# What's your thoughts: Photozone's Canon 11-24mm f/4 L review?



## pj1974 (Jul 19, 2015)

Hi all

On 16 July 2015, Klaus from Photozone.de posted his review of the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4 L USM 

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/940-canon1124f4?start=1

The analysis outcome from testing a copy of that lens (on the 50 MP Canon EOS 5Ds R) indicates it faces a number of challenges (understandably) - particularly at 11mm:

corner sharpness - not sharp at any aperture
vignetting - very high, especially wide open 3.3 EV
barrel distortion - high at 4.46%
Chromatic Aberrations (border CAs) - high ~3.8 pixels 

Flare actually is quite good. No mention is made of bokeh (understandably).
Vignetting, barrel distortions and border CAs can be (mostly) corrected in post. 
But sharpness can not actually be added in post. I realise that 50 MP is a new benchmark (which Klaus also clearly states in his review).

I appreciate the physical constraints and challenges of creating such a lens - and I applaud Canon for creating this lens... However I am really interested what other CR folk here think of the lens - particularly seeing the Photozone review. 

Looking forward to your comments, for a useful & good thread of discussion.
(PS... there are a number of threads about this lens, e.g. announcement, and now some in use, with great photos - but I particularly wanted to receive & read people's thoughts on the lens review!) 

Paul 8)


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 19, 2015)

I read the Photozone review too. I don't have the lens, nor would I ever as it is far too wide for my style of shooting. However some of those who's opinions I respect on CR rate this lens - highly.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2015)

It depends how you look at it. If you don't NEED 11-16 then the 16-35 f4 IS is a much "better" lens that is more user friendly and has better bench figures, a more 'useful' range and IS. If you need 14-16 then the 11-24 is much better than then current 14mm MkII, if you need 11-14 then there really isn't much choice, if you would like 11 then there is no choice.

I have the 11-24 and find it a superb optic that's only real challenge is the ability to 'see' good compositions. 11 is very wide!

If you don't shoot with a need to 'get it all in', or have the super wide minds eye then it isn't worth three times the 16-35, indeed the 16-35 f4 IS is the nicer lens, the 11-24 does create new compositional opportunities that have never been available before and the IQ is certainly well above average.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 19, 2015)

Shame they did not choose a more current camera to review with but then I guess you have to start testing at 50mp at some point in time, I had the 14mm mk2 and have a 16-35mk2, waiting for my 11-24 for my 5d3, looking forward to getting stuck in. Loved my 14mm f2.8 Mk2.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> Shame they did not choose a more current camera to review with but then I guess you have to start testing at 50mp at some point in time, I had the 14mm mk2 and have a 16-35mk2, waiting for my 11-24 for my 5d3, looking forward to getting stuck in. Loved my 14mm f2.8 Mk2.



What camera is more current?? The 50mp models are the newest, and are the ones which give the most benefit from the lens. If you can afford the lens, you might want to get or plan to get a 50mp camera as well.

Are you are wishing they would test it on a 3+ year old model?

Like it or not, we are going to see lenses tested on 50 mp bodies. The corners and edges will be worse than with a 50 mp camera, but the center will be much sharper. Results may not follow a pattern, just as a test on a APS-C sensor can look entirely different when done on FF. A stellar lens tested on a 5D MK III may reveal unexpected issues on the 50MP body.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 19, 2015)

Sorry I should have worded it better, I meant tested it on a body that can be compared against older benchmarks, given that the new sensor kind of makes a comparison difficult. I fully agree with your points, speaking as someone with a 5D3 I'd hoped that they would have tested both bodies on this lense, rightly as you say 50mp is the current benchmark and not my out of date 5D3. Plus this lense is designed around the new sensor so I am talking rubbish. I defo plan to get the new 5D but as for "as well" I may have to do some more saving first!  For now the 5D3s ageing sensor will have to make do!



Not even sure why I felt compelled to post, perhaps excitement and anticipation of the new arrival!

