# More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 10, 2014)

```
<p>We’ve received a couple of more confirmations from people that the EF 11-24 f/4L we <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-ef-11-24-f2-8l-coming-cr1/" target="_blank">first reported back in August</a> is in fact legit. The speculation on pricing for the EF 11-24 f/4L seems to be consistent across the board at around $3000 USD.</p>
<div id="attachment_17380" style="width: 510px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/canon1124.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-17380" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/canon1124.jpg" alt="EF 11-24 f/4L" width="500" height="440" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">EF 11-24 f/4L</p></div>
<p>The following information is [CR1]. A separate person has told us that the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II was supposed to be announced at Photokina but was delayed, no reason for the delay was given. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/canon-confirms-replacement-of-100-400-coming-more-do-ef-m-lenses/" target="_blank">Canon themselves have come out and said that a replacement is coming</a>, of course they didn’t specify when. We’re told to expect an announcement in November, with availability coming in December of this year. We’re not holding our breath on this one, as the 100-400 replacement has haunted us for quite some time now.</p>
<p>More to come</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## procentje20 (Oct 10, 2014)

Auch, that is a steep price. I allready thought my 8-15mm was expensive.


----------



## tayassu (Oct 10, 2014)

Two very nice lenses, on APS-C as well as on FF!  
It's nice to see new developments AND successors to old models! Also, it is maybe good not to announcement them at Photokina, as the 7DII got all the attention...
I could imagine an announcement of one (or two) high MP models together with these two, although the 100-400 maybe would have been better together with the 7DII. The 11-24 fits perfectly for a high MP body!


----------



## zim (Oct 10, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>We’ve received a couple of more confirmations from people that the EF 11-24 f/4L we <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-ef-11-24-f2-8l-coming-cr1/" target="_blank">first reported back in August</a> is in fact legit.



sweet, out my league 16-35 for me but should this not be a CR3 then?


----------



## baervan (Oct 10, 2014)

Sweet, my UWA hopes are on Tamron then!


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The pricing of this lens is out of alignment with it being an f/4. Several factors could contribute to this:
> 
> 1) difficult to manufacture in quantity
> 2) Canon perceives that there is a large, pent up, demand for this lens given how desirable it is to use the Nikon 12-24 plus adapter and thus lots of people willing to pay handsomely
> ...



If it has similar wide open performance to the 16-35 f/4 IS, then it will sell. The Sigma 12-24 comes closest -- it costs close to 1k and has mushy corners. 11mm is much wider than 14, so even though it is f/4, it might still be as large as Nikon's 14-24, which is about 2k now, years after its introduction. I'll wait for the reviews and also see where the price goes. The 16-35 f/4 IS is so good, but there is something special about 11mm...


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 10, 2014)

3000$ is this a joke?

For f4?


----------



## tomscott (Oct 10, 2014)

Why would they make two F4s? 

Still need for a 2.8 for the event shooters. I still think the current F28 is pretty good tho...


----------



## tiger82 (Oct 10, 2014)

$3000?!?!?!?!? That's triple what overpriced Nikon charges for its popular 12-24 f/4!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 10, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> $3000?!?!?!?!? That's triple what overpriced Nikon charges for its popular 12-24 f/4!!!!!!!!!!



Do you really expect a full frame lens' price to be similar to that of a crop lens with similar focal lengths and max aperture?


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 10, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> $3000?!?!?!?!? That's triple what overpriced Nikon charges for its popular 12-24 f/4!!!!!!!!!!



Isn't the 12-24 f/4 for crop only?! This is for FF.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The pricing of this lens is out of alignment with it being an f/4. Several factors could contribute to this:
> 
> 1) difficult to manufacture in quantity
> 2) Canon perceives that there is a large, pent up, demand for this lens given how desirable it is to use the Nikon 12-24 plus adapter and thus lots of people willing to pay handsomely
> ...


Did you mean Nikon 14-24 f/2.8?

I imagine it would be something like the TS-E 17mm f/4 but maybe little sharper, with zoom optics and with USM autofocus. If this 11-24mm is for real, it would be in a class of its own; a lonely class of one... e.g. Advanced Ultra-Wide-Angle-Zoom, Aberration-Corrected, Maximal Detail Photography 101


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 10, 2014)

I'll wait for the 16-35 f/2.8 III.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 10, 2014)

Does this rumor still apply or is it semi-officially DOA?

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/canon-working-on-faster-f2-8-ultra-wide-zoom-cr2/


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 10, 2014)

High MP body and excellent UWA should go well together for landscape shooters.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The pricing of this lens is out of alignment with it being an f/4. Several factors could contribute to this:
> 
> 1) difficult to manufacture in quantity
> 2) Canon perceives that there is a large, pent up, demand for this lens given how desirable it is to use the Nikon 12-24 plus adapter and thus lots of people willing to pay handsomely
> ...



And possibly taking a premium on the widest rectilinear lens on the market, except possibly the rumored Nikon 10mm prime. I'm sure Canon PR would love to point out the company makes the widest rectilinear & fisheye zoom lenses on the market.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 10, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The speculation on pricing for the EF 11-24 f/4L seems to be consistent across the board at around $3000 USD.


Wow! I would have expected this price if it was f2.8. 
For f4 at this price I would expect absolutely stellar optical performance.

