big as a large cow!!!! LOL!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 7, 2014)

infared said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > If it is as sharp as their recent releases and has IS then I suppose I could sell a kidney...
> ...


...and as expensive as a prize bull


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The same source says to expect price drops on select Canon L lenses around September 1, 2014.



The lens rebates end at the end of August, so MAP enforcement will also end, and prices will return to the typical pre-rebate levels, which were generally lower than the current after-rebate prices. So while the source may be accurate on this, it's sort of like predicting that the sun will rise in the east...


----------



## xps (Aug 7, 2014)

Sorry, but 2800$ are 2800€+ in Germany.
11-24mm 2.8L... What is this lens made of? 
I´m sorry, but Canon is getting a little bit to expensive for me.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Aug 7, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The same source says to expect price drops on select Canon L lenses around September 1, 2014.




Hmm, maybe this is only for Germany:
http://geizhals.at/de/?phist=44378&age=2000
135L already dropped about 100€ on common shops....


----------



## IsaacImage (Aug 7, 2014)

Now it's starting to be veeeeery interesting 
Reallly but really cope for at least 14-24 sharpness.

Thank you CR Admin you are giving as a great info !


----------



## bvukich (Aug 7, 2014)

Since no one else has said it... "This one goes to eleven."


----------



## thedman (Aug 7, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> If it is as sharp as their recent releases and has IS then I suppose I could sell a kidney...
> 
> Jim



Ditto that! I don't even care about the IS.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 7, 2014)

infared said:


> "11" to 24mm??? I find that hard to believe...but it is supposed to be the "Year of the Lens"!!!
> Cool....I just sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II to finance (even steven) the new 16-35mm f/4L IS ..which is FANTASTIC.
> Looks like I just missed the rebate drop so I got top dollar for my f.2.8L zoom!!! ;D ;D ;D
> ...and if there is any truth to this new UWA zoom lens rumor...the price is just not a place I am willing to go for an


I think a 11-24 would not be an UWA but a HFTIW (holy .... this is wide)

or I guess for marketing - SUWA (Super ultra wide)?


----------



## distant.star (Aug 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The lens rebates end at the end of August, so MAP enforcement will also end, and prices will return to the typical pre-rebate levels, which were generally lower than the current after-rebate prices. So while the source may be accurate on this, it's sort of like predicting that the sun will rise in the east...



Yeah, but that sunrise thing is supposed to happen TOMORROW !!!


----------



## m (Aug 7, 2014)

bvukich said:


> Since no one else has said it... "This one goes to eleven."



I can totally see that being the final sentence in the meeting room the lead to the decision to build this lens. 8) ;D

I wonder why it goes to f2.8 though.
There should be a lot in focus for these focal lengths, so is it just to get extra light?
I have the feeling this would be a good choice for landscape photographers, but what do they want with f2.8?
Wouldn't they rather have IS and f4 to enable better hand held shooting?
Or just f4 without IS to make the lens lighter?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 7, 2014)

11mm ??? On full frame, just how wide will the front element be ?

Sounds interesting, but definitely not at nearly 3k !


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 7, 2014)

IsaacImage said:


> Now it's starting to be veeeeery interesting
> Reallly but really cope for at least 14-24 sharpness.
> 
> Thank you CR Admin you are giving as a great info !



if you think about canon's latest endeavors of ultra wides - they've been quietly dispelling any rumors that they can make sharp lenses - in any focal.

ts-e 17/24, 16-35/4, 10-22, 11-22, 8-15 have all been excellent lenses, especially when factoring in the economics of each lens.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 7, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> 11mm ??? On full frame, just how wide will the front element be ?
> 
> Sounds interesting, but definitely not at nearly 3k !



the nikkor 14-24 is 2K .. extra 3mm wider? newer / better coatings? an extra 800? not that outlandish actually.


----------



## Otter (Aug 7, 2014)

Hmmm... $2800USD before tax. sell the car or pick up this lens?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 7, 2014)

And it uses standard 137mm spherical front filters as well.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 7, 2014)

11mm on FF? Uhmmmmmmmm :


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 7, 2014)

This is where I don't get why Canon would make this lens f/2.8 leading to a huge size & cost. Action shooters are much more likely to use a fisheye instead of an 11mm lens, and I'm not seeing much bokeh this wide. Also, with today's high ISO bodies, and lenses this wide, who can't handhold at 1/10-1/30s? I thought that the f/4 aperture was the smartest decision Canon made with the 16-35 f/4 IS. I love fast lenses and would kill for this proposed lens, but I just don't see the need for f/2.8 on this lens.

