# Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens



## JVLphoto (Jan 25, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-01-25" title="Egami" target="_blank">Egami</a> has shown that Canon has filed a patent for an ultra-wide angle zoom:</p>
<p>(Translated)</p>
<p>Description and self-interpretation of the patent literature</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2014-10286</strong>
</p>
<li>Publication date 2014.1.20</li>
<li>Filing date 2012.6.29</li>
<p>
</p>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong>
</p>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.06</li>
<li>Focal length f = 11.30-18.00-23.30mm</li>
<li>Fno. 4.10</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 62.42-50.24-42.88mm</li>
<li>Image height Y = 21.64mm</li>
<li>172.19-161.28-162.86mm overall length of the lens</li>
<li>BF 38.82-52.31-63.15mm</li>
<p>
</p>
<p>Canon users have been left out in this focal range for quite some time. With Nikon and their legendary 14-24mm f/2.8G ED and  other third party offerings filling up the gap in the market. Can Canon produce an optically superior lens that also has such a shallow depth of field? Until they do, the only wide-angle zooms that Canon makes that come close are the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/" title="16-35mm review" target="_blank">16-35 f/2.8 L II</a> or the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-8-15-f4l-fisheye/" title="8-15mm review" target="_blank">8-15mm f/4L Fisheye</a>.</p>
<p>[<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-01-25" title="Egami" target="_blank">Egami</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## friedrice1212 (Jan 25, 2014)

"Image height Y = 21.64mm"

This is for APS-C sensors, no? Replacement for EF-S 11-22mm 4-5.6 maybe?


----------



## mkabi (Jan 25, 2014)

friedrice1212 said:


> "Image height Y = 21.64mm"
> 
> This is for APS-C sensors, no? Replacement for EF-S 11-22mm 4-5.6 maybe?



How did you figure that? 
The patents for the 85, 100 & 135 all had "Image height Y = 21.635mm" 

You're saying that 0.005mm difference is all that is needed between a EF & EF-S lens?


----------



## lol (Jan 25, 2014)

"image height" would give the radius of the image circle. Double that is enough to cover the diagonal of a full frame sensor.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Jan 25, 2014)

Should be a popular one if it comes out for FF...


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 25, 2014)

I wish it was f/2.8...


----------



## Ricku (Jan 25, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> Nikon and their legendary 14-24mm f/2.8G ED..
> 
> The only wide-angle zooms that Canon makes that come close are *16-35mm f2.8L II*


The 16-35 is not close at all. The focal range yes, but not the performance, esp in the corners!


----------



## Tom W (Jan 25, 2014)

lol said:


> "image height" would give the radius of the image circle. Double that is enough to cover the diagonal of a full frame sensor.



Thank you! It's unusual for me, but I decided to withhold my opinion until I learned what "Y" was. 

Yes, if it's full frame and of good quality, I would be wanting this lens badly! Heck, I could use it on the cropper also.


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 25, 2014)

Ricku said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon and their legendary 14-24mm f/2.8G ED..
> ...


+1


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Jan 25, 2014)

ewg963 said:


> I wish it was f/2.8...



The price might go near $3000 for that...


----------



## Ruined (Jan 25, 2014)

If they released this, it would be the ultimate landscape zoom assuming the optics are good...

A perfect fit between the more effect-driven 8-15mm f/4 fisheye and the event-oriented 16-35mm f/2.8... 

Hope this one comes out! Given Canon's current lineup, it makes more sense than a 14-24 f/2.8.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 25, 2014)

ewg963 said:


> I wish it was f/2.8...



Just out of curiousity, why? I mean, practically, and not just because you want a collection of f/2.8 or faster lenses 

24mm is too wide for events & people (where you might want the speed) due to the distortion, so odds are 99% of the use of this will be for landscape. Landscape is f/8+ most of the time... And the wide side we already have the 16-35mm f/2.8 for events & people - whose focal length is actually long enough to shoot people without unflattering distortion.

It is possible the f/4 design might reduce cost, size, weight, and actually improve image quality at smaller apertures where this would be used 99% of the time.


----------



## willis (Jan 25, 2014)

Cool patent, but just make it F2.8 :
Would be amazing landscape lens and for star photography.


----------



## christianronnel (Jan 25, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> ... Can Canon produce an optically superior lens that also has such a shallow depth of field?