Of course not my lens, not my budget.

This price gives me no good feeling about the to be expected price of the 100-400L II.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:

The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
The 17 TS-E has a coverage of 11mm if you do a horizontal stitch, the projection distortion from an 11mm to rectilinear on ff is pretty bad, virtually unusable most of the time. 

Whilst I don't see 14mm as being a hard limit for ff rectilinear lenses, 11mm is beyond extreme, at these focal lengths a couple of mm makes a huge difference. The 16-35 f4 IS has confirmed Canon can make fine ultra wide zooms, but where is the market for an 11-24 f4 next to that 16-35 f4 IS? If it was f2.8 I'd probably buy it, but my most used lens is the 17 TS-E anyway so it would be a nice compliment to that, at f4 I can stitch the 17 to get 11 on the very rare occasions I need the fov. The 16-35 f4 IS appeals, but it has limited utility for me over the 17 TS-E.

I can see the market for an f2.8 ultra wide zoom to compliment the 16-35 f4 IS, and the kudos of going wider than the 14-24, I am sure Canon would like the title of widest ff rectilinear lens back too, but the Sigma 12-24 is an f4 so even a 12-24 f2.8 would give Canon the fastest widest ever (so far)........


----------



## Pag (Oct 10, 2014)

f/4 makes sense for an UWA. You can't use depth of field to separate subjects at that focal length and you can hand-hold pretty long exposures at 11mm.


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 10, 2014)

THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS???


----------



## NancyP (Oct 10, 2014)

Er - wow! I have to say that at that price, we are talking Zeiss 15mm f/2.8, or TS-E 17mm f/4 plus a spare $750.00. Now that there are filter adapters available for the TS-E 17mm, it would be a tough choice between a TS-E 17 and the proposed lens for purposes of landscape shooting, where the tilt comes in handy. (In theory - I have seen examples of TS used on landscapes, but don't have a TS lens myself).

I suspect that for most people the Sigma 12-24 is good enough, but for a professional needing top IQ, the 11-24 might be a way to differentiate himself or herself from the crowd. This might be a rental lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

Pag said:


> f/4 makes sense for an UWA. You can't use depth of field to separate subjects at that focal length and you can hand-hold pretty long exposures at 11mm.



But what happens when you are at 24mm and working a fairly standard environmental portrait and want maximum subject separation? Or when you are in a Siberian reindeer herders chum at 20,000iso and need the f2.8?

F4 doesn't make sense when you just brought out an f4 16-35 with IS and your ultra wide/wide choice doesn't have a single AF lens worth a damn below f4 all the way to 24mm.


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 10, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I'll wait for the 16-35 f/2.8 III.



Evidently it may cost $6,000.00 because it is twice as bright.


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 10, 2014)

I'm looking for Sigma to outbid that shit... with a nice price. 

Whats wrong with Canon?!


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Pag said:
> 
> 
> > f/4 makes sense for an UWA. You can't use depth of field to separate subjects at that focal length and you can hand-hold pretty long exposures at 11mm.
> ...



A second body with the 24/1.4L perhaps?


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:
> 
> The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
> The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
> ...



I would expect a 11-24 f/4 to have much better image quality in the corners compared to a fully shifted TS-E 17. I love the TS-E 17 but when shifted IQ takes quite a hit in the corners...


----------



## IsaacImage (Oct 10, 2014)

The F4 bothering me much more than the price point.
Bring it 2.8 Canon


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Oct 10, 2014)

Dear Canon, please read these forums from people who know what they want in a lens. Suggested retail price is out of sync with other lenses of similar purpose, especially at F4. It looks impressive and we expect will perform and render as well as the new 24-70 f2.8L II and 16-35 f4.0L II.

Thank you too for printing the lens focal length on the lens hood too! This is big help so we don't have to learn another lens alphabet.

Thank you,
Markoe from USA


----------



## xps (Oct 10, 2014)

3000€ is a little bit too much for an F4 lens, even if it is very sharp.
Sorry, but this price policy brings me away from Canon.
The Plus in IQ is not worth the high price. It will be a lens for enthusiasts and Canon fanboys.
It is cheaper to buy an other brand body and buy an windeangle prime. And stay with Canon in wildlife photography....
This is my opinion


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 10, 2014)

honestly, imo, if the IQ is matching the latest releases, this is a dream come true! I dont know how often i've really used f/2.8 with my 16-35 unless if it was for indoor architecture shots to shorten exposure time (where you would want to use a tripod anyway if you want to be serious about it). I am not stopping down action.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

romanr74 said:


> I would expect a 11-24 f/4 to have much better image quality in the corners compared to a fully shifted TS-E 17. I love the TS-E 17 but when shifted IQ takes quite a hit in the corners...



If it didn't it would be a pretty pathetic lens, but even if it is that doesn't get around the effects of projection distortion, can you imagine even more fov than the Sigma 12-24? For small bathrooms it would be a fantastic lens, and the f4 wouldn't matter, but I just don't see the utility of another f4 ultra wide zoom.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

Daniel Flather said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Pag said:
> ...



That would be a third body for most serious shooters in that field, the 70-200 f2.8 IS on one, the 16-35 or new 11-35 f4 zoom on another plus a need for a 24 f1.4 n a third, not gonna wash with those guys.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 10, 2014)

Way too much $$ for me, but I might rent one. Very specialist lens.
