# Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 22, 2015)

```
Canon USA will be shipping the brand new Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM on Monday, February 23, 2015 to USA dealers. US retailers will be allowed to start selling/shipping the lens on Thursday, February 26, 2015. Although, some may trickle out to photographers before Thursday.</p>
<p>It’s nice to see things happening on schedule.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA11244.html" target="_blank">Adorama</a><a href="http://www.etphotos.net/canon_ef_1124.php" target="_blank"> | </a><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119028-REG/canon_9520b002_ef_11_24mm_f_4l_usm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a><a href="http://www.etphotos.net/canon_ef_1124.php" target="_blank"> | </a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T3ERXKE/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00T3ERXKE&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=SKIW33AKPAGADHBN" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## jcarapet (Feb 22, 2015)

now I just need to come up with another 3 grand.


----------



## Click (Feb 22, 2015)

That's good news


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 22, 2015)

Where are the reviews and sample images?


----------



## emko (Feb 23, 2015)

any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?


----------



## Pixel (Feb 23, 2015)

I'm just giddy with excitement that I'll soon have a sharp, undistorted, wide lens that has a red ring around the barrel. Was starting to think this day would never come. Now Canon all you need to to do for me is update the 20mm 2.8 and I'll be fine with this f4.


----------



## RGF (Feb 23, 2015)

If this lens is as good as expected, I'll sell my Canon 14 but only after I really check it out


----------



## e_honda (Feb 23, 2015)

emko said:


> any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?



Is there any reason people can't understand how big heavy, and expensive this lens would be at F2.8?

Have you seen the size of this thing compared to the Nikon 14-24 F2.8? Dwarfs it in every dimension and is heavier.


----------



## RGF (Feb 23, 2015)

emko said:


> any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?



For the most part I stop down, so F4 is just fine. Slightly harder to get critical focus with an 11-24, DOF is great so afford a slight miss in focus.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Feb 23, 2015)

So the "Faster F/2.8 ultra wide zoom" that Canon is was working on rumor from May of last year is, I assume, dead.

I guess those of us who want a fast UWA zoom with better IQ than the current 16-35 f/2.8 II have to wait for the 16-35 f/2.8 III update, and who knows when that will be.


----------



## e_honda (Feb 23, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> So the "Faster F/2.8 ultra wide zoom" that Canon is was working on rumor from May of last year is, I assume, dead.
> 
> I guess those of us who want a fast UWA zoom with better IQ than the current 16-35 f/2.8 II have to wait for the 16-35 f/2.8 III update, and who knows when that will be.



It's gonna be awhile. The mk II was definitely an improvement over the original, but still left a lot to be desired. Most likely they experimented with different designs and found that the IQ they got with an F4 was better than any practical design they could come up with at F2.8.

Right now, the 16-35 II arguably has the worst bang for your buck in the entire EF lineup. It costs a lot, is notorious for copy to copy variation (I know first hand with 2 that I had) and just isn't that impressive, particularly at F2.8.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Feb 23, 2015)

A look at the dimensions and the complexity of this lens shows, that it's at the limit of what can be done at all. 11mm at 2.8 might sacrify lots of IQ, beside price and weight.

2nd point is vignetting. If there is lots of vignetting, then the lens is maybe T3.0 in the center and >T5.0 in the Corners. Vignetting correction just pushes the darker areas. Bad example here is the 24 1.4, which may be a 4.0 lens in the corners, just with more coma and softness. So it may be more important to see how much vignetting this lens has than to complain about the max aperture (=transmission in the Center).


----------



## Zv (Feb 23, 2015)

emko said:


> any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?



Explain why you need f/2.8 at these focal lengths please. Please don't say "low light capability" because if you are using a lens like this indoors in professional use you will almost certainly be using a tripod. And upping the ISO nowadays by one stop isn't a big a deal as it used to be. The 6D works nicely even an ISO 6400. I don't even use that for stars in the middle of the night so unless you are shooting in a cave in complete darkness, handheld, with an older generation camera - the reason is pretty clear why f/4 is good enough. 

If not - 14mm f/2.8 is your friend.


----------



## King Eyre (Feb 23, 2015)

Wonder if the same will apply to this lens as it seems to do with almost every other new lens release.......some will come through then you'll wait months for any more?....eg the new 100-400 and 400 DO are two examples of this, and Canon can't tell when more will be available.