Just curious, why do you need shallow depth of field for this focal length?


----------



## Ruined (Jan 25, 2014)

willis said:


> Cool patent, but just make it F2.8 :
> Would be amazing landscape lens and for star photography.



Comparing the 16-35 f/2.8 and 17-40 f/4, the 17-40 actually performs better at small apertures than the 16-35 f/2.8. Small apertures is where most of landscape work is done, thus the f/4 may actually be preferable to f/2.8 for landscape.

In terms of star photography, it is doubtful you are going to get anything better than the 8-15mm fisheye, 24mm f/1.4, or 24-70 f/2.8 II - all great existing options for stars.

This lens would likely fill the hole in ultrawide rectilinear zoom while preserving quality at small apertures for landscape which an f/2.8 lens might not be able to do as well.


----------



## Zv (Jan 25, 2014)

It's only a patent. Unlikely this will ever see the light of day. Least we know Canon are exploring the wide end for a change. 

11mm? How would that work I wonder while keeping it rectilinear? Intresting.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 25, 2014)

sorry if I sound like a noob but what do you mean by a rectilinear lens?


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Jan 25, 2014)

J.R. said:


> sorry if I sound like a noob but what do you mean by a rectilinear lens?



Non fisheye


----------



## rs (Jan 25, 2014)

Zv said:


> It's only a patent. Unlikely this will ever see the light of day. Least we know Canon are exploring the wide end for a change.
> 
> 11mm? How would that work I wonder while keeping it rectilinear? Intresting.



It's possible. Anything where the diagonal sees less than 180' is possible. Just difficult. A rectilinear lens will need the corners stretching out loads to keep straight lines straight, and being such an extreme wide angle, expect huge stretching from such a lens. Clouds in the sky will take on a whole new lens created shape.

http://www.canon.com/bctv/calculator/calculator1.html will give you an idea about the AoV of such a lens.

The Sigma 12-24 is the nearest match that currently exists.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 25, 2014)

tianxiaozhang said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > sorry if I sound like a noob but what do you mean by a rectilinear lens?
> ...



Thanks ... Sometimes this optical terminology gets incomprehensible for me.


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 25, 2014)

tianxiaozhang said:


> ewg963 said:
> 
> 
> > I wish it was f/2.8...
> ...


I understand that.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 25, 2014)

ewg963 said:


> tianxiaozhang said:
> 
> 
> > ewg963 said:
> ...



I don't really understand that, but I expect that ... even if it is f/4 ;D


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 25, 2014)

J.R. said:


> ewg963 said:
> 
> 
> > tianxiaozhang said:
> ...


 I know that type of glass won't cheap but I'll settle for the f/4


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 25, 2014)

Ruined said:


> ewg963 said:
> 
> 
> > I wish it was f/2.8...
> ...


 I've used the Nikon 14-24mm for events and people. I hoping was that Canon make a zoom similiar to that..yeah yeah the 16-35 good glass but the Nikon outshines it. The 16-35 mm I've tried it and "meh". I agree it would be used mostly for landscape. I have a streak of creativity.... I'm buying it regardless anyhow if this glass become reality. ;D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 25, 2014)

Zv said:


> It's only a patent. Unlikely this will ever see the light of day. Least we know Canon are exploring the wide end for a change.
> 
> 11mm? How would that work I wonder while keeping it rectilinear? Intresting.



Sigma did with their 12-24mm mk I. It was a full frame, fully corrected rectilinear lens...with almost zero distortion. It was quite an amazing lens, dogged by poor QC from Sigma.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 25, 2014)

Absolutely agree with 16-35 for portraits and people shots. Not every portrait is a headshot.

Did they make it f4 to keep a smaller front element to make use of normal screw in filters perhaps ?


----------



## rs (Jan 25, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Did they make it f4 to keep a smaller front element to make use of normal screw in filters perhaps ?


Not likely - look at the shape of the front element on the patent:







I don't think there's one lens with such a wide angle of view (or even close) and f2.8


----------



## Rudeofus (Jan 25, 2014)

rs said:


> I don't think there's one lens with such a wide angle of view (or even close) and f2.8



Look at this lens here: Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 fisheye lens


----------



## fish_shooter (Jan 25, 2014)

ewg963 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ewg963 said:
> ...