I can put a $350 Rokinon 8mm f/2.8 (or 12mm f/2) on my EOS M, and get interesting results in a tiny package carried on a little waist bag. Sure it's not as good as a 11-24 on my 5D3, but it's quickly available while simultaneously using the 5D3 with a 16-35 or 70-200.


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 10, 2014)

Looks like they're fixing their Wide angle weakness..  Well done Canon.

At this rate they'll have nothing left to update and will HAVE to release a 50mmf1.4 II with proper ringUSM

.
.
.

oh no, sorry, that's against their religion!


----------



## The Flasher (Oct 10, 2014)

Hard to imagine a rectilinear 11mm lens. Maybe it will be rectilinear after 14mm zoom range. Wait and see and happily keep using the 14mm 2.8 II, 17 TSE, 16-35 /4 combo.


----------



## Dick (Oct 10, 2014)

11-24 f/4 sounds very interesting, but 3k...? I'll survive without it. :'( I have a family to feed.
Why is everything so f*cking expensive these days? Just spent 1k on a new phone. That is just ridiculous.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:
> 
> The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
> The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
> ...



Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 weighs more than 2 lb. How much heavier would a well-corrected 12-24 f/2.8 weigh? Would a 3-4 lb lens sell?

I'm hoping that the Canon is working on a 16-35 f/2.8 III that is as easily filterable as the II. A 16-35 f/2.8 III, 16-35 f/4 IS, and a 11-24 f/4 will meet most photographers needs and would provide the best breadth of high performance lenses amongst mainstream camera/lens manufacturers. How will 11mm be used? I'm not sure, but I'm sure that people will figure out a use for it, and then it'll be copied ad naseum like the Go Pro action video or aerial/drone stuff...


----------



## hendrik-sg (Oct 10, 2014)

To get a FOW this wide, the use of 8-15 fisheye at about 11mm on FF (with black corners) and correct with the hemi correction tool gives quite nice resultes. Compromise is, ist not exactlly rectangular projection and sharpness suffers at 180° FOW. 

But 
- it's 180° and not 120°
- it's 1000$ not 3000$
- the look is more natural than strongle recangular in my opinion.

For 3000$ one gets both (8-15 and 17TS) lenses, which gives all Fisheye Options, give UWA TS, 11mm rectangular with stitching for static subjects, and 180° FOW with correction in compromised quality. 

All this together is more for me, than a 11-24 zoom for the same money. 

To get compositions acceptable with lenses this wide, needs (at least for me) lot of time and patience, then using the tripod and maybe a lens change to take home all options is no problem and may get better results than a single shot with the zoom

The 17 TS has soft Corners fully shifted and lots of vignetting, thats true, but stitching gives a 40MP 11mm pic, which downscaled is really fine, and any other 11-12mm option has to prove her benefit first.


----------



## grey4 (Oct 10, 2014)

if the price settles, a 11-24 L would totally replace the 10-22 in my kit. Especially on a 7Dii


----------



## andrewflo (Oct 10, 2014)

As awesome as this lens looks... I think I'd have to skip it for $3k.

I'm no expert at ultra wides but wouldn't any professional application of 11mm FOV equivalent be better suited by a TSE lens? Or would a TSE stitched photo of the exact same perspective/FOV produce comparable images?


----------



## dcm (Oct 10, 2014)

Maybe if they painted it white... 

But seriously, if image quality rivals the recent great whites like the 200-400, it might be worth it. I imagine the design/engineering challenges for fast/wide are somewhat analogous to fast/long. I haven't seen a lot of FF primes faster than f/2.8 at/below 14mm so an f/4 zoom is not unexpected. 

Still, a bit out of my price range though.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

andrewflo said:


> As awesome as this lens looks... I think I'd have to skip it for $3k.
> 
> I'm no expert at ultra wides but wouldn't any professional application of 11mm FOV equivalent be better suited by a TSE lens? Or would a TSE stitched photo of the exact same perspective/FOV produce comparable images?



I tend to agree with the below 16mm range, certainly tripods to get nice levels would be better used most of the time. 

As for the stitched TS-E images comparing, well the effective 11mm stitch, at 24mm x 60mm (effective sensor size) gives you an odd aspect ratio that works well for some stuff, header images and banner posters, but not well most of the time and the corners are not good when fully shifted, I find the two side by side stitch useful more often for a 36mm x 48mm effective sensor size.

So the two scenarios, a stitched shifted effective 11mm and a single 11mm rectilinear image would be quite different, though like I said earlier, the amount of projection distortion on the native image would be wild!


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 10, 2014)

Why is Canon going for slow (relativ slow) f4 lenses lately? 

For 3000$ i expect a f2.8 lens.


----------



## grey4 (Oct 10, 2014)

The text says "around" 3K - so that probably would mean a launch price of $2800 - Not too far off launch price of $2400 which accompanied the 24-70, 70-200 mk ii's. 