Then again, it's CR1, so we're probably just making fools of ourselves by discussing this ridiculous rumor.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 7, 2014)

It will be expensive, and it will probably be great. I just hope they keep the size and weight down, even if it has to be 12-24 or 14-24, or even 12-24 f/4L.

I decided not to "upgrade" my 16-35 2.8L II since at equivalent focal lengths, it is the same as the f/4L IS and yet it still goes to 2.8. But if this is a sharp 12-24 f/4L and no bigger or heavier than the 16-35, I may trade up to this. I have plenty of options covering 24-35 already, but nothing under 16.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 7, 2014)

11mm at f/2.8 and a subject distance of 4.7 feet = infinite depth of field from 2.38 feet onward, according to DOF Master. So, one could handhold at shutter speeds greater than 1 second with f/2.8 after the sun sets and get everything in focus. Sounds like a very specialized use... :


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 7, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> 11mm at f/2.8 and a subject distance of 4.7 feet = infinite depth of field from 2.38 feet onward, according to DOF Master. So, one could handhold at shutter speeds greater than 1 second with f/2.8 after the sun sets and get everything in focus. Sounds like a very specialized use... :



Holy hyperfocal, Batman!



bvukich said:


> Since no one else has said it... "This one goes to eleven."



You have won the day. Excellent reference.


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Aug 7, 2014)

This would be my dream lens. I was saying earlier in the week how much I would love a 12mm F/2.8 but 11!?!

I do a lot of barmy artsy stuff at 12 - the 14 F/2.8L II just doesn't cut it - and I would love that extra mm.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/organize/?start_tab=one_set72157646248821401

And I actually would pay the (no-doubt) £2,800 that it will cost. It's a lot of cash but ELEVEN?!?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 7, 2014)

Good God! 2800.00? Must have added more Gold and Fluorite. It's probably overpriced even at 1400.00


----------



## seamonster (Aug 7, 2014)

ugh.

f/4 and half the price please


----------



## JorritJ (Aug 7, 2014)

Wonder how well it will perform for astro... sounds delicious!

EDIT: Also, if we UTFS, previous rumors were about an 11-24 f/4, there's even been a patent filed for that ... I wonder which one we'll really get.


----------



## Vern (Aug 7, 2014)

worth waiting for

Was debating the new 16-35 IS 4 to replace the 16-35 2.8II, but only for the IQ - I don't need the IS on an UWA. Now, I can think about having 11-70 mm covered with the same IQ as the 24-70 2.8 II. If my IQ wish is true, I will happily pay the price. Possible in 2015?


----------



## Etienne (Aug 7, 2014)

Vern said:


> worth waiting for
> 
> Was debating the new 16-35 IS 4 to replace the 16-35 2.8II, but only for the IQ - I don't need the IS on an UWA. Now, I can think about having 11-70 mm covered with the same IQ as the 24-70 2.8 II. If my IQ wish is true, I will happily pay the price. Possible in 2015?



I am in the same boat. There's no real IQ improvement in the 16-35 f/4L IS. They are the same at equivalent apertures. The fact that they are the same weight and size, and that the 16-35 f/2.8L II goes to 2.8 convinced me to skip the f/4, but an 11/12/14 - 24 is more tempting. I realllly hope they go with f/4 on this to keep the weight down, because f/2.8 is bound to be big and heavy, not to mention much more expensive.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> This is where I don't get why Canon would make this lens f/2.8 leading to a huge size & cost. Action shooters are much more likely to use a fisheye instead of an 11mm lens, and I'm not seeing much bokeh this wide. Also, with today's high ISO bodies, and lenses this wide, who can't handhold at 1/10-1/30s? I thought that the f/4 aperture was the smartest decision Canon made with the 16-35 f/4 IS. I love fast lenses and would kill for this proposed lens, but I just don't see the need for f/2.8 on this lens.
> 
> Then again, it's CR1, so we're probably just making fools of ourselves by discussing this ridiculous rumor.



Perhaps it was easier to get around Nikon's patents by going to 11 rather than 12 or 14 at the wide end...