A strange sales and marketing policy.


----------



## fiend (Feb 23, 2015)

Zv said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?
> ...



I can answer your questions..
I use it during wedding-sessions in dark churches.. when the bride couples are moving and no.. I can't use a tripod for that.. nor the IS.
Going from ISO 3200 -> 6400 or ISO 4000 -> 8000 is quite a large step up in ISO on a 5dmkIII.
I need at least 1/160 (sometimes even 1/200) when the couple is moving up and down the aisle. Don't want pictures that are blurry from movementblur.

When I shoot landscape / indoor and people are not moving.. then I can use f4 and IS. When I shoot landscapes I often step it down aswell. (f8-f14)

Another thing.. when you shoot stars / aurora up here in the northern part of Sweden.. even F2.8 is quite small aperture. I could really use a f1.4 with a UWA.. but that's not available.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 23, 2015)

Zv said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?
> ...



What experience do you have shooting events? And though you may be satisfied with ISO 6400 images, there is no arguing that lower ISO looks significantly better. I'd rather have a non-IS 2.8 for shooting typical indoor and under-tent events than 4.0 with IS. People move! Colors, bokeh, contrast, and, of course, sharpness all look better at lower ISO.

I would have bought a Canon version of 14-24mm f/2.8, but not this one at f/4. I'm sure it will test/review just fine in terms of IQ for landscape and still-life, but for people photography, f/2.8 is still the standard, especially for $3000!

This isn't the max aperture of choice for photojournalists, sports, or wedding photographers.

Enjoy it for what it is, but why berate those of us who do value 2.8?


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 23, 2015)

King Eyre said:


> Wonder if the same will apply to this lens as it seems to do with almost every other new lens release.......some will come through then you'll wait months for any more?....eg the new 100-400 and 400 DO are two examples of this, and Canon can't tell when more will be available.
> 
> A strange sales and marketing policy.



Pretty common for hot new products with very high manufacturing standards to be in short supply when first released, even for the first six months.

Here in the USA the supply problem has been made worse since last fall by the dock-worker strikes, but, hooray, those have ended, and now the TWO MONTH shipping backlog will start to clear out little by little.


----------



## King Eyre (Feb 23, 2015)

Pretty common for hot new products with very high manufacturing standards to be in short supply when first released, even for the first six months.

Here in the USA the supply problem has been made worse since last fall by the dock-worker strikes, but, hooray, those have ended, and now the TWO MONTH shipping backlog will start to clear out little by little.
[/quote]

Possibly, but look at the 200-400 f4....2 years from announcement to ship?......and here in Europe, we ain't had a dockworkers strike!!

I wouldn't mind so much if they said "here's a new product but you can't get it for 3 months" or something like that, but both B and H and Adorama have contacted Canon on my behalf and can't even get an approximate date!!


----------



## MaxFoto (Feb 23, 2015)

I would have loved, loved, an 11mm F/2.8/3.5 prime instead. Still I have pre ordered the 11-24L and can't wait to get it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 23, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



At over 2 lb for an f/4, how much would a f/2.8 weigh? Before, the 16-35 f/4 IS came out, I did use a 14 f/2.8 and the 16-35 f/2.8. There are other choices to get what you want if you need f/2.8. The 11-24 gives you another choice; it does not reduce the number of choices currently available to you. Would I have preferred a 16-35 f/2.8 III as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS? Absolutely, but for now, I've sold the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the 16-35 f/4 IS. Take the new lens for what it is. It is something that gives the widest FOV for a rectilinear lens for FF. It happens to be f/4. It is what it is.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...


I used to shoot a fair number of events, so I understand the need for a f/2.8 UWA zoom, and I think the current 16-35 f/2.8 II meets those needs fairly well. Actually I think the 24 f/1.4 II and 35 f/1.4 meet them far better, but the point is that I don't ever remember needing corner-to-corner sharpness of people walking around or on a dance floor. Or tack sharp news and sport photos for that matter. For those that need it, though, yes f/4 is way to slow, though I think f/2.8 is way too slow for that work, too.

Back to the 11-24, I pre-ordered one and can't wait to get one, hopefully late this week. I even called B&H last week to upgrade to overnight shipping...