Not a great first post....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> Sorry I should have worded it better, I meant tested it on a body that can be compared against older benchmarks, given that the new sensor kind of makes a comparison difficult. I fully agree with your points, speaking as someone with a 5D3 I'd hoped that they would have tested both bodies on this lense, rightly as you say 50mp is the current benchmark and not my out of date 5D3. Plus this lense is designed around the new sensor so I am talking rubbish. I defo plan to get the new 5D but as for "as well" I may have to do some more saving first! For now the 5D3s ageing sensor will have to make do!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do expect to see lots of tests on older cameras, I'd look to " The Digital Picture" for some of the images of test targets. Many of the skilled lens testers are not wealthy people, so a big layout for all of the lenses and bodies is out of the question. They often rely on loaned gear.


They currently have test shots using three different cameras and you can compare the 21 mp 1DS MK III with the 7D MK II or the 5DS R.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

A quick look shows that the corners may look slightly better on the 1DS III, but the center of the image is simply amazing on the 5DS R.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 19, 2015)

As you would expect I have read ALL the current reviews and tests, it looks great! I was making a poor effort at conversation.. . Id love the 5DS R but it will be a while. I am sure some amazing photos will be taken with the new 11-24. Pixel peeping is something I try to avoid as it spoils my love of great photographs


----------



## ajperk (Jul 19, 2015)

I wonder if wide angle lenses may suffer from a systematic problem in the way photozone tests lenses. If I have read correctly, they test the lenses using a chart/target. A given chart/target must fit the field of view of the lens to get comparable information across different lenses. Thus, for a given chart/target, lenses of longer focal length must be situated further away and lenses of short focal length must be closer to get the target to fill the frame. For shorter and shorter focal length lenses we get closer and closer to the minimum focusing distance of the lenses, where many lenses begin to show weaknesses. Is it possible that while at relatively close focusing distances, the 11-24mm isn't greater in the borders/corners, but at the actual focusing distances most people use the borders/corners are much better resolved? Images I've seen so far produced with this lens does not leave me with the impression that it has poor corner resolution.

Perhaps I misunderstand the way they test the lenses, or perhaps my reasoning is incorrect somewhere along the line. What do you all think?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2015)

ajperk said:


> I wonder if wide angle lenses may suffer from a systematic problem in the way photozone tests lenses. If I have read correctly, they test the lenses using a chart/target. A given chart/target must fit the field of view of the lens to get comparable information across different lenses. Thus, for a given chart/target, lenses of longer focal length must be situated further away and lenses of short focal length must be closer to get the target to fill the frame. For shorter and shorter focal length lenses we get closer and closer to the minimum focusing distance of the lenses, where many lenses begin to show weaknesses. Is it possible that while at relatively close focusing distances, the 11-24mm isn't greater in the borders/corners, but at the actual focusing distances most people use the borders/corners are much better resolved? Images I've seen so far produced with this lens does not leave me with the impression that it has poor corner resolution.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand the way they test the lenses, or perhaps my reasoning is incorrect somewhere along the line. What do you all think?



The issue of test methods may indeed be a factor, but a big issue with such a wide angle is that light rays strike the edges of the sensor at a pretty extreme angle. This causes even more vignetting, and while a camera does boost the gain of the surrounding photosites to partially compensate, its still bad.

The larger sensors have less of a issue, so they can have very wide angle lenses and still be sharp at the edges.

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals has probably the best test setup I've seen used for lens reviews. It is independent of the camera used, since it tests the lens alone. His test machine does not test all lens characteristics, but many can be inferred from the results.

Once they get data from many copies that are from different production batches (50 or more lenses), the picture will become clearer. and looking at just the mtf of the lens alone lets the effect of putting it on a camera body become apparent.