----------



## LostBoyNZ (Aug 7, 2014)

Price drops across lenses seems likely. Here in New Zealand it's already happened, most lenses are about $100 - $300 cheaper than they used to be, or more for the really big lenses.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> This is where I don't get why Canon would make this lens f/2.8 leading to a huge size & cost. Action shooters are much more likely to use a fisheye instead of an 11mm lens, and I'm not seeing much bokeh this wide. Also, with today's high ISO bodies, and lenses this wide, who can't handhold at 1/10-1/30s? I thought that the f/4 aperture was the smartest decision Canon made with the 16-35 f/4 IS. I love fast lenses and would kill for this proposed lens, but I just don't see the need for f/2.8 on this lens.
> 
> Then again, it's CR1, so we're probably just making fools of ourselves by discussing this ridiculous rumor.


Agreed - however, where's all the people that were crying that the 16-35 came out as a 4.0?

Two weeks or less ago you'd think canon killed their puppy for not coming out with a fast UWA to complete against the 14-24/2.8 nikon now everyone's complaining that it's a) a crap ton wider b) not priced less than the nikkor (like really people?!) c) not 4.0.

this will be very hard to get the corners in critical focus from infinity - can't really to around F/4.0 with critical precision of 2Lp's versus a standard calculator which uses .030mm as it's CoC.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Aug 7, 2014)

NOW we're talkin"!!!


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 7, 2014)

OK now


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 7, 2014)

bvukich said:


> Since no one else has said it... "This one goes to eleven."



that is a +1 comment if ever there has been one ;D


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 7, 2014)

And the REALLY bad news is that it will probably come bundled only with the new 7D replacement for preorders. So we are looking at an initial kit purchase of close to 7000.00!!!


----------



## waving_odd (Aug 7, 2014)

Don't you guys think it's an approach that Canon usually gets its f/2.8 without IS (e.g 16-25/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 ) out the door first? That can showcase what they can achieve.

Then sometime later they release their f/4 IS variants (e.g. 16-35/4 IS, 24-70/4 IS, 70-200/4 IS) to suit different needs.

Also, a fast (f/2.8 or _even faster_) UWA is important to night sky photography at least, e.g. Milky Way shots.


----------



## Vern (Aug 7, 2014)

[/quote]I am in the same boat. There's no real IQ improvement in the 16-35 f/4L IS. They are the same at equivalent apertures. The fact that they are the same weight and size, and that the 16-35 f/2.8L II goes to 2.8 convinced me to skip the f/4, but an 11/12/14 - 24 is more tempting. I realllly hope they go with f/4 on this to keep the weight down, because f/2.8 is bound to be big and heavy, not to mention much more expensive.
[/quote]

I agree about the IQ between the f4 and 2.8II - contrast looks marginally better at f4 w the former, but not really worth replacing a lens over and at f8 where I shoot landscape from a tripod, its definitely not worth a switch (pending further data).

11-24 w or w/o f 2.8 is intriguing. I'd go with the best IQ formula and only prefer 2.8 if it did not degrade the IQ at f4 and above. Size, weight + cost less important for the applications I envisage.


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 7, 2014)

DUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.................................

This is totally up to eleven!!! 

I'm pretty sure this might happen, I hope!!!


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 7, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> And the REALLY bad news is that it will probably come bundled only with the new 7D replacement for preorders. So we are looking at an initial kit purchase of close to 7000.00!!!


East Wind, your an optimist  The more likely bad news is that it will first appear when bundled with the 1DXII for $17,000 when they both appear 7 years from now.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 7, 2014)

Eleven milimetres? Rectilinear? F/2.8? What will be the shape of the front element? Some kind of blackhole device to bend the lightrays? 

Since I love my 16-35/4L IS with the capability of applying LEE filters, this lens will be interesting to watch, but nothing I'd wished for. Still, interesting news.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 7, 2014)

Sounds fun... yes, I'll have one please ;-)

If so, I'd be curious as to how it compares with the 14mm 2.8L II (apart from killing it's 2nd hand value).

11mm is getting close to what I can get with s side to side stitch of the TS-E17.

Just as well, I never use filters on wide lenses...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Aug 7, 2014)

I too am skeptical about a zoom as wide as 11mm. I hope they don't sacrifice too much IQ for it. 

My ideal UWA is a 14-30mm f/2.8. I'd gladly give up 5mm on the long end for 2mm on the wide in regards to the current 16-35mm. And despite the number of people here who don't think f/2.8 is necessary, it comes in very hand for wedding receptions and night photography.