Within 18 months the price will be down 500$, just like the 24-70 f/4 L IS, bring the lens to 2300, the same listed price as the 24-70 mk ii and 70-200 mk ii, with street and used prices sneaking around 2k.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 10, 2014)

Well, this is typical. People complained that Canon does not have an ultra-super-wide to match or exceed Nikon's. Some even bought Nikon's and mounted it on their Canon cameras. Now a Canon version appears, and people complain about the price. And they complain that it's "only" f/4. Gotta complain about something. If it were f/2.8, they'd complain about the increased size and the weight. And they'd complain about the price even more. And they'd complain that the IQ would have been better if it had been f/4. Quality costs. Unless you *know* what goes into designing and building the lens, you *don't* know what it should cost. Besides, Canon offers a full range of wide angle options, starting with the EF-S 10-18mm for just $300 — there's something for nearly every budget. I rarely need anything wider than 24mm, so this lens has little interest for me. But if I ever needed something like this with really great IQ, it's nice to know it will be available.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 10, 2014)

I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 10, 2014)

grey4 said:


> if the price settles, a 11-24 L would totally replace the 10-22 in my kit. Especially on a 7Dii



That would be insane to replace the 10-22 with this rumored 11-24L for a 7D unless you really really needed weather sealing.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 10, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.
> 
> But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.
> 
> It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.



And who has a FF lens that is 11 or 12mm at f/2.8?


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 10, 2014)

romanr74 said:


> honestly, imo, if the IQ is matching the latest releases, this is a dream come true! I dont know how often i've really used f/2.8 with my 16-35 unless if it was for indoor architecture shots to shorten exposure time (where you would want to use a tripod anyway if you want to be serious about it). I am not stopping down action.



That was my first thought.

If this thing has sharp corners and extremely well controlled distortion (at least across most of the focal range), it will be a very tempting lens.

I've always wondered why there's no "Big Whites" on the wide end.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 10, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.
> ...



Who has a rectilinear FF lens that is even f/4 when wider than 14mm? Who has a rectilinear FF lens wider than 12mm?

Oh, yes, Nikon rumors posted a rumor about a 10mm f/4 FX lens three years ago. Responses were "I was considering going to Canon for their 17mm t/s, but I think I'll wait a bit", "A modern 135 f/2 and a 70-200 f/4 are to me the glaring holes in the lineup", and "Q: How long does it usually take to go from patent to finished product? A: Sometimes it never happens. So could be anything from tomorrow to never." - the good old spirit of Canon rumors.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 10, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4. At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.
> ...





Antono Refa said:


> Who has a rectilinear FF lens that is even f/4 when wider than 14mm? Who has a rectilinear FF lens wider than 12mm?



Yes, we get it. This one _literally _goes to 11. That alone isn't necessarily going to cut it for everybody... especially at $3k.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 10, 2014)

while I do think that 3k is quite high, depending on the quality of the lens, it isn't totally out of the water. There wouldn't be a lens that could match up to the focus range. 11mm is significantly different from 12mm (duh). and up to 24mm? that's really good. f4 is plenty.. 2.8 on 11mm is not necessary. Plus with the iso capabilities of the sensors now. Hopefully the price will drop to around 2k. Although that would be a "steal" for what it's potentially about to offer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

9VIII said:


> I've always wondered why there's no "Big Whites" on the wide end.



Because the white lens colour was introduced to mitigate the effects of heat on the comparatively large Flourite elements in the super teles. Canon do have at least one Ultra Wide patents with a flourite element, but even then the actual element is much smaller, and therefore less prone to heat changes.


----------



## infared (Oct 10, 2014)

$3000!!!! @f/4?????????   
...so glad that I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8II and bought the new 16-35mm f/4 IS!!!!
Great deal (even cash-out for me)... The new 16-35mm f/4 IS seems like a GREAT deal for a great lens if this new lens is going to be 3$$grand...whoa! I guess it makes sense though...lot of glass there...and more of an extreme specialty lens...I have a 17mm TSE and that or 16mm or my fisheye...is plenty for me!


----------



## Etienne (Oct 10, 2014)

If Canon pulls this off (11-24 f/4L) with outstanding quality, it would be worth quite a lot of $$$.
But it's still a bit of a specialist lens. Nice to know it's available. There are a lot of other things tempting money from my wallet, so this would fall into "nice to have" category for me, especially since there are other more practical and much cheaper ways, to go wide.

Still, I am glad they are NOT going to f/2.8 ... that lens would be a monster with an even bigger price, and difficult to use in cramped quarters. With the ever-increasing quality of high ISO sensors, f/2.8 is becoming less important for low light (f/2.8 is no where near enough for shallow DOF in an ultrawide, even at 24mm).


----------



## zlatko (Oct 10, 2014)

I agree, at f/2.8 it would be a monster in size. An 11 to 24mm zoom is pretty far from a portrait lens anyway.


----------



## iMagic (Oct 10, 2014)

F4.0 would not surprize me. Canon reserves the biggest apertures for the prime lenses. ie. 14mm prime. If they did the zoom at 2.8 the 14mm prime would be less desireable.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

iMagic said:


> F4.0 would not surprize me. Canon reserves the biggest apertures for the prime lenses. ie. 14mm prime. If they did the zoom at 2.8 the 14mm prime would be less desireable.



The 14mm is a comparative dog (well the two I have used were and one was direct from LensRentals so was at least 'up to specs') and Nikon have had a 14mm f2.8 prime and 14-24 f2.8 zoom in their lineups for a long time.