I would not be surprised if this f/4 lens went for $3K given the size of the first few lens elements!


----------



## fish_shooter (Jan 25, 2014)

rs said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > It's only a patent. Unlikely this will ever see the light of day. Least we know Canon are exploring the wide end for a change.
> ...



125 degrees angle of view based on doubling the half angle stated in the patent.


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 25, 2014)

fish_shooter said:


> ewg963 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 25, 2014)

fish_shooter said:


> ewg963 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...


=+1 Fish...nothing surprises me these days.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 25, 2014)

Full-frame, rectilinear, sharp, contrasty and flare resistant .. . save one for me!


----------



## traveller (Jan 25, 2014)

I find myself agreeing with Dilbert (God forbid  ) on this one: fix the bread and butter lenses first before moving on to exotica.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jan 25, 2014)

compared with the 17mm TS 11mm FF seems possible. if the image from the TS would be compresst to normal FF Image circle, there would result a 11mm 2.8 lens. Considering, that this patant is a zoom 11mm f 4.0 seems believable

comparing the angle of view mentioned in the patent with the calculator linked here, it seems to be a Full Frame lens. Not clear is, why the image high is less than 24mm, wich would be the hight of a FF sensor.


----------



## fotoray (Jan 25, 2014)

This lens not identified as L lens. Does it make sense that it should be an L lens, or can you get high quality optics at this focal length without L design standards?


----------



## rs (Jan 25, 2014)

fotoray said:


> This lens not identified as L lens. Does it make sense that it should be an L lens, or can you get high quality optics at this focal length without L design standards?


The product name of the proposed lens is never in the patent. However, without wanting to get myself proved wrong again, I'm not aware of any Canon full frame zoom lenses with a constant aperture which aren't L lenses.



Rudeofus said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there's one lens with such a wide angle of view (or even close) and f2.8
> ...


OK, I walked into that one :


----------



## fish_shooter (Jan 25, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> compared with the 17mm TS 11mm FF seems possible. if the image from the TS would be compresst to normal FF Image circle, there would result a 11mm 2.8 lens. Considering, that this patant is a zoom 11mm f 4.0 seems believable
> 
> comparing the angle of view mentioned in the patent with the calculator linked here, it seems to be a Full Frame lens. Not clear is, why the image high is less than 24mm, wich would be the hight of a FF sensor.



Image height refers to the distance of the image measured from the optical axis; also used for the X-axis in MTF graphs. http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/reading_MTF_charts.shtml
Maximum image height equals half the diagonal distance of the format; so 2x that equals the diagonal of the format. Recall this is about 43mm.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Jan 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > If they released this, it would be the ultimate landscape zoom assuming the optics are good...
> ...



Because land is bigger than models...........

11mm might be a bit wide for most fashion work.. 
24~28mm works great..


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 25, 2014)

ewg963 said:


> I wish it was f/2.8...



personally I'd prefer f/4: smaller, lighter, less expensive, perhaps better optically


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ewg963 said:
> 
> 
> > I wish it was f/2.8...
> ...



Agreed. Especially for the most likely use case, landscapes on a tripod, you would probably be stopping down anyways. Even for astrophotography, you'll be on a tripod and at high ISO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2014)

F4 sucks, well it does for me personally. Sure I use the 17 TS-E, an f4, a lot, but it is specialised and no real issue as an f4. As a general purpose ultrawide upgrade to the 16-35 f2.8 the focal length is very interesting, but f4 kills it for too many situations. Iso performance does not replace aperture, neither does IS, I want all three.


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> F4 sucks, well it does for me personally. Sure I use the 17 TS-E, an f4, a lot, but it is specialised and no real issue as an f4. As a general purpose ultrawide upgrade to the 16-35 f2.8 the focal length is very interesting, but f4 kills it for too many situations. Iso performance does not replace aperture, neither does IS, I want all three.



If you need the wide aperture for boke, certainly. I would still like to see a 14-24 f/2.8 L from Canon at some point in the future. Especially if it can top Nikon's IQ corner to corner.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> F4 sucks, well it does for me personally. Sure I use the 17 TS-E, an f4, a lot, but it is specialised and no real issue as an f4. As a general purpose ultrawide upgrade to the 16-35 f2.8 the focal length is very interesting, but f4 kills it for too many situations. Iso performance does not replace aperture, neither does IS, I want all three.