I'll try to do an earnest test and write up of the 11-24 f/4 vs. 16-35 f/4 IS (16-24mm) vs. TS-E 17 vs. 24-70 f/2.8 II (at 24mm). I have the Kodak Wratten 2 ND 3.0 gelatin as well and will report on that.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 23, 2015)

I get needing a 16-35mm F/2.8, but I really can't see any tangible use for a 11-24mm F/2.8 except astrophotography. If you're shooting action at 11mm, your subject is either going to be really, really close, or really really small in the photo. And if your subject is that small, you're going to have focus problems tracking the fast action happening in a small part of the frame.

If shooting events/dances/etc, I've never been bothered by F/4, simply because a close-up subject that can fill 16mm can be lit by color-corrected speedlights, and that gives you a subject-background separation by lighting your subject and thus bringing them out of the background. In that way, I've always found that dances/etc can be easily done with an F/4, because naturally lighting them would be improbable anyway.

I know at the end of the day, photography is creative and about breaking the rules, but if you need a wide, fast lens, there's the 14mm f/2.8, and the 16-35mm F/2.8, and if you're shooting action, I really think there's no need to be wider than 14mm anyway.

Just my opinion and way I shoot, I've loved using my 16-35mm F/4 IS and 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II for news and events, even in abysmal lighting situations; when I used a 17-55mm F/2.8, I still ended up using a color corrected flash, so it's not a big deal to me.


----------



## e_honda (Feb 23, 2015)

I think it's reasonable for people to ask why Canon hasn't made an equivalent 14-24 f2.8 (it would likely make the 14mm prime obsolete for Canons perspective). But people being surprised at this 11-24 being "only" f4 or saying, "No thanks to this slowpoke, I'll wait for the f2.8" are just being stupid silly.

11mm rectilinear has never been done. The 12-24 Sigma (I have the mk II) was the previous widest. It doesn't even go to f4 and isn't even a constant aperture. It's f4.5-5.6. And it's already a pretty decent size.

Now you're talking about making something that is even wider, has presumably much better IQ and has a wider and constant aperture. Now this is substantially bigger than the Sigma and even bigger than the Nikon 14-24, which is already a beast. Just go look at the side by side photos of these 2 on dpreview. It's astounding how big this Canon is.

Now people still expect to see an f2.8 of this? Won't happen anytime soon.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

e_honda said:


> 11mm rectilinear has never been done. The 12-24 Sigma (I have the mk II) was the previous widest. It doesn't even go to f4 and isn't even a constant aperture. It's f4.5-5.6. And it's already a pretty decent size.
> 
> Now you're talking about making something that is even wider, has presumably much better IQ and has a wider and constant aperture. Now this is substantially bigger than the Sigma and even bigger than the Nikon 14-24, which is already a beast. Just go look at the side by side photos of these 2 on dpreview. It's astounding how big this Canon is.


I sure hope the IQ is better than the Sigma for this price. I had that lens and miss it, but distortion at 12mm is a bummer because you lose ~10% of the image when correcting for it. Not a big deal for landscapes, but for buildings...

Also, the size does concern me in terms of fitting in my camera bags. The hood diameter is huge and I fear it won't fit in some of my smaller bags. The 16-35 f/4 IS OTOH is just about the perfect size! But 11mm is 11mm...


----------



## adventureous (Feb 23, 2015)

This lens weighs more than a 5DIII


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2015)

This link might put the price and speed (aperture) into perspective! http://petapixel.com/2014/10/13/ultra-rare-nikon-13mm-f5-6-holy-grail-lens-shows-ebay/

Of course if Nikon owners want wider than 13 for a fraction of the price they only need to buy a Canon now ;D


----------



## weixing (Feb 23, 2015)

Hi,


H. Jones said:


> I get needing a 16-35mm F/2.8, but I really can't see any tangible use for a 11-24mm F/2.8 except astrophotography. If you're shooting action at 11mm, your subject is either going to be really, really close, or really really small in the photo. And if your subject is that small, you're going to have focus problems tracking the fast action happening in a small part of the frame.
> 
> If shooting events/dances/etc, I've never been bothered by F/4, simply because a close-up subject that can fill 16mm can be lit by color-corrected speedlights, and that gives you a subject-background separation by lighting your subject and thus bringing them out of the background. In that way, I've always found that dances/etc can be easily done with an F/4, because naturally lighting them would be improbable anyway.
> 
> ...