He just published data for many ultra wide lenses.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurements-for-wide-angle-lenses


----------



## ajperk (Jul 19, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The issue of test methods may indeed be a factor, but a big issue with such a wide angle is that light rays strike the edges of the sensor at a pretty extreme angle. This causes even more vignetting, and while a camera does boost the gain of the surrounding photosites to partially compensate, its still bad.
> 
> The larger sensors have less of a issue, so they can have very wide angle lenses and still be sharp at the edges.
> 
> ...



I suppose it could be a phenomenon associated with vignetting, though I was wondering more about the effect of different types of aberrations at different focusing distances. I believe that Roger at LensRentals usually tests the lens with an optical bench which (if I am recalling correctly) takes measurements with the lens set at infinity focus. Would this make apparent aberrations which would have a significant impact at or near minimum focusing distances?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2015)

ajperk said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The issue of test methods may indeed be a factor, but a big issue with such a wide angle is that light rays strike the edges of the sensor at a pretty extreme angle. This causes even more vignetting, and while a camera does boost the gain of the surrounding photosites to partially compensate, its still bad.
> ...



Lenses do behave differently for various focus distances, so a combination of Imatest and the trioptics image master can provide that data.

As you obviously already know, lens testing and understanding the results and their effect on real world camera usage is covered in advanced optics, and beyond the scope of this course  

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/05/introducing-the-optical-bench


----------



## lol (Jul 19, 2015)

Photozone use imatest, and uses a chart at a given distance. For this lens, it was stated in the forum they could effectively double the size of the chart by making one corner the centre of the image, and using the opposite corner to test the image edge.

It was also stated in the forum there will be testing of some (other) lenses on the previous and now 5Ds R for comparison.

From memory, Lensrental's OLAF tests at infinity, so results may vary from that.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> Sorry I should have worded it better, I meant tested it on a body that can be compared against older benchmarks, given that the new sensor kind of makes a comparison difficult. I fully agree with your points, speaking as someone with a 5D3 I'd hoped that they would have tested both bodies on this lense, rightly as you say 50mp is the current benchmark and not my out of date 5D3. Plus this lense is designed around the new sensor so I am talking rubbish. I defo plan to get the new 5D but as for "as well" I may have to do some more saving first! For now the 5D3s ageing sensor will have to make do!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's fair statement, I get you -- we want data to immediately compare this lens to others on the same sensor.

In that sense, PhotoZone, LensTip, DXO, etc. are staring at a painful cliff with the 5DS rigs. Once they start testing anythong on a 5DS/5DSr, they have to retest eeeeeeeverything. For a place like DXO that makes money through other channels, that won't be so problematic. But PhotoZone (I believe) gets by with single lenses that are often loaned to them. The re-test timeframe for smaller sites like that will be painfully slow.

- A


----------



## keithcooper (Jul 20, 2015)

Interesting results - I'm using an 11-24 on a 5Ds and hope people do read and take in the caveats about change of testing methodology.

I first tested the 11-24 on my 1Ds3 for my own review, and it feels rather better in the edges than a cursory reading of the figures might suggest. On the 5Ds it's still superb and while the CA is more obvious (smaller pixels) it's no bigger (as a proportion of the image size) and is easily taken care of. I'm thinking of updating the review with a few 5Ds examples

The distortions mentioned at 11mm really don't seem as prominent as the figures would suggest, and the distortion that is there, is relatively clean - if you've tried correcting the distortions of a lens like the Samyang 14mm, you'll appreciate this ;-)

Excellent technical review, even if I fear that lens measurement data and the 5Ds/R will have launched many new topics for those that seem to prefer specifications over actual photography ;-)


----------



## Mika (Jul 20, 2015)

> I wonder if wide angle lenses may suffer from a systematic problem in the way photozone tests lenses. If I have read correctly, they test the lenses using a chart/target. A given chart/target must fit the field of view of the lens to get comparable information across different lenses. Thus, for a given chart/target, lenses of longer focal length must be situated further away and lenses of short focal length must be closer to get the target to fill the frame. For shorter and shorter focal length lenses we get closer and closer to the minimum focusing distance of the lenses, where many lenses begin to show weaknesses. Is it possible that while at relatively close focusing distances, the 11-24mm isn't greater in the borders/corners, but at the actual focusing distances most people use the borders/corners are much better resolved? Images I've seen so far produced with this lens does not leave me with the impression that it has poor corner resolution.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand the way they test the lenses, or perhaps my reasoning is incorrect somewhere along the line. What do you all think?