I don't see 11-24mm focal length as "general purpose ultrawide". 24mm is as long as you can go, and that focal length is not general purpose due to the noticable distortion. 11-24mm is pretty much a landscape ultrawide, because the distortion can actually enhance the look of landscape photos (unlike people photos). So again, I think f/4 works for this focal length because you will likely do as good or more likely better than a faster lens stopped down and that is where you will be 99% of the time with this focal length. If you want a lens for the 1% where you want some special effect ultrawide w/ crazy bokeh, the existing 24mm f/1.4L II would be better anyway than an f/2.8 lens.

16-35mm, that I can see as "general purpose ultrawide" because 35mm very much can do general purpose without the very obvious distortion that 24mm has. And we already have that at f/2.8... I can see wanting a general purpose improvement to the 16-35 ii, but I think that should be in a 16-35 iii, not a 11-24...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2014)

You might not, I do. 

Many, many, Nikon users use the 12-24 f2.8 as a general purpose ultra wide zoom, I don't see that Canon users, who have gotten so used to lackluster ultrawide zooms of mediocre performance and length, should be unable to utilize a single millimeter of extra width below our Nikon cousins. You might, I don't.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 26, 2014)

If this lens is ever brought to the market, will it have a bulbous front element? and could that change with whether it is a f/2.8 or f/4?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 26, 2014)

rs said:


> I'm not aware of any Canon full frame zoom lenses with a constant aperture which aren't L lenses.


I wish my EF 70-210mm f/4 were a "L" lens.


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2014)

J.R. said:


> If this lens is ever brought to the market, will it have a bulbous front element? and could that change with whether it is a f/2.8 or f/4?



It will be bulbous either way...that has to do with angle of view. The size of the element will change depending on f/2.8 or f/4. The front element is ultimately what's responsible for gathering the required quantity of light. The gargantuan Nikon 6mm fisheye could have been smaller if it wasn't f/2.8, even though the front element would have still been bulbous like that. The bulb is what allows ultra wide angle FOV, the diameter (or really, total surface area) is what affects total light gathering capacity.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > If this lens is ever brought to the market, will it have a bulbous front element? and could that change with whether it is a f/2.8 or f/4?
> ...



Thanks for the information, I understand this now. 

Users of the 17mm TSE have mentioned success with using some new filter holders. I hope using the filters on such a lens will be pretty much similar.


----------



## infared (Jan 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > F4 sucks, well it does for me personally. Sure I use the 17 TS-E, an f4, a lot, but it is specialised and no real issue as an f4. As a general purpose ultrawide upgrade to the 16-35 f2.8 the focal length is very interesting, but f4 kills it for too many situations. Iso performance does not replace aperture, neither does IS, I want all three.
> ...



How about if Canoncan just EQUAL Nikon's IQ across the frame...I would settle for baby steps here!


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2014)

infared said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Equal is fine, better is better.  As I said, I would like to see a 14-24 f/2.8 L from Canon at some point in the future. Regardless of whether it's IQ is better than Nikon's. However, I would *especially* love it if the IQ was better...corner performance of Nikon's could still be improved a little bit.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 26, 2014)

For those who want the lens faster than f/4:

* If you need fast, you can buy the 14mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 16-35mm f/2.8, or 24mm f/1.4.

* I can think of only one rectilinear lens wider than 14mm, and it's slower than f/4.

* Apparently there wasn't much demand for zooms wider than 16mm, proof being the Sigma 12-24mm was the only such zoom for nearly a decade. I don't buy that Nikon & Canon just couldn't make a similar ultra wide zoom to compete. It's either there was no money in it, or they couldn't make one they felt would be up to their brand names' standards.


----------



## rs (Jan 26, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not aware of any Canon full frame zoom lenses with a constant aperture which aren't L lenses.
> ...


I'm getting really good at walking into these :-X


----------



## rs (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> You might not, I do.
> 
> Many, many, Nikon users use the 12-24 f2.8 as a general purpose ultra wide zoom, I don't see that Canon users, who have gotten so used to lackluster ultrawide zooms of mediocre performance and length, should be unable to utilize a single millimeter of extra width below our Nikon cousins. You might, I don't.


The Nikon is a 14-24. There is a pretty massive difference going from 14mm to 11mm.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 26, 2014)

rs said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You might not, I do.
> ...