 Don't be so confidence of yourself... may be later you'll find yourself wanting this lens... ha ha ha ;D

Anyway, birder and wildlife photographer will be envy of you guys... you "only" need to spend US$3K to get the world widest FF lens... they had to spend double the price just to get the "entry level" F4 super telephoto lens... ha ha ha ;D

Have a nice day.


----------



## CG photography (Feb 23, 2015)

Zv said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?
> ...



While f4 is good enough for most situations, there are many legitimate uses of a 2.8 wide...
Milky Way landscapes and aurora shots are two prominent examples. Recently I had to shoot moving athletes in a poorly lit rock climbing gym with a wide angle; since the subjects were moving a tripod would have been useless, and the f4 was a liability. Many venues and historical sites like european cathedrals will not allow the use of a tripod. If these examples seem obscure to you then I would argue the need for 11mm-13mm is also pretty rare. I would rather have a 14-24 2.8 IS with equivalent quality and even price.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 23, 2015)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> H. Jones said:
> ...



Oh don't get me wrong, I would love to have this lens! I personally don't have a use for anything wider than 16mm, but 11-24mm f/4 would be a fantastic lens for me if I needed it. The price is just too much to get it for specialized uses when my money-making photographs don't really require even 16mm very often. For my landscapes I would absolutely love a f/4 11-24mm, but landscapes are just a hobby for me.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

Some good points and I definitely see this as a specialist lens, equivalent to the big whites in terms of why they are expensive. The 16-35 f/4 IS is way more practical, and may even have slightly better IQ if the MTF curves are accurate. It also costs way less and way smaller/lighter plus has IS. It's sort of the 180 macro vs. 100 IS macro to me. The 180 takes extenders, comes with a tripod ring and gives greater working distance. But, it's more expensive, slower, heavier, lacks IS, and is really a specialist tool. 

I see this lens as a prime money maker, not hobby lens. Sure, it will be great for fun stuff and landscapes, but if it has low distortion and goes to 11mm, it will be perfect for interiors and shots of buildings and other structures. If that's part of your client base, you'll likely make your money back pretty quickly.

Also, on the f/4 vs. 2.8 debate, CG's argument falls apart a bit when you consider DOF. A stop faster will let you focus more easily, but even at a theoretical 14mm, f/2.8 is going to be too shallow for a cathedral. I think the 16-35 f/4 IS would work quite well in that situation and I'd still be shooting at f/5.6-8 to get barely enough DOF.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Feb 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> but even at a theoretical 14mm, f/2.8 is going to be too shallow for a cathedral.



A far limit of infinity is not shallow.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > but even at a theoretical 14mm, f/2.8 is going to be too shallow for a cathedral.
> ...



"Acceptably sharp" is a much narrower concept. Hyperfocal sucks and has been fairly comprehensively illustrated to be practically worthless.


----------



## LovePhotography (Feb 23, 2015)

Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 23, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
> I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
> Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?



I think it just depends on the person. With your set of lens it looks like you have it covered so the 11-24mm would be my choice if you had to pick one. the one intriguing thing about 11-24 is that images at 11mm will be somewhat unique in the immediate future.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
> I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
> Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?



Unless you have a very compelling reason for the 11-16 range the 16-35 f4 IS is one of Canon's best lenses, I doubt the 11-24 will have as good IQ, it won't be as practical to use, it is much heavier and larger too. The 15 and 8-15 defish very well for an effective 11/12mm rectilinear image as well. 

I will be getting the 11-24 if it tests out well, I won't be selling my 16-35 f4IS to get it though, for me they are very different tools and I can't imagine taking the 11-24 on any trip that doesn't specifically require it, whereas the 16-35 is a great general purpose lens. I own the 17TS-E too and see that as yet another tool that compliments rather than replaces either of the other UWA lenses.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 23, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
> I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
> Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?



Sure, if you have enough money. If you were to ask which one to get first, I'd suggest the 16-35. It has a more versatile focal length range, takes filters, weighs less, etc. Plus the price premium is less for the 16-35. You can purchase it for less than MSRP, whereas you won't be able to do that for the 11-24 for a while. It'll also take a while before the accessory filters/filter holders are designed/made for the 11-24.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I see this lens as a prime money maker, not hobby lens.



But this is a _zoom _lens.  You knew that before you clicked the Pre-Order button, right? ;D


----------



## Besisika (Feb 23, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
> I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
> Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?


I have been debated on the same subject myself.