----------



## ramonjsantiago (Aug 7, 2014)

If this is true, count me in, I'm buying one.


----------



## dufflover (Aug 7, 2014)

Personally I'm not convinced. 11mm at f/2.8 covering the 35mm-format with a range to 24mm? I doubt it.


----------



## tron (Aug 7, 2014)

I was too excited when I read it. This year I have done some landscape astrophotography. 

Then I thought:

I have used mostly my 14mm 2.8L II. In very few cases I have used the TS-E 17 (in some cases the corrected verticals were worth the light loss).

This 11-24 will have to be close to perfect to make me even think of it.

The reason is that half of my 14mm 2.8 II shots would benefit from a (future?) 16-35mm 2.8L III (with no coma).

Its hood with combination of a flat front element would protect from flare from non-avoidable car lights.

The 11-24 wouldn't be protected just like my 14. Its only benefit would be a slight increase in expose time (at 11mm) say from 25-30 sec to 35-40 sec (and hopefully less coma).


----------



## JOJOBASS (Aug 8, 2014)

$2800? Mother of god.....


----------



## vulie504 (Aug 8, 2014)

I love the 16-35 focal length , but I need the f2.8. So for me I wouldn't mind it if canon released a 16-35 2.8 iii. 
Do you guys think that with the release if the 16-35 f4 is means that my dream won't come true?


----------



## tyger11 (Aug 8, 2014)

A 14-28 f/2.8 IS with aperture ring would be a godsend for cine purposes. Just sayin'. Pop that on a Speedbooster onto a BMPCC and you've got 21-50mm equivalence with a ridiculous max aperture with IS. Totally worth $2,800.


----------



## tron (Aug 8, 2014)

vulie504 said:


> I love the 16-35 focal length , but I need the f2.8. So for me I wouldn't mind it if canon released a 16-35 2.8 iii.
> Do you guys think that with the release if the 16-35 f4 is means that my dream won't come true?


As I said, I'd love a 16-35 2.8 iii too. But maybe Canon want to do something else to show innovation and at the same time compete with Nikon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 8, 2014)

I am wondering if we will start to see some of their new diffraction lens technology. The price would certainly cover one of the new plastic radial particle dispersion lens elements bonded to a glass lens element.

In any event, 16mm is pretty wide for me, even 24mm seems pretty wide. I still have my 15mm FE and a 17mm prime, but they get almost no use.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 8, 2014)

I'm also hoping for f/2.8. Don't care about IS. Want to be able to shoot events and creative portraits in lowest possible light. If I want my camera to be still I use a tripod. When the subject is moving, IS doesn't come into play.

The price and the likelihood of the bulbous front element that can't be protected with a UV filter would probably keep it out of my bag.


----------



## Kethean (Aug 8, 2014)

11mm full frame must be substantial. I've played with Sigma's 12-24 FF lens and 12 is really really wide...like watch for your feet wide (112 degree angle of view). I can't imagine something wider, faster, and theoretically super sharp. That price tag really isn't super terrible when you think the Sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6 is $950 new and the Nikon 14-24 is $2k. 3mm on the short end is a LOT at this focal length (104 vs 117 degrees).


----------



## RGF (Aug 8, 2014)

Here are some angle of views

First column is 35mm focal length then the angle of view (not half angle, full angle) for the vertical, hortizonal and diagonal dimensions.

Equations are straightforward. Perhaps I should make an iPhone app.

35mm V	35mm H	35 MM D
11 95 117 126
14 81 104 114
16 74 97 107
24 53 74 84
35 38 54 63


----------



## that1guyy (Aug 8, 2014)

Interesting Canon is making such a wide full frame lens. I have my eye on the Sigma 12-24 3.5-5.6 but this is even wider plus an f2.8. However it is three times the price of that lens so it's not for me.


----------



## Dick (Aug 8, 2014)

Would really want a lens like this, but yeah... 3k just isn't happening. 8-15L and PP shall keep on doing it for me.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Aug 8, 2014)

More than 2x zoom in this ultra-ultra-wide angle area, and on top of that f/2.8??? I'm thinking this is gonna be an incredible big, heavy an expensive lens if real.

But most of all I'm thinking this is an untrustworthy rumor (and canonrumors also only ranks it CR1). Why make the zoom-range so long for such an extreme lens, making it so much harder to construct?...