+1 I thought the Nikon 12-24 was dx?


----------



## Mika (Jan 26, 2014)

I sort of concur with the people thinking F/4.0 would be perfect for this range. If it had to have a variable aperture ratio, then I'd actually like the shorter end to be slower one. But I sort of like that Canon designed it a static F/4.0, and that it is F/4.0 and not 2.8.

What it comes to bulbous front element, I was first thinking that principally, the aperture ratio should not affect it much (11 mm focal length F/4.0 equals 2.75 mm entrance pupil diameter, compare that to 4 mm of F/2.8 ). Then I realized that there is still a need for additional elements correcting the image edge, thus leading to a longer lens, which effectively enlarges the front element due to FOV. F/4.0 should ease things up a bit with respect to vulnerable front, but by looking at the lens diagram, I'd see it's still quite vulnerable.

What it comes to physical limits, it is not feasible to design a rectilinear lens with a FOV of 180 degrees. I think Theia Technologies has a 135 141 degree small-format rectilinear (sorta, it has some amount of barrel distortion but nothing close to fish-eye) with an aperture ratio of F/1.8. As a design exercise, I have once designed a 150 degree field of view rectilinear ultra-wide for a small format sensor. It was a sort of no-holds-barred thing; required several aspherical surfaces and special glass materials to get it function at least somehow, the total number of lens elements was over 15. I wouldn't like to try that again with a 35 mm sensor size.

So yes, rectilinear ultra-wides do become very expensive very quickly. I tip my hat to Sigma designers who could do a 12-24 with a relatively modest price. I tip my hat to Canon designers if they get the 11-24 on the markets.

EDIT: Moderators: why is this in EOS Bodies? I think I first wrote to a thread of the same patent under Lenses category.


----------



## moreorless (Jan 26, 2014)

I'd tend to agree with the choice of F/4, Nikon IMHO did not expect the 14-24mm to become the heavly used landscape lens it has. Personally I went with the 16-35mm VR when I got my D800 as I often like to shoot light(a lot of my landscape shooting is also dog walking), not just the weight of the lens but the larger filters and more need for a tripod on the 14-24mm went against that, not great at 35mm but I shoot in the 28mm range quite a lot where it is still excellent.

One thing I really think Canon should look into it making filters easier to use. Lens/camera manufacturers seem to have a need to try and play down the need for them but you look at the Nikon 14-24mm and this has clearly been a massive issue that's put many off. With an 11mm lens I'd imagine the problem would become even worse if Canon goes with the same fixed lens hood design.

The alternative to me seems to me seem to be to make the lens hood removable, not clip on like your standard hood but screw on like the 50mm 1.8. The bulb front element would I'd guess mean you'd also need another screw on attachment(that became larger) to offer a thread that cleared it but if they could make that 105mm it would make things a lot easier.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 26, 2014)

Some notes of a goo gle translation of the document (in both, german & english) gave some additional data not mentioned in the original article:

*Filters: *According to the Patent the front lens diameter is 84 mm - with a bulbous front element and that lens diameter filter size will be some 150mm with a special holder. Lens size is comparable to 70-200 2.8 (shorter but thicker)!

*Optical Correction: *Distortion is designed to be roughly 0.5% (FL not mentioned) at the cost of higher chromatic aberration. The idea is to rely on software correction for chromatic aberration.

*f/4.0:* High camera sensor sensitivity allows slower f-stops. Canon seems to find the main advantage in "Hyper wide angle capabilty" going below 14mm. They have f/4 & 11mm compared to Nikon with 2.8 & 14mm - if that lens is on the market.


----------



## Woody (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Many, many, Nikon users use the 12-24 f2.8 as a general purpose ultra wide zoom, I don't see that Canon users, who have gotten so used to lackluster ultrawide zooms of mediocre performance and length, should be unable to utilize a single millimeter of extra width below our Nikon cousins.



Seriously? Perhaps you can provide some solid proof that many Nikon users used the 14-24 as a general purose zoom lens.

I once saw the photos by an amateur wedding photographer who shot an entire wedding with his ultrawide lens (in this case, the Canon EF-S 10-22 or 16-35 lens in 35 mm equivalent) cos that was all he had. I can tell you many of the photos were bad, really really bad... perspective distortion is simply awful.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2014)

Viggo said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You are both right, in my disappointment I was mentally mixing the two Nikon lenses, my apologies.