I own a 24-70 f4 and a sigma 35 1.4 and it is time to buy a SWA.
I can't justify at this time, shooting events, the need for the 11-24 for $3000. I am speculating what it can do but I can't justify it yet.
At 16-18mm you can shoot even the whole gospel choir jumping up and down without any trouble from 3m away. At 1/200sec and ISO 6400 you will make your heart hurt only. So why not step further away a bit and shoot it with a 24 1.4 at 2.0? and whenever a flash is allowed, get lower ISO with deeper DOF.
There maybe sometime when I would really use the 11mm but would I spend $3000 just for that? How many of these photos would I need? Simply, I can't get the justification, if I don't shoot landscape.
I am going to go for the 16-35 F4 and use it with flash whenever possible, plus great well stabilized SWA handheld video, then add the sigma 24 mm 1.4 for a lesser price.
These two would give me more stuff to sell than just only from the 11-24, even it was at 2.8 non-IS at the same price.


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 23, 2015)

Besisika said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
> ...



11-24 is all about architecture/real estate and landscape photography and perhaps throw in video and other unique party scenarios but most folks will be buying it for the first two things mentioned. I agree that the primary buyers will be professional photographers making a living with it.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

Famateur said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I see this lens as a prime money maker, not hobby lens.
> ...


Nice one - and dammit, I thought it was an 11mm prime 

Also, for those of you wondering if you should get this over the 16-35 f/4 IS -- that's your answer. If you don't know, then I don't think spending $3k on this lens is the way to go. It's going to be heavy, big, fragile, not very versatile (short range, no filters), and did I mention really expensive? Beyond that, taking a good shot at 16mm is hard enough, shooting a good composition at 11mm will be very, very difficult.


----------



## rocksubculture (Feb 23, 2015)

I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage. I already sold my 16-35mm 2.8 II, and just listed my 14mm 2.8 II for sale, with funds from both going toward the purchase of this lens.

In my experience, the quality of the 16-35 2.8 II was just not up to par with the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II on a variety of levels. Also, once I tried the 14 2.8 II, I found the additional 2mm in width to be very useful (and the overall image quality much, much better), though being stuck at one specific (specialty) focal length could be limiting.

Yes, it would be great to have a newer 2.8 lens with better image quality and more zoom, but as many here already mentioned, it isn't likely to come about anytime soon. This 11-24mm is groundbreaking and is pushing technological envelope as it is (and since it was announced with the 50MP bodies, seems much more geared to landscape and studio photography, though obviously not limited to those disciplines; much in the same way the 100-400mm was announced with the 7DII for a different sort of focus).

I think in some cases on my 5D IIIs and 6Ds f/4 will be perfectly fine (and really, an added benefit of more being in focus). When the lighting and action pushes it too far, I can mount it on my Sony A7s and I don't think lack of light will be a problem.

I'm super stoked about this lens. I've learned to really love super wide angle photography in the past year or two, so the possibilities that open up with 11mm really intrigue me. Also, having it on a zoom that goes to 24mm is just way more attractive to me in how practical that is, compared to a prime 14mm which becomes a one trick pony in many of my shooting situations (and sometimes is a one trick that never matches any photographic opportunity).

Jason


----------



## Besisika (Feb 23, 2015)

rocksubculture said:


> I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage. I already sold my 16-35mm 2.8 II, and just listed my 14mm 2.8 II for sale, with funds from both going toward the purchase of this lens.
> 
> In my experience, the quality of the 16-35 2.8 II was just not up to par with the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II on a variety of levels. Also, once I tried the 14 2.8 II, I found the additional 2mm in width to be very useful (and the overall image quality much, much better), though being stuck at one specific (specialty) focal length could be limiting.
> 
> ...


Sounds good!
Let us know how it goes. I think concert/event photographers are hesitating about it. Post some samples once you have some. Should be fabulous but all for now is just speculation. I still can't picture it out, how wide that would be.
Would it better than the 16-35 F4 for us? You would be the first to know.


----------



## rocksubculture (Feb 24, 2015)

Besisika said:


> Sounds good!
> Let us know how it goes. I think concert/event photographers are hesitating about it. Post some samples once you have some. Should be fabulous but all for now is just speculation. I still can't picture it out, how wide that would be.
> Would it better than the 16-35 F4 for us? You would be the first to know.