----------



## e17paul (Aug 8, 2014)

What would the angle of view be? Keeping tripod feet or your own feet out of frame could be a practical limitation, unless cropping to panorama format.


----------



## climber (Aug 8, 2014)

RGF said:


> Here are some angle of views
> 
> First column is 35mm focal length then the angle of view (not half angle, full angle) for the vertical, hortizonal and diagonal dimensions.
> 
> ...





e17paul said:


> What would the angle of view be? Keeping tripod feet or your own feet out of frame could be a practical limitation, unless cropping to panorama format.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 8, 2014)

I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.


----------



## e17paul (Aug 8, 2014)

climber said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some angle of views
> ...



Thanks. An app would be a great idea. 

There is a patent for an 11-24 reported in January. Has the source just assumed f/2.8?


----------



## vscd (Aug 8, 2014)

11-24 f2.8 would be a nice lense. Just think about the range you could cover with *three *lenses (all @f2.8):

11-24...24-70...70-200 Wohooo...!

On my behalf, I don't need too much zoomlenses anymore. I always caught myself to use the shortest or longest end on those lenses. So I travel with something like the 14,35 and 85 primes. But I'm not living from my gear... so I can miss a shot without problems


----------



## Jason (Aug 8, 2014)

Only one person even mentioned the updated 7D related to this lens. For crop sensor cameras, the 10-22 lens is the only really WIDE ZOOM available from Canon. While a Full Frame camera is a better choice for wide angle photography, I'd rather have the sports/wildlife capacity. For someone moving toward Pro gear one lens at a time, this 11-24 at f.2.8L is a dream come true (price not withstanding) to pair with the 7DMKII! First I need that damn camera though! I'd complain if I actually had the money to buy it now! LOL


----------



## infared (Aug 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.



I have to agree...It is so much sharper than my 16-35mm f/2.8L II.
I shoot a lot of WA and the new 16-35 f/4L IS is just so sharp right to the edges and just so much more lens for my style of shooting with the IS. The price (relative to some of the more ridiculous pricing) for what you get is actually competitive. 

Also, let's remember ...this rumored 11-24mm is only CR-1!


----------



## candyman (Aug 8, 2014)

Though I thought in the past that 14-24 could serve me well, I am happy with my 16-35 f/4 IS. For me 16mm is wide enough and with fit for my 77m CPL and ND filters


----------



## e17paul (Aug 8, 2014)

The Sigma 12-24 weighs 600g, the faster Nikon 14-24mm weighs 1000kg. An 11-24/2.8 would weigh more, and have an even more bulbous front element. Apart from live action concert shooters, does everyone want that added to the weight of the bag?

The lens patent we have previously seen makes more sense:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Why would Canon want to do that when they can design and deliver a cine lens that covers that focal length but costs ten times as much? R&D costs will be the same ... different courses require different horses.


there's alot more to a true cini lens than just an aperture ring


----------



## SPL (Aug 8, 2014)

candyman said:


> Though I thought in the past that 14-24 could serve me well, I am happy with my 16-35 f/4 IS. For me 16mm is wide enough and with fit for my 77m CPL and ND filters


+1! Just ordered one to replace my 17-40L...cant wait!


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Aug 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.



That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?


----------



## Etienne (Aug 8, 2014)

This is going to be a long wait :-\


----------



## NancyP (Aug 8, 2014)

Well, this is very intriguing, but I will believe it when I see it. That would have to be VERY heavy, and nowadays I am reminded of my general flabbiness compared with my youth - there's a big benefit to keeping total camera kit weight under 12 to 15 pounds if you are hiking long distances with elevations or in hot weather or in "dry" country, because - remember - 1 liter/quart of water weighs 1 kilo/2.2 pounds, and one may need to carry two or sometimes five or more (desert conditions) liters of water in addition to the camera kit, just for an all-day hike.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 8, 2014)

tianxiaozhang said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.
> ...


I have a video on my youtube comparing them side by side. You'll be surprised the difference.


----------



## poias (Aug 8, 2014)

Canon continues to amaze us! From their 75+ mpx dslr, to this 11mm wide FF lens, to medium format worthy IQ.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 8, 2014)

There was a patent for a Canon EF 11-24mm f/4.

On the one hand, I can see Canon aiming a stop faster to compete with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. On the other hand, with the complaints about the Nikon's and the TS-E 17mm's bulbous front elements and need for special filters, I can see Canon giving up an f-stop to get a flat front element, if possible.