Canon have got all the money they are going to realise from the 14mm MkII prime, any R&D costs were either returned or amortized long ago, it could become the $1,500 'budget' option if a matching zoom came out.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 10, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Who has a rectilinear FF lens that is even f/4 when wider than 14mm? Who has a rectilinear FF lens wider than 12mm?
> ...



Your point being what? That some people could continue whining about "there's no lens that cuts it for us today, amd that one wouldn't cut it for us either if & when released"? Really?


----------



## NancyP (Oct 10, 2014)

Let's be practical. Do people really want to drag a 4 pound lens up a mountain? I suspect that the main users will be landscape shooters.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 11, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Huh? I wasn't saying anything even close to that.

Where did I accuse anybody of "whining"? Where did I say anything close to your interpretation?

All I was saying was that the fact that it is wider than Nikon's 14-24 full frame f/2.8, and the fact that Nikon's 12-24 crop isn't full frame as this lens is, on its own, isn't going to be enough of a justification for some to pay $3k for an f/4 zoom... myself included.

(Also, I had been dying to get the This Is Spinal Tap reference in the thread because how often do you get an opportunity like that?)

I really don't see where your interpretation came from.


----------



## ramonjsantiago (Oct 11, 2014)

Please let it not be another stupid fisheye zoom. It would be a really unique lens and worth $3k if it weren't.


----------



## Woody (Oct 11, 2014)

Where is the 50 f/1.4 replacement?


----------



## erjlphoto (Oct 11, 2014)

Wonder if the delay in the 100-400 is that Canon is having a hard time making a better one?


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 11, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Nope, it isn't going to be for everyone, but what other comparable choices are there?


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 11, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


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



Well, I guess we'll have to wait to see what the image quality is to really know. However, if you really need 11-13mm on FF, then I guess none. :-\

My plan is to just wait and 1) See what this lens turns out to be... and 2) Wait and see if that rumor for an f/2.8 UWA Zoom will pan out. It was CR2 too.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 11, 2014)

$3000 is fine IMO.
My 17TS-E was ~$2500 and I feel it was worth every penny.

For me it is a business decision. I can make good money with this lens. 
I presume it will be an excellent performer given the recent track record of Canon's lenses. As for distortion LR will have a profile.
F4 is no problem at all. Most of my work is on a tripod and even if it is handheld the WA will mask a LOT of motion.

And seriously, how many people here regularly use lenses wider than 16mm? If you do you know that the AOVs we are discussing with this lens go way beyond the experience of most. For many the AOV will be the main attraction. Sharpness and distortion will be ignored by the average viewer.


----------



## terminatahx (Oct 11, 2014)

an 11-24 f4L would be a huge hit, but not at 3 grand. I just can't see them pricing that higher than the current 14mm 2.8L II. If the 11-24 was 2.8, I could see an original price north of 2k, but not f4.


----------



## infared (Oct 11, 2014)

Well...let's see...Nikon has a WELL REVIEWED 14-24mm f/2.8 @ ~$2000...I would consider that if Canon could offer the same...Even if it was somewhat more expensive and had the same quality. ...This rumored lens is just "out of the box" for me ..both the extreme wide angle (which becomes stupid) and the cost......but hey..like I said I am happy with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS is a nice sweet spot for me...
I bet a LOT of people feel this way...but lets see if this rumored lens materializes, no?


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 11, 2014)

infared said:


> Well...let's see...Nikon has a WELL REVIEWED 14-24mm f/2.8 @ ~$2000...I would consider that if Canon could offer the same...Even if it was somewhat more expensive and had the same quality. ...This rumored lens is just "out of the box" for me ..both the extreme wide angle (which becomes stupid) and the cost......but hey..like I said I am happy with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS is a nice sweet spot for me...
> I bet a LOT of people feel this way...but lets see if this rumored lens materializes, no?



I really like the IS on new 16-35. Night time landscape gets little more interesting for me. I was able to shoot @ 1/10 handheld.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Oct 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> I don't know if lee could create a specialized filter holder for a Canon 11-24mm...



A don't think so. The lens seems to be a similar front element than the 17 TS-E (this also has about ~11mm range, but you can select it by shifting of course). With the Lee filter holder you can shift for about the half range, about 6mm. If you shift more, the corners get black. If you would see the whole circle, it should be a black ring of course.
So maybe you can use a similar filter holder from ~14mm to 24mm, but not for 11.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Oct 11, 2014)

Focal´s below 16mm are hefty, i would have to ask myself do i need an 11-24 ?

f4 is fast enought for me, the assumed Size of an 2.8 @ 11mm would be big&heavy

hmmm... no Standard Filter, still have an 17-40 f4 L - 16-35 f4 L IS is really great .

The Future will show us what was the right Choice.

Bernd


----------



## dufflover (Oct 11, 2014)

In the end Canon (like anyone else) will charge what they think people will pay and sadly I think it will still sell "enough" at that price. It'll be a good lens (anything has to be at that price) and I think the usual reasons of demand, rich folks and system locking will make enough people shell out for one.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 11, 2014)

The super-UWA would have been on top of my list a few months back. Before that I would also have a 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 high on that list. But since I got the Zeiss 15mm f2.8, with the benefit of a flat front lens and phenomenal IQ, it is less interesting. My interest in a 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 dropped due to the two Otus lenses. If I add the 17mm TS-E and the Zeiss 21mm, the UWA becomes even less interesting. But I´m sure the temptation to get one if/when it´s released will be too great.