Yeah, I was interested about the 16-35 f/4 when I heard about the high quality, but I was hoping that there was a slightly wider/faster lens coming. This 11-24 is much, much wider but no faster, but I think it is a more compelling value proposition in that I could replace two lenses (16-35 2.8 II and 14 2.8 II) with one lens, and have more on the wide end.

I almost never shoot narrower than f/2.8 (all of my lenses have a max aperture of f/2.8 or faster, up to f/0.95), but though lighting can be awful in concerts, some times it is excellent. Just depends on artist and venue and who's operating the lighting.

But there have been cases where I could definitely have used wider than 14mm... and not just to "fit in" the full band from up close, but for when the subject is right in front of me or literally on top of me. For me, the most interesting wide angle shots are when the subject is right up close.

I'm very unusual in how I approach concert photography compared to the norm though - I bring two 6Ds, two 5DIIIs, one 7DII, and one Sony A7s to save time changing lenses and to be ready for any kind of shot. The A7s I bought specifically for old, manual vintage lenses, but it might be a good match for this 11-24mm under certain circumstances (and it would be a breeze to manually focus ultra wide shots at f/4 with focus peaking).

I'll share some shots probably in a couple weeks, as I know I'll have a show from the pit with good lighting coming up, and should have it in my hands by early next week or maybe this weekend...

Jason


----------



## Zv (Feb 24, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



I have shot weddings and events. I wouldn't use an 11mm lens (no one ever has because it hasn't existed before!) for weddings though. And if I needed f/2.8 or wider I would use a prime - that's what primes are for IMO. 

There are a bunch of lenses out there that could do the job - Canon 14L, Ziess 15mm, Canon 16-35LII, Canon 24L, Samyang 14mm, Canon 24mm f2.8 IS to name a few. 

The 11-24 is not meant to be a general purpose lens just like the 17mm TSE isn't a lens made for wedding photographers. My point is if Canon tried to satisfy everyone we would end up with a compromise at best and then no one would be happy. I don't want to see that.


----------



## LovePhotography (Feb 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



For me, if it's as sharp corner to corner as the 16-35 f/4, it's going to be hard to turn resist. Certainly can't see $3000 on a lens not as sharp as the $1000 16-35. But if it IS as sharp, hell, I'll learn to figure out how to take a good shot at 11mm. I'm mean, there are never enough shots off the top of the Empire State Building, or pics of you dog's snout 2 inches from the lens, right?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2015)

rocksubculture said:


> I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage.


While you're waiting, here's a review of the Nikon 14-24 for concert shooting. I imagine you've seen his site by now, but if not, he's got a lot of great stuff on it:
http://www.ishootshows.com/2011/01/19/review-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g-best-wide-angle-lens/



LovePhotography said:


> For me, if it's as sharp corner to corner as the 16-35 f/4, it's going to be hard to turn resist. Certainly can't see $3000 on a lens not as sharp as the $1000 16-35. But if it IS as sharp, hell, I'll learn to figure out how to take a good shot at 11mm. I'm mean, there are never enough shots off the top of the Empire State Building, or pics of you dog's snout 2 inches from the lens, right?


Looking at the MTF charts, it looks like the corners of the 11-24 are a bit better than the 16-35 f/4 IS at 24mm, but it's slightly less sharp overall. At 11mm, it looks like it has slightly better contrast and equivalent but more uniform resolution. Given that the 16-35 f/4 IS is a very sharp lens, that looks very good. The only real weaknesses of the 16-35 f/4 IS are fairly strong vignetting in the extreme corners (mostly at 16mm), a fair amount of distortion (16, again), and a hint of CA. 

I think the 11-24 cost comes mostly from the ability to go to 11mm, and the low distortion, which means that the FOV will still be near 11mm after correction. If it does that and is as sharp or nearly as sharp as the 16-35 f/4 IS, I think we'll get our money's worth.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> rocksubculture said:
> 
> 
> > I pre-ordered one. My primary focus is concert photography, which is often "lighting challenged" with a lot of movement on stage.
> ...


Mack, these are fabulous!
Now I see what are we talking about.
Thanks for sharing.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2015)

Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > rocksubculture said:
> ...


I'm happy to share things I find and I've followed Todd's work for a while. I really like his work and he writes great reviews and articles including a very helpful one on how to get a photo pass.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Ha, birds of a feather! I have been an occasional visitor since his DIY beauty dish post!