Personally, I'll happy to forgo f/2.8 (and IS) and save on money, weight, and size.


----------



## LOALTD (Aug 8, 2014)

Am I the only thinking: "there is no way this can possibly be true!"?

Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime? And we're talking about a zoom? At f/2.8?

Have seen how BIG the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is?

I actually think $2800 would be a steal for something so absurdly wide and fast.

I agree with most on here in that I do not see the point of f/2.8 on something this wide. I guess you could argue astro-landscape photography but, at 11mm, even f/4 would be very manageable on modern full-frame image sensors.

I hope I'm completely wrong, but this lens just seems physically impossible to make.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 8, 2014)

LOALTD said:


> Am I the only thinking: "there is no way this can possibly be true!"?
> 
> Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime? And we're talking about a zoom? At f/2.8?
> 
> ...



I think 12-24 f/4 would be a great compromise to keep weight and cost down.


----------



## infared (Aug 8, 2014)

LOALTD said:


> Am I the only thinking: "there is no way this can possibly be true!"?
> 
> Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime? And we're talking about a zoom? At f/2.8?
> 
> ...



Just remember:
According to the rumor rating page on this site:
CR1=The source is probably a 4 legged animal of some kind.
I did not write that!!! CR did...LOL!


----------



## lexptr (Aug 8, 2014)

Well EF 11-24 f/2.8L – it is kinda extreme numbers. So extreme, that I think it is 99.9% inaccurate info.
Numbers a can believe:
1) EF 14-24 f/2.8L – a competitor for Nikon lens.
2) EF 11-24 f/4L – something totally new.
3) EF-S 11-24 f/2.8 – fast lens for APS-C (non L, of course).
If previously posted patent info (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/) is correct – the second variant is the most feasible.

Though, it is still possible that 11-24 f/2.8 are the correct numbers. Canon has some extraordinary lenses in its portfolio (e.g. 1200mm f/5.6 or 50mm f/1.0). But all are abandoned. Their price was as extreme as their specs are. And I believe the users niche was very narrow. So I don't think canon will make another one. It's just not profitably.

And if it is EF 11-24 f/4L, how popular it will be? (just interesting) I use Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on APS-C for WA (17,6-25,6mm FF equivalent) and I very rarely wish to be able to go lower than 11mm (although it happened several times) but I often wish to have more on the long end. So, for my use, the 16-35mm range on FF gonna be almost perfect. "My use" is all-around photographing during travels (landscapes, towns, etc) and some indoor usage. What scenarios can be where non-fisheye 11mm on FF would be necessary? Only asto-photo?


----------



## ewg963 (Aug 8, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I too am skeptical about a zoom as wide as 11mm. I hope they don't sacrifice too much IQ for it.
> 
> My ideal UWA is a 14-30mm f/2.8. I'd gladly give up 5mm on the long end for 2mm on the wide in regards to the current 16-35mm. And despite the number of people here who don't think f/2.8 is necessary, it comes in very hand for wedding receptions and night photography.


+10000000000000000


----------



## neech7 (Aug 8, 2014)

infared said:


> I doubt that it will have IS..it would be as big as a large cow!!!! LOL!



So how much bigger are the IS versions of the 70-200s over their non-IS counterparts? This idea that adding IS to a lens is going to make it significantly bigger is just pure myth, like the Canon EOS 3D.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 9, 2014)

neech7 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that it will have IS..it would be as big as a large cow!!!! LOL!
> ...



there's only so much room - this will already float in at around 16 elements or more. adding IS, adds to that, as well there has to be room for those elements in the optical / light path and lens body, not to mention the increased complexity for the optics to main performance.


----------



## guestimate (Aug 9, 2014)

I'm personally skeptical of a 11-24 full frame lens ( especially f2.8, even more so if it's only $2800) because of the Nikon 13mm f5.6.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> tianxiaozhang said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Really? The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be exaggerating just a tad.


----------



## dufflover (Aug 9, 2014)

If the rumour were at f/4 it would far more believable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> there's only so much room - this will already float in at around 16 elements or more. adding IS, adds to that, as well there has to be room for those elements in the optical / light path and lens body, not to mention the increased complexity for the optics to main performance.