The only lenses I would really like to see from Canon now is a new 35/1.4L IS and maybe also a 100-400mm (my wife wants one). Apart from that I think I am pretty well covered.


----------



## ewg963 (Oct 11, 2014)

:


procentje20 said:


> Auch, that is a steep price. I allready thought my 8-15mm was expensive.


+1000000000000000000 Ditto


----------



## ewg963 (Oct 11, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> $3000?!?!?!?!? That's triple what overpriced Nikon charges for its popular 12-24 f/4!!!!!!!!!!


+10000000000000000000000000000


----------



## bardamu (Oct 11, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Apart from that I think I am pretty well covered.



You have about $65k of gear listed under your post. I should hope you would be well covered ...

But, what the heck, why not aim for 100k ... ?


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 11, 2014)

Even though this is an UWA, I'm going to make the assumption that it will be a rather unique beast. And if Canon's latest WA forays are anything to go by, I'm assuming it may just be a phenomenal performer too. 

If I was responsible for putting an ultra wide together, priorities 1 & 2 would be creating a manageable front element shape and mitigating at least some of the distortion. 

If this is just another WA, $3000 is so expensive. 

If this turns out to be the best UWA of any DSLR brand...well


----------



## Khalai (Oct 11, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Even though this is an UWA, I'm going to make the assumption that it will be a rather unique beast. And if Canon's latest WA forays are anything to go by, I'm assuming it may just be a phenomenal performer too.
> 
> If I was responsible for putting an ultra wide together, priorities 1 & 2 would be creating a manageable front element shape and mitigating at least some of the distortion.
> 
> ...



If its performance is on par with 16-35/4L IS or better yet TS-E 17, then it's going to sell like hotcakes (for those, who need such LUWA (ludicrous ultra wide angle) lens. There is only Sigma 12-24 comparable and even here the 1mm can mean a lot. 11mm with rectilinear correction seems almost ridiculous to be honest


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 11, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Well, this is typical. People complained that Canon does not have an ultra-super-wide to match or exceed Nikon's. Some even bought Nikon's and mounted it on their Canon cameras. Now a Canon version appears, and people complain about the price. And they complain that it's "only" f/4. Gotta complain about something. If it were f/2.8, they'd complain about the increased size and the weight. And they'd complain about the price even more. And they'd complain that the IQ would have been better if it had been f/4. Quality costs. Unless you *know* what goes into designing and building the lens, you *don't* know what it should cost. Besides, Canon offers a full range of wide angle options, starting with the EF-S 10-18mm for just $300 — there's something for nearly every budget. I rarely need anything wider than 24mm, so this lens has little interest for me. But if I ever needed something like this with really great IQ, it's nice to know it will be available.



Who asked for a f4 lens?
People asked for a 14-24mm f2.8 that matches Nikons.

Now we get a f4 that cost more then Nikons 14-24mm.

Maybe you don´t see the difference.. i see it.


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 11, 2014)

infared said:


> Well...let's see...Nikon has a WELL REVIEWED 14-24mm f/2.8 @ ~$2000...I would consider that if Canon could offer the same...Even if it was somewhat more expensive and had the same quality. ...This rumored lens is just "out of the box" for me ..both the extreme wide angle (which becomes stupid) and the cost......but hey..like I said I am happy with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS is a nice sweet spot for me...
> I bet a LOT of people feel this way...but lets see if this rumored lens materializes, no?



You don´t have to take that into account when you have users like Zlatko who defend everything Canon is doing. 

Even when they are not interested in UWA lenses as they say.... they still know better what people want.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 11, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Who asked for a f4 lens?
> People asked for a 12-24mm f2.8 that matches Nikons.
> 
> Now we get a f4 that cost more then Nikons 12-24mm.
> ...



Right... because the 12-24 is lens for APS-C cameras. Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 for full frame is 2K. Canon is going to charge a premium for those first adopters, and 11mm is a lot wider than 14. Sigma has a 12-24 zoom, but it's performance is poor in the corners. What other choice do you have for 11-13mm on FF?


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 11, 2014)

12-24mm was a typo.. fixed that.

2000$ are less then 3000$ that´s what i meant.

11mm is crayz wide yes.
But as you can see in the comments here most would prefer faster glass and a less wide lens. Some even say that most people don´t get wider than 16mm. So imo the 3mm are less important than f2.8. The usefulness for the majority is smaller. 

For me 14mm f2.8 would be great at the wide end... when the image quality is right.

Right now im using a EF 14mm f2.8 for night/stars.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 11, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> 12-24mm was a typo.. fixed that.
> 
> 2000$ are less then 3000$ that´s what i meant.
> 
> ...



In that case, most people will find supplementing a 16-35 with a Samyang 14 to be a much more affordable option, no matter what Canon produces in the range. No matter what Canon produces (14-24 f/2.8 or this 11-24 f/4), it will be expensive than the Samyang option. The 24-70 II started around 2300 and now can be had for less than 1800. This lens won't remain near 3K for long (less than a year), but I doubt it'd fall below 2K if it's IQ is comparable to the 16-34 f/4 IS and 24-70 f/2.8 II. I find a 16-35 to be more useful than a 14-24. It accepts filters easily. If I want wider, then I use the 14 prime, which isn't really that large...