----------



## cfargo (Feb 25, 2015)

B&H says that they are not getting them until 3/4/2015. Adorama is still saying this week sometime.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 25, 2015)

cfargo said:


> B&H says that they are not getting them until 3/4/2015. Adorama is still saying this week sometime.


Bummer. I have a shoot this weekend that I was hoping to use it for, but I have another next weekend, so hopefully it will make it in time for that.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 25, 2015)

Played around with the lens today at the BVE Exhibition in London have to say at 11mm and at edges their appeared to be zero distortion. Its a big lens at the front end and makes the combo on the 5d MKIII quite heavy but overall the IQ looks to be very high. 
Canon are giving us a lens to test this week so will shoot some video with it as well as stills, we will also put it up on our MTF bench.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 25, 2015)

Lee Filters are making an adaptor for this lens for their SW150 holder which they originally designed for the Nikon 12-24mm


----------



## Hispany (Feb 25, 2015)

A few units have been received in Spain http://www.martin-iglesias.com/ficha/NUEVO-OBJETIVO-CANON-11-24-F4-L-USM-disponible-a-primero-de-marzo-2015/18522/

I guess they will be available for other markets really soon.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 25, 2015)

Well, I am the one taking close-ups of poisonous snakes....with the 180 macro +/- 1.4X TC. I grumble about carrying around this brick even for plant macros, but the results are so nice.


----------



## cfargo (Feb 25, 2015)

My local dealer says that they got confirmation that they have been shipped from Canon but not how many. I'm headed to Hawaii on Saturday and I'm hoping to have one before then.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 26, 2015)

Spain price in Euros converts to $2820 US

Canadian price $3500 converts to about $2765 US

What's up?

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 26, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> What's up?



The US dollar, that's what:





Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/24/the-strong-dollar-is-the-biggest-threat-to-the-recovery/


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 26, 2015)

Yes but I simply used todays conversion rates, 0.79 roughly for Canada. So you slip me $2765 and I pass you a lens - isn't that better than paying $3K?

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 26, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Yes but I simply used todays conversion rates, 0.79 roughly for Canada. So you slip me $2765 and I pass you a lens - isn't that better than paying $3K?
> 
> Jack


Canonpricewatch has suggested that very thing and had pre-orders up from their Canadian affiliates. It's also why we're seeing these insanely cheap deals on the gray market bodies on eBay. I've ordered from Canada before and wouldn't hesitate to do so again. With NAFTA, there are no fees, duties, etc. The only catch is that the 1D X (at least) comes with a Canadian vs. North American warranty card. Lenses come with the NA card in all cases, I believe.


----------



## cfargo (Feb 26, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Spain price in Euros converts to $2820 US
> 
> Canadian price $3500 converts to about $2765 US
> 
> ...



The Euro pricing includes 19% vat


----------



## Hispany (Feb 26, 2015)

Hi Cfargo,

The Spanish price from the link I provided DO NOT include VAT. Spain VAT for camera/lenses is 21% :-(


cfargo said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Spain price in Euros converts to $2820 US
> ...


----------



## param (Feb 26, 2015)

Called up Adorama today to check on my pre-order status and all they would tell me is that they expect to get the first batch sometime next week. Luckily for me my local dealer came thru so will be cancelling my pre order. Good luck.


----------



## cfargo (Feb 26, 2015)

I have 2 coming now that B&H shipped sooner than they told me when I called this morning. :


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2015)

I guess that answers the LA dock question


----------



## cfargo (Feb 26, 2015)

slclick said:


> I guess that answers the LA dock question



These came via air as the backlog at the docks is quite long still.


----------



## slclick (Feb 27, 2015)

Well I'm glad my 16-35 f/4L satisfies my UWA cravings.


----------



## weixing (Feb 27, 2015)

Hi,
Found some images shoot by this lens: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157648710973594/

Have a nice day.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 27, 2015)

weixing, now that was worth a look. I've pretty much made up my mind. As a beginner I can't justify it but I'm getting it because it will inspire me just like the 300 2.8 has!

Jack


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 27, 2015)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Found some images shoot by this lens: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157648710973594/
> 
> Have a nice day.



Thanks for sharing. Some nice shots of Singapore there.