Your hunch is most likely correct up to certain level at least. I suspect the Photozone's reported distortion number is specifically affected by this, most of the floating element objectives have an increased distortion near minimum focus distance (double that if it is a zoom). Typically this is the case for corner sharpness as well, as the edges do not really matter that much at macro ratios.


----------



## Bdube (Jul 20, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ajperk said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if wide angle lenses may suffer from a systematic problem in the way photozone tests lenses. If I have read correctly, they test the lenses using a chart/target. A given chart/target must fit the field of view of the lens to get comparable information across different lenses. Thus, for a given chart/target, lenses of longer focal length must be situated further away and lenses of short focal length must be closer to get the target to fill the frame. For shorter and shorter focal length lenses we get closer and closer to the minimum focusing distance of the lenses, where many lenses begin to show weaknesses. Is it possible that while at relatively close focusing distances, the 11-24mm isn't greater in the borders/corners, but at the actual focusing distances most people use the borders/corners are much better resolved? Images I've seen so far produced with this lens does not leave me with the impression that it has poor corner resolution.
> ...



Tuesday we are launching a new database / search / comparison tool for the data. The 11-24 is on my list for testing but won't be done for maybe a week or more. 

A very select few micro four thirds lenses are on my radar, as are completing some more Nikon lenses. There is also stop down data for key models to take. I do not have long enough left at OLAF to test every lens at all apertures but I can do a good number of them.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

M_S said:


> In my opinion they saw that they couldn't compete with the Nikon 14-24 2.8 in optics and the 2.8 aperture size. So they instead made it an f4, and to make up for it, put some additional focal length on the lower end to it. For me, a superb 14-24 in 2.8 is way more useful than the 11-24 with f4. Won't buy that thing as a consequence.
> 14-24 f2.8 or f2, tack sharp, no/lowest coma, low ca, now that would be something I would think about spending 3600 euros on.



That all depends on your perspective. On the ultra-wide end of shooting, there are two camps: those desperately needing f/2.8 performance (events/sports/astro people) and those who simply do not care about shooting wide open at all (landscapers, architecture, interiors, etc.).

For the first group, the 11-24 f/4L was not made for you, plain and simple -- you might get great shots with it, but it's not as ideal a lens as other options. Those folks should shoot with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, or possibly that new Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC.

For the second group, the 11-24 f/4L is a very nice option and might be right for their needs. I see it as a super-specialty lens for those that desperately need to get that wide and will give up front filter threads to do so.

But please don't try to compare the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 to this Canon 11-24 f/4L. 11-13 makes this lens a nutty different animal to me. For every Canon person wishing ours was an f/2.8, there is a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 user wishing their lens went down to 11mm. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

And as a side comment, I also think there's a misconception that Canon needs a best in class UWA events/sports lens _and_ a best in class landscape tool _in the same lens_. I strongly disagree. Just because Nikon pulled that off does not mean Canon should do the same. 

Canon is (in my mind) being pretty wise here with a three-headed ultra-wide strategy:

11-24 f/4L --> interiors, architecture, photogs who have caught the really really really ultrawide bug
16-35 f/4L IS --> landscapers, videographers
16-35 f/2.8L II (and surely, the III is coming) --> sports / events, possibly astro.