----------



## keithfullermusic (Oct 11, 2014)

just out of curiosity, who would want this lens? 11mm on FF is super wide, probably way too wide for many people to ever really find that useful. i guess it would be cool sometimes for events, but even then I don't think people would be using it at the 11mm end all that much. and with the bulb design you can't use filters, so are there many landscape people that would want this? 

i'm not shocked by the price, seeing as this is the new Canon trend that's here to stay. also, it's a lens that no one else has or probably will have for a long time. i just think that it's more of a "fun" lens than a useful one, and for $3,000 I don't see too many people jumping for it. however, there always seem to be enough people out there who end up buying this stuff.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 11, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Who asked for a f4 lens?
> People asked for a 14-24mm f2.8 that matches Nikons.
> 
> Now we get a f4 that cost more then Nikons 14-24mm.
> ...



Personally, I'd rather buy 11-24mm f/4 over 14-24mm f/2.8

Now, $3,000 is a *lot* of money for me, and I'm willing to wait a year for it to drop at least $400.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 11, 2014)

I wanna see this baby....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come to papa  !


----------



## tiger82 (Oct 11, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> tiger82 said:
> 
> 
> > $3000?!?!?!?!? That's triple what overpriced Nikon charges for its popular 12-24 f/4!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



Okay, that's 50% more than the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8!?!?!!!!! I'd like to see a Canon 14-24 f/2.8


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 11, 2014)

Sweet!

But for economic's sake my Samyang 14mm will probably remain my ultra-wide solution for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 11, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > tiger82 said:
> ...



I got the impression from the rumor I linked to (page 1) that a fast lens that was slightly wider than the 16-35 was coming. Now I guess that's not going to happen if this lens materializes.


----------



## BagJunkie (Oct 11, 2014)

Best rumour i've read in a while!
I'm in the market for both. Except for the pricetags they'll come with. My 17-40 is mounted appx 80% of the time, with the 24ts for the remainder, except during vacations where the 24 is substituted with a 24-105, or the 70-200. I've always felt the 17-40 is not wide enough. I almost jumped ship when the D800 came out because the dark side also has the 14-24. But i've never got the hang of the Nikon way of things. Up til recently, my only choices with AF was the siggy and the 14mm. I do a lot of walking, so yet another lens to carry isn't something i want, and the siggy is mushy. 11-24 is maybe a little wider than i need, and i can forget filters-huge downer for landscapes, but i'll have a ball when it comes to sports.
So far my longest reach has been the 70-200. I don't use it that much. I'll probably sell it for the new 100-400 for sports, and the little wildlife i want to do.
11-24 + 24-105 + 100-400 has to be a perfect holiday trio. For me. Maybe.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...the kind of wicked *pincushion* you'll get at 11mm.



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

EDIT: also, the Nikon 14-24 has more distortion at the wide end than the Canon 16-35/2.8 II, and you mentioned the Canon 10-22mm earlier, that lens has less distortion at the wide end than most other UWAs, _far_ less than the 14-24 or 16-35 II.


----------



## l_d_allan (Oct 11, 2014)

I just can't get interested in "zooms" with such a small zoom range (24 / 11 = ~ 2.2). To me, 3x zoom range is the "sweet spot" for sharpness and usability. Significantly less than 3x zoom range becomes a "who cares". YMMV.

With the well-reviewed and apparently popular EF-S 10-18, that is even more the case ... a "zoom" range of only 1.8. Why bother?

My inclination is to use a faster, sharper, FAR LESS EXPENSIVE uwa prime like the Samyang 14mm f2.8 on f.f., and "zoom with my feet" if possible, 

Or, use cropping to get the equivalent of 11mm.

Or with static subjects, use the 14mm in portrait mode and stitch together 3+ images to get medium format IQ. I haven't done the math, but my speculation is that such a pano would be pretty close to the FOV of an 11mm FL on f.f. Or not?


----------



## M_S (Oct 11, 2014)

Focal length is interesting, but not with F4. I will skip this one


----------



## Viggo (Oct 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



From TDP:

"To cut the chase, I must say that I am very impressed by the lack of strong barrel and pincushion distortion in the 10-22. It is not perfect, but very good for this extreme wide angle focal length range. There is some barrel distortion at 10mm moving gradually to a slight pincushion at 22m. Slight enough distortion for me to be happy with the results."


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...





jrista said:


> Hmm...the bulbous front element is a real turnoff to me. If I was to pick up this lens, it would be for landscapes. The front element on this sucker would be really tough to create a filter holder for. Lee made a special one for the Nikon 14-24...it has a kind of "lens bag" like thing on the back that you attach to the holder and around the lens barrel. I think the only reason that works, is the 14mm, which still has a relatively bulbous front element, isn't as wide as an 11mm.
> 
> I don't know if lee could create a specialized filter holder for a Canon 11-24mm...and I wouldn't want to be without GNDs (especially with Canon cameras.) I'd also want to see the distortion. I tried out the 10-22mm EF-S on my 7D a couple times, but never bought it because the distortion at 10mm was a wicked pincushion (vertical lines would be strait out the center, but heavily angled outwards from the middle to the corners at the edges.) I suspect an 11mm for FF would be similar.