Looking at the designs for the Nikon 14-24/2.8, Canon 16-35/2.8, and the Sigma 12-24mm lenses, there does seem to be a bit of open space, beyond what's required for the zoom mechanism. Whether it's feasible from an optical standpoint, and how representative those designs (which are either longer or slower) would be of a hypothetical 11-24mm lens, are unknown.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 9, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > tianxiaozhang said:
> ...




lol no he's not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0


----------



## infared (Aug 9, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



+1


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 9, 2014)

f2.8, really??????

Take Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 (which weighs around 1.2kg) as a comparison. Now factor in a that 11mm is wider, f2.8 is two stops faster and the that it's a supposed to zoom... and the weight for this rumored lens would probably be around 10kg, if not more. 

The only way they could reduce weight would be by compromising on build quality and optical performance. What would be the point of that?


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 9, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> f2.8, really??????
> 
> Take Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 (which weighs around 1.2kg) as a comparison. Now factor in a lens that's 11mm is wider, f2.8 is stops faster and the fact that it's a zoom... and the weight for this rumored lens would probably be around 10kg, if not more.
> 
> The only way they could reduce weight would be by compromising on build quality and optical performance. What would be the point of that?



The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is 1mm longer and 200g lighter. Did Nikon compromise on the build quality & optical performance of that lens?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 9, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > f2.8, really??????
> ...



Yes, it has very high distortion.


----------



## surapon (Aug 9, 2014)

Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, Rokinon ( Samyang) 14 mm. F/ 2.8, Canon EF 17-40 mm L, and Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II, Plus Tamron 11-17 mm. too. And all of them are Great for Landscape/ Building photography too.
Yes, I will use $ 2800 Us Dollars to tour/ Trip to Eastern Europe = Better for me.
Well, That Just my Idea, Because of I do not need the Super/ Super sharp lens for 90% of My Photos , use in FaceBook, just need 18" wide Photos ( MAX. ) any ways.
Have a great Week end.
Surapon

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/samyang14.html

http://petapixel.com/2014/06/04/review-rokinon-12mm-f2-0-great-option-astrophotogs-budget/


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 9, 2014)

surapon said:


> Dear Friends.
> Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>



1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 9, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



A reasonable compromise in an age when distortion can be fixed in post processing.


----------



## gecko (Aug 9, 2014)

Think I'll wait for the EF 11-24 II


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 9, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...


A reasonable compromise for some people, but Me, I'm completely unreasonable


----------



## SoullessPolack (Aug 9, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



What landscapes do you see that are shot at f/4.0? The f/8.0 review is much more applicable, and an f/11.0 or f/16.0 would be even better comparison of the two.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 9, 2014)

I'm a filmmaker and video guy so will buy this lens in a heartbeat and sell my 16-35L F4 IS if it's good enough. The wide angle and 2.8 will be indispensable for crop frame (Super 35mm) movie shooting.


----------



## orionz06 (Aug 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> This is where I don't get why Canon would make this lens f/2.8 leading to a huge size & cost. Action shooters are much more likely to use a fisheye instead of an 11mm lens, and I'm not seeing much bokeh this wide. Also, with today's high ISO bodies, and lenses this wide, who can't handhold at 1/10-1/30s? I thought that the f/4 aperture was the smartest decision Canon made with the 16-35 f/4 IS. I love fast lenses and would kill for this proposed lens, but I just don't see the need for f/2.8 on this lens.
> 
> Then again, it's CR1, so we're probably just making fools of ourselves by discussing this ridiculous rumor.



I think it's easier to sell a lens that covers all possibilities first. An f/2.8 still works at f/4 and if the lens is good folks will buy it. I think it's the safer bet compared to an f/4, even at half the price.


----------



## candyman (Aug 9, 2014)

gecko said:


> Think I'll wait for the EF 11-24 II


 ;D


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 9, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


I apologize - I could have worded that better.

Based on what I've read, the 13mm f/5.6 was made to order, while the 14-24mm f/2.8 is mass produced. My bet is Canon would choose to cater to the larger, and therefore more profitable, market of people who are willing to make a compromise and post process, rather than the former.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 10, 2014)

I hope this lens isn't rumour/vapour ware...but if it's true and lets face it a 14-24mm f2.8 isn't that much wider than current 16-35mm f2.8 and sacrifices the long end, a very useful 35mm...then it really needs to offer something more. I was hoping for a 12-24mm, but I'd gladly take an 11mm at the wide end! 
I used to have a Sigma 12-24mm f5.6 (ok read f11-f16 due to vignetting) but the angle of view on a full frame camera was amazing and a lot of fun.
I can't wait...but happy to as long as Canon get this lens optically right!