The reason why I think this is wise is that middle line above. Nikon seemingly found it's way into every landscaper's bag with the tandem of the D8x0 sensors and that 14-24 lens. Canon had a 50 MP rig in development, and they knew landscapers would want a killer lens to support it. That, to me, says to lose the weight/cost/complexity of f/2.8 (unnecessary when you are shooting in the f/8 - f/14 neighborhood so often), offer a properly set front filter ring that is as close as possible to the front element to minimize vignetting with 4x6 systems, and make it as sharp as possible. They did all of those things, and I love them for it.

When Canon finally follows through with a proper 16-35 f/2.8L III, they will have optimized tools for the three camps above. The landscapers aren't lugging around paperweights that require complicated filter outriggers, the ultra-ultra-ultrawide camp has a tool of legend, and event people have a workhorse wide-open specialist that they can rely upon. Win win win.

- A


----------



## SwnSng (Jul 20, 2015)

I've owned both lenses and pretty much instantly sold my Nikon 14-24 after shooting with the 11-24 for a couple of weeks. The images in the 11-24 in my eyes are just as sharp with better contrast and color and it's not a subtle difference either. I ended up picking up a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for my Astro stuff and never looked back.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 20, 2015)

Bdube said:


> Tuesday we are launching a new database / search / comparison tool for the data. The 11-24 is on my list for testing but won't be done for maybe a week or more.
> 
> A very select few micro four thirds lenses are on my radar, as are completing some more Nikon lenses. There is also stop down data for key models to take. I do not have long enough left at OLAF to test every lens at all apertures but I can do a good number of them.



Thanks for posting Brandon.

For those that don't know you, here is a shallow bit of introduction. Feel free to add more. Are you going into the optics field?

"Our summer intern, *Brandon Dube*, has tackled that problem and come up with a reasonably elegant solution. He's written some Matlab scripts that grab the results generated from our Trioptics Imagemaster Optical Bench, summarizes them, and performs sample variation comparisons automatically. We're going to eventually present that data to you just like we present MTF data: when a new lens is released we'll also give you an idea of the expected sample variation. Before we do that though, we need to get some idea of what kind of sample variations should be expected."


----------



## Bdube (Jul 20, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Bdube said:
> 
> 
> > Tuesday we are launching a new database / search / comparison tool for the data. The 11-24 is on my list for testing but won't be done for maybe a week or more.
> ...



I am an optics student at the U of R. Some of the research I am working on includes the polishing of unusual materials via MRF and testing the application of Nodal Aberration Theory applied to rotationally nonsymmetric freeform optics.

Next summer I should be at Oberkochen for Zeiss. I would have been there this summer, but we did not begin paperwork soon enough for the timeline to work out.


----------



## The Flasher (Jul 20, 2015)

pj1974 said:


> ...
> Looking forward to your comments, for a useful & good thread of discussion.
> (PS... there are a number of threads about this lens, e.g. announcement, and now some in use, with great photos - but I particularly wanted to receive & read people's thoughts on the lens review!)
> 
> Paul 8)



I bought this lens as soon as it was available. Shooting architecture with it, special effects shots for the extreme closeup effect without the fisheye barrelling. It's a very powerful tool in its focal range - but I hesitate to use it on any run and gun shoots due to the size and front element bulge factor - prefer to use the amazing 16-35/4 for that, which also superb optically AND fits in the bag 

My 11-24/4 is very sharp corner to corner, some chroma but you really have to look hard for it. Flares beautifully - or lacks flare, more specifically, when shooting interiors with daylight streaming in through banks of windows.

my 2 cents


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 21, 2015)

I have used the 11-24/4 and am just as impressed with its build quality (and weight balance ratio with the 1D X) as I am with the quality of the images it used. It is sharp and creates little distortion. Really is quite something, but of course you pay for the privilege.

I also love the 16-35 f/4 IS and that is another stellar lens, but of course it is not as wide and the build quality is not imho the same. But the IS is outstanding, and the quality of the images is again superb.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 21, 2015)

Hello again Everyone

Paul (the OP!) here… 

I really appreciate the input on this thread, there have been a number of really useful contributions (just as I hoped for). Thanks CR Guy for promoting this thread on the front page of CR!  