> 
> I'd really go for a 14-24mm f/2.8 from Canon though.



There is absolutely no connection between focal length and pincushion, or barrel, distortion.

There is absolutely zero reason to suspect a rumoured lens will display either type any more than it might have excessive CA, >3 stops of vignetting in the corners at f8 or any other types of aberrations. 

The 17TS-E when shift stitched has an approximate fov of an 11mm lens yet is pincushion and barrel distortion free, it isn't free of distortion or aberrations, but it certainly doesn't display pincushion distortion.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 12, 2014)

Pincushion distortion is the image distortion created by jumping while trying to take a photo because somebody shoved a pin in your butt - making you a pincushion.

You all were wrong. Geez.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Okay, you know what it means. The pincushion distortion is evident from Photozone's review of the 10-22mm, just look:







Hmmmm. Maybe not. Let's check Cameralabs' test of the 10-22mm @ 10mm. Maybe it's more obvious there.






Nope, I'm not seeing pincushion distortion, wicked or otherwise.

Perhaps DxOMark found something different with the 10-22mm?






I'm sensing a theme here. Which one of the labeled images below most closely approximates the distortion seen by three independent testing sites shown above?






Looking over my images with the 10-22mm at the wide end, I can easily see the barrel distortion shown above (and it's noticeably worse with the 16-35 II at the wide end). I don't see any pincushioning. 

Would you care to share an example of your wicked pincushion distortion? Pincushion distortion is inherent to the lens – you know that, of course, because you know what it means (good grief!). I suspect you're not seeing pincushion distortion at all, but rather a different type of distortion not inherent to the lens, but resulting from the way you're using the lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...the kind of wicked *pincushion* you'll get at 11mm.
> ...



INCONCEIVABLE!


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> I never purchased the lens because I did not like how things distorted at 10mm. Looking at TDP's examples, he demonstrates the problem well. Maybe it's not pincusion distortion, however if you compare the 10mm and 14mm images, look at the way everything ends up pointing towards the center at 10mm:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
> 
> Whatever the hell you want to call it, I personally don't like that. The way the trees have a significant angle from the middle top half of the frame towards the corners. Everything is "pinching" towards the center. Every time I've tried the 10-22mm, 10mm just never seemed usable to me. I use 16mm on my 5D III, and I've never seen that kind of...what, you don't want it called distortion....the warping of the scene to fit in a rectilinear space? (I still think distortion is the right word, but whatever.)



Oh my. Face palm. Another categorical declaration from jrista that turns out to be completely fallacious.

It is called perspective, you have had problems with that before. It isn't just Neuro that doesn't want to call it distortion, it is everybody that has a basic understanding of perspective.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...the kind of wicked *pincushion* you'll get at 11mm.
> ...





jrista said:


> Good grief. I know what it means.





jrista said:


> Maybe it's not pincusion distortion... Whatever the hell you want to call it... whatever



In other words, you *don't* know what it means. Good grief. :

What you do not smell is called _perspective distortion_ powder. You can spend a few years building up an immunity to it...or carry the antidote (a TS-E lens).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> My 16-35mm doesn't exhibit that much perspective distortion at 16mm, it has some, but trees are still more upright at the edges of the frame than at 10mm on the 10-22mm. I can correct the issues with my 16mm in post (if it's bad enough), and it doesn't cost me too much image area either...correcting TDP's 10mm example would cost a significant amount of image space, and result in a pretty extreme loss of quality.



Oh, and perspective is solely a function of the distance from the camera to the subject. Distance, and distance only. Are you suggesting that to achieve the same framing at 10mm on APS-C vs. 16mm on FF, that you'd be at a different distance? Let's see...10mm x 1.6 = 16mm...seems like equivalent FoV to me. If you're at the same distance with 10mm on APS-C and 16mm on FF, you'll get the same framing...and if you're at the same distance, the perspective distortion will be the same. 

It seems your subjective impression is at odds with reality...again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Pincushion distortion is the image distortion created by jumping while trying to take a photo because somebody shoved a pin in your butt - making you a pincushion.



I like your explanation best.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Pincushion distortion is the image distortion created by jumping while trying to take a photo because somebody shoved a pin in your butt - making you a pincushion.
> ...



Just trying to help clear up any confusion.

While we're on the subject, barrel distortion is caused when a gorilla rolls or drops a barrel, which then hits and damages your lens, resulting in distorted images.


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 12, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



Sorry, your pincushion description was spot on but certainly here in the UK barrel distortion is completely lens independent and occurs shortly after the photographer has consumed some of the contents of the barrel! It can have significant effects on focus and sharpness but any concerns about DR are pretty much eliminated at the point barrel distortion occurs . . .


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 12, 2014)

In general conversation people tend to use various terms interchangeably as if they are the same thing. In meaningful discussions I like to make a clear distinction between projection, keystone, perspective and distortion.


----------



## synikster (Oct 12, 2014)

I thought the 24-70ii was expensive. Although I bought it. This is just CRAZY. Samyang it is.


----------



## Otter (Oct 15, 2014)

I just don't believe it will be $3000. I do understand(and so does Canon) that there is a ton of demand for this lens, but not at this price point...


----------