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 10, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...


All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.

Realistically, the 16-35mm is also more consistent with the copys produced and the worst 16-35mm is probably better than the best 17-40L.


----------



## surapon (Aug 10, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Friends.
> ...



Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.
Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras = 20D, 1DS, 5D MK II, 7D, EOS-M Plus 17 Canon EF And EF-L lenses, Plus 6 Non Canon Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Rokinon Lenses too,), From 8 mm. to 600 mm..
Yes, My Best Canon Prime Lenses = EF 85 mm F/ 1,2 L MK II For Portrait Photography , Canon TS-E 24 Mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II for Landscape, Canon EF 600 mm. L . for Birds & Moon photos, And Canon EF 100 mm , 100 mm L IS, 180 mm L MACRO and Canon MP-E 65 mm 1-5X for my love Macro photography..
Have a Great week End.
Surapon


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 10, 2014)

surapon said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...



You're welcome, dear buddy.



surapon said:


> Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras



Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]


----------



## Juck (Aug 10, 2014)

Absolute twaddle. This lens does not and will never, exist.

Does this clownshoes of a site ever actually get anything right? (hint: no)


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 10, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



quite a bit actually. if you are looking at f/11 and f/16 then use any crappy lens, because your diffraction will smear enough that you don't care anymore.

if you can't get enough Dof at around f/4 to f/6.3 when rolling with a 16mm then you're doing something wrong.

even on a 6D with a focus distance of 20 feet, you have your depth of focus being from 11 feet to infinity. wide open. and this is with the CoC being 2 lp versus the much easier .030mm that most people use.

so umm yeah.. what were you saying again?


----------



## surapon (Aug 10, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr. Antono Refa.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is " there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## rs (Aug 10, 2014)

surapon said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...



Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it _if lined up perfectly_.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!)


----------



## surapon (Aug 10, 2014)

rs said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. rs
Now, To day I learn some thing new form dear friend like You.
No, I never use super wide angle to shoot the group shots of my dear friends---because some of them will hate me----Ha, Ha, ha, To see his/ her face as round as the full moon, and 2 time bigger than their friend at the center of the photo.
Thanks again .
Surapon


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Aug 10, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



If there's nothing in your frame closer than 11 feet that you want in focus @ 16mm, I worry about your landscape composition. Seems you might be the one doing something wrong. 

And yes, Dilbert was exaggerating. At smaller apertures (f/9, f/11, f/13) both the 17-40mm and new 16-35mm take pretty damn good pictures. Yes, those of the latter have slightly sharper corners and if you're a professional, I'd say that's a needed improvement. But if not, stop pixel peeping and go shoot.


----------



## sanj (Aug 10, 2014)

I would be happier with f4 IS.


----------



## vscd (Aug 11, 2014)

> All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.



Diffraction depends on your sensorsize, too. Not your lens, only.

Greetings


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 13, 2014)

vscd said:


> > All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you mean pixel size?


----------



## vscd (Aug 16, 2014)

Yepp. I mean pixelsize. For example a 5DC has diffractions >f13...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 18, 2014)

rs said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Yes you are correct, a fully rectilinear corrected lens is one where straight lines stay straight in the frame. Two good examples of this are the 14L and Sigma 12-24 HSM (mkI). Circles become more egg shaped as the approach the corners of the frame. All wide lenses show distortion somewhere, either lines or circles. 

Most rectilinear wide lenses are corrected to some degree but not fully. This is to allow a compromise and versatility. A fully corrected lens distorts circles (faces) so a design compromises is employed to keep straight lines fairly straight (a slight curve is usually not too noticeable and quite acceptable) but keeps the circles fairly circular (unless you shoot up close). The 16-35IIL is a great example of this. Most lens designers assume the user will correct in Lightroom / Photoshop if they need a more extreme correction. I find the look I get out of the 16-35IIL looks quite natural and is kind on the eye. A 14L, TS-e 17L or Siggi 12-24 tend to look very angular and isn't how the human eye sees the scene. 

Where as fish-eye lenses are the complete opposite. Circles stay circular but straight lines curve as they approach the edges of the frame.

This is why I have more than one wide lens in my collection and why I am REALLY looking forwards to this new lens from Canon. It could be a game changer.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 14, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...


Well explained.


----------