I am going to have to decide between this and the 16-35 f/4 IS. I don't want both, and it is quite a hard decision.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



It isn't really, it is the classic need to prioritize. 

The 16-35 f4 IS is a superb lens, it embarrasses the much vaunted Nikon 14-24 everywhere but at f2.8-f4 and from 14-16mm. I can't believe the 11-24 will have 'better' IQ in the same range as the 16-35 f4 IS and they are the same speed, so, do you use filters? If so will you need them on the 11-24? How much do you feel you will need 11-16? And will you miss 24-35? What compromises are you prepared to put up with to have that 11-16mm focal length? For instance, problematic filter use, comparatively heavy, no IS, much more fragile to work with (no hood or front protective filter on a very exposed and expensive curved element) shorter zoom range and three times the price.

Truthfully the two lenses are completely different which is why, if the 11-24 tests out well, I will own both. It is like the 300mm prime question, you want the f2.8 over the f4 but do you really need it, well do you absolutely need 11-16? If not the 16-35 is a much better lens, if you do, then the 16-35 is irrelevant.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 27, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> It isn't really, it is the classic need to prioritize.
> 
> The 16-35 f4 IS is a superb lens, it embarrasses the much vaunted Nikon 14-24 everywhere but at f2.8-f4 and from 14-16mm. I can't believe the 11-24 will have 'better' IQ in the same range as the 16-35 f4 IS and they are the same speed, so, do you use filters? If so will you need them on the 11-24? How much do you feel you will need 11-16? And will you miss 24-35? What compromises are you prepared to put up with to have that 11-16mm focal length? For instance, problematic filter use, comparatively heavy, no IS, much more fragile to work with (no hood or front protective filter on a very exposed and expensive curved element) shorter zoom range and three times the price.
> 
> Truthfully the two lenses are completely different which is why, if the 11-24 tests out well, I will own both. It is like the 300mm prime question, you want the f2.8 over the f4 but do you really need it, well do you absolutely need 11-16? If not the 16-35 is a much better lens, if you do, then the 16-35 is irrelevant.



All good points privatebydesign, thanks. I will test them both out next month and see which fits my requirements the most. 

Choosing which of the big whites was much easier for me as I use them in very specific environments, and it is very hard to beat the 400 f/2.8 ii for what I do.

With lenses such as the 11-24 f/4 and 16-35 f/4 IS however it is a very different part of my work, and they nearly always get used on a tripod and would be used for both stills and video.

I have a month to decide so will keep looking at samples and then will try them both out and make a final decision. Whichever I choose will be replacing my 17-40 and as I have never used 11-16 lengths I am unsure how well it fits in with my work.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2015)

Indeed, as a general high quality UWA zoom the 16-35 f4 IS is, at this point, unmatched. The 11-24 is too, it is very much the 400 f2.8 of the UWA world, if you need it, you just need it.

Of course none of us have had an 11mm rectilinear to play with so far so we don't know exactly how it will fit in, but I do know, if the IQ is as sound as all recent Canon lenses, then it will get used for my architectural and real estate work immediately, but I don't envision using it for travel where I often shoot in the 24-35 range. For my personal uses I see a good need for both, and I am certainly in no hurry to sell my 16-35 f4 IS.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 27, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course none of us have had an 11mm rectilinear to play with so far so we don't know exactly how it will fit in, but I do know, if the IQ is as sound as all recent Canon lenses, then it will get used for my architectural and real estate work immediately, but I don't envision using it for travel where I often shoot in the 24-35 range. For my personal uses I see a good need for both, and I am certainly in no hurry to sell my 16-35 f4 IS.



Yes, I have every confidence that the 11-24 will be an amazing lens.

I definitely won't be getting both, it will be one or the other for me. When you do your real estate work, what would you shoot your interiors with? I am sure the 11-24 for the exteriors and even certain interiors will be terrific, but small rooms can be more difficult as the wider you go the more distortion you get.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2015)

I agree with Private and see them as two very different lenses. One for pretty much everyone, the other for much more specialized use. I think I would only recommend getting the 11-24 if you already have the 16-35 f/4 IS (or similar lens) or know you want/need it. 

Also, speaking of filters, the manual is up (link below) and it says that gel filters can't be used in the wide setting, so there are yet more limitations. Hopefully this will be resolved by Wonderpana, but that's months away and another $400+ on top of the $3k.

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/1/0300018091/01/EF11-24f4lusm-im-eng.pdf


----------