The aspects discussed about potential systemic problem of certain testing techniques with UUWA (ultra ULTRA wide angle) lenses, and shorter focussing distances I can understand the logic of. So that this impacts both distortion and corner sharpness (particularly for a zoom) – yes, may be one contributing factor why those respective figures are not ‘great’ in Photozone’s tests (and potentially other reviews / tests out there… or soon to be released). But it may not be nearly as much an issue in the real world (where most photos taken at further focussing distances).

The analysis / thoughts / breakdown about different lenses I think is very important. For example- each lens is ‘fit for purpose’ – and targets a different user, which also helps us to realise we should not place too much emphasis on any comparison between Canon’s 11-24mm L with any other lens (either the Canon 16-35mm f/4, the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8, the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8, or the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8). I do think size/weight, functionality (e.g. filters and/or IS) and aperture speed definitely define each of these lenses as different.

For the record, I really dislike fisheye lenses (or ‘effect’) – that’s why I am super excited about the Canon 11-24mm L – but really have hardly much interest in the Canon 8-15mm f/4 L fisheye!

I have found it great to read some more ‘real user’ reports here on CR (there were a few on other places, e.g. Fred Miranda, DPReview, B&H, etc) – and this is very encouraging that overall ‘real world users’ think the 11-24mm L is a great lens, even though (for various reasons – the 11-24mm Photozone report might ‘highlight’ certain hurdles – at least, in certain situations). Very interesting that most users say it is very sharp (some even specifically say ‘corner to corner’) and that distortions well controlled given the extreme 11mm possibility, and chroma not really a huge problem. (Naturally, most people who spend about USD $3k won’t want to be disappointed with their lens… initial indications are that most are v happy with it).

I have a lot of time and respect for how Klaus at Photozone does his lens tests. He is thorough, clear and I like that his results are so easily comparable (within the 1 ‘camera / system’). I look forward to more ‘benchmark’ tests / pro reviews too – from others, e.g. SLRgear, Lensrentals, DxO, etc

My own situation is that I own the Sigma 8-16mm, which is a great lens – in fact – I feel it, in some ways heralded in the UUWA zooms. (Previously I owned the Sigma 10-20mm, and I have used the Canon 10-22mm). The Sigma 8-16mm on my 7D is equivalent to 12.8 – 25.6mm (in 35mm / FF format). (Nikon owners of the Sigma 8-16mm would get 12mm at FF equivalent). The difference between 8mm and 10mm (on APS-C) really made a huge difference for me. But more importantly – the sharpness edge to edge and low CA really made this lens be a real winner for me, as I love UUWA photos – mainly of landscapes or interesting perspectives of ‘everyday things / scenes’ and rather occasionally of architecture / buildings too! So I really don't need f/2.8 in an UWA/UUWA.

If I ever move to FF (at this stage I don’t plan to) – the 11-24mm L would probably be too much for me (in terms of what I would like for size / weight and price). That’s another reason I love the 7D / Sigma 8-16mm combination – a relatively small package still delivering great quality down to 12.8mm. I think it’s great that Canon has now made two UWA lenses with IS – the EF-M 11-22mm IS STM (for EOM cameras) – and the 16-35mm f/4 L. IS would probably realistically be the only thing that might make me choose another UWA/UUWA over my current Sigma 8-16mm… i.e. if it had IS. (Of course, should Canon ever incorporate IBIS, then that would be a great benefit too… but I doubt Canon is going down this path – at least not for EOS DSLRs at this stage!

So… I look forward to receiving / reading some more posts on this thread about the amazing Canon 11-24mm L lens. Again, well done Canon – and thanks to all who have contributed so far. 

Paul


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 21, 2015)

The performance figures were a little disappointing, for such and expensive piece of glass...I was expecting near optical nivana. But I wonder how much of the disappointing figures is because of the 50mp? I'd really like the see the same test done on a 5DIII to see how that compares. 
With these figures, I'd rather spend 1/3 of the cash and get a Sigma 12-24mm mkII, it's smaller and lighter and quite frankly, I'll never shoot it wide open. At f11-f16 there is little between them optically and I'll be requiring the extra DOF that the smaller aperture will display. At least the Sigma has front filter options (Lee / Wondapanner). And the dreaded Sigma AF inconsistency is hardly an issue with such a wide angle lens!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 21, 2015)

Hi All,

As many of you know, I'm one of these rank amateurs that got back into photography strictly for the fun of it. I've had FF 24 mm for decades and loved it but hated the fact that so often it just wasn't wide enough. I agonized over 11-24 vs. 16-35 and based on the fact that I'm retired and getting up there decided that I wanted the thrill of a brand new unique lens. I love the quality of this lens but don't have the 16-35 to compare.

It's good enough that if I shoot wide I can still crop and being that I lack the high skill level of many on CR this allows me to compose after the fact and still have very nice photos.

I like the potential for crazy shots that aren't everyones cup of tea.

I do have concern for the front element but I don't mind the weight at all (used to packing 300 2.8 II)

I'm not one for drawing attention to myself but I've already overcome that just like with the 300.

I have had rainbow shots where I was ticked to not have the width and I wondered how the 11-24 would do. A couple days ago, there it was in my back yard (with all the junk unfortunately) and so I ran out but it was _still raining_, which is not the usual in my experience. Anyway, here is what I got. This is not something to proudly display - it's here just to illustrate why I'm thrilled to have the extra width. The first shot is at 15 and that essentially covered the double rainbow. The second shot is 11 cropped to maybe 14.

FWIW

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 21, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> I have had rainbow shots where I was ticked to not have the width and I wondered how the 11-24 would do. A couple days ago, there it was in my back yard (with all the junk unfortunately) and so I ran out but it was _still raining_, which is not the usual in my experience. Anyway, here is what I got. This is not something to proudly display - it's here just to illustrate why I'm thrilled to have the extra width. The first shot is at 15 and that essentially covered the double rainbow. The second shot is 11 cropped to maybe 14.
> 
> FWIW
> 
> Jack



Thanks for sharing the shots! 

Good gravy, I never though about raindrops -- how do you keep that front element dry in the rain? You'd need a hood as big as a dog cone!

- A


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 21, 2015)

Well I have mine  And as per the reviews its BIG! Not sure how I will get on with looking after the BULB but we will see, on the scale of things its twice the size of my old 14mmf2.8mk2! A couple of very quick snaps and I am pleased so far, the real test will be my skill in finding some good stuff to shoot, tbh it's not such a shock after some time with the 14mm, but yeah, 11mm is W I D E .

I am into the whole "weird" aspect of the UWA as well as shooting good perspectives, anyway, its built like a tank and feels super super nice!!! I think tbh its the best L glass I have ever examined. The time and effort in making such a lense must be huge! It's glass perfection! Worth the price just to look at.

I should add maybe I will miss the 2.8 only time will tell, BUT going on the size of this I think IF it were 2.8 it would be the size of a house! And yeah its a lump, easy the same as lugging my 70-200f2.8mk2 around!

Lifes short, if in doubt, buy it anyway! 8)


Quick edit: took some more images, looked at them in detail in LR (raw), it's sharp corner to corner IMO with little to none CA in the images I snapped on my 5D3, very happy so far.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 21, 2015)

FYI all, DXO joined the 11-24 f/4L review party this morning:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27143.0

- A


----------



## M_S (Jul 23, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> FYI all, DXO joined the 11-24 f/4L review party this morning:
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27143.0
> 
> - A



....and they backed up, what I noticed in a few posts before, concerning the results in comparison to the Nikon 14-24. Different tool for different tasks.


----------