The FF lens that Canon really needs to equal or best is the 14-24 f2.8. An 11-24 f4, is not, in my opinion, it. Having used many stitched 17 TS-E images the projection distortion at 11mm is not worth using, though an old mentor of mine swore by the Sigma 12-24 that was 100% tripod work and only used at 12 in very tight spaces.


----------



## Woody (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The FF lens that Canon really needs to equal or best is the 14-24 f2.8. An 11-24 f4, is not, in my opinion, it.



That is solely YOUR opinion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2014)

Woody said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The FF lens that Canon really needs to equal or best is the 14-24 f2.8. An 11-24 f4, is not, in my opinion, it.
> ...



Of course, I am the only person I can and want to speak for. Having said that I am one of the very few posters here that ever constrains their input by saying " personally" or " in my opinion" I even did it several times in this thread, do you?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 26, 2014)

tianxiaozhang said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



If you like landscape portraiture then ---how ya gonna do that without a landscape lens? I love my 24mm, but, there are times wen you want wider than that.

"A perfect fit between the more effect-driven 8-15mm f/4 fisheye and the event-oriented 16-35mm f/2.8..."

what about the 14mmm prime???? Wider than the 16-35, less distortion, better IQ than the 8-15mm...it's a lens on my list to check out for sure!!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2014)

Woody said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Many, many, Nikon users use the 12-24 f2.8 as a general purpose ultra wide zoom, I don't see that Canon users, who have gotten so used to lackluster ultrawide zooms of mediocre performance and length, should be unable to utilize a single millimeter of extra width below our Nikon cousins.
> ...



Well I used to work with two, but if you want internet proof then go look at Joe McNally's site and see some of the amazing work, including portraits, he has put out with his 14-24.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 26, 2014)

Ruined said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > F4 sucks, well it does for me personally. Sure I use the 17 TS-E, an f4, a lot, but it is specialised and no real issue as an f4. As a general purpose ultrawide upgrade to the 16-35 f2.8 the focal length is very interesting, but f4 kills it for too many situations. Iso performance does not replace aperture, neither does IS, I want all three.
> ...



For me it's not about bokeh re: max aperature. I use my ultra wides for a few things.. landscapes, portraits, wedding ceremonies and wedding receptions.

It's that last one that makes me want it at 2.8.

uggg...the 16-35...its a lens i used to love to pieces, then i bought the 24 and I find that the 16-35 really only comes out if i want to go wider than 24 (small venue/big group shot). I never really liked the look of the 16-24 from maybe 20ish-35mm - so the 24mm has become my general purpose wide angle. I am considering replacing my 16-35 with a 14mm prime - but - if something like the 14-24 or 12-24...came along...hmmmmmm...maybe this is just one of those areas i need to make the trade off



Only issue with this specific lens it that it fills a few of my needs...but I'd still need to have the 16-35 on hand for low light....


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > F4 sucks, well it does for me personally. Sure I use the 17 TS-E, an f4, a lot, but it is specialised and no real issue as an f4. As a general purpose ultrawide upgrade to the 16-35 f2.8 the focal length is very interesting, but f4 kills it for too many situations. Iso performance does not replace aperture, neither does IS, I want all three.
> ...


+10000000


----------



## Woody (Jan 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course, I am the only person I can and want to speak for. Having said that I am one of the very few posters here that ever constrains their input by saying " personally" or " in my opinion" I even did it several times in this thread, do you?



I don't have to because I conform to what's available in the market.  If you are the sole voice in a million with strange requirements, then, it should hardly surprise you that your demands are totally ignored.


----------



## Woody (Jan 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Well I used to work with two, but if you want internet proof then go look at Joe McNally's site and see some of the amazing work, including portraits, he has put out with his 14-24.



That's a good one 'cos there's no EXIF info to help one determine what lens was used for each shot.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 27, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > If you like landscape portraiture then ---how ya gonna do that without a landscape lens? I love my 24mm, but, there are times wen you want wider than that.
> ...



I believe a better description from Chuck would have been "environmental portraits", where the environment adds context to the image. (e.g. Model reading a book under a large tree.) If the scale of the environment adds context to an image why not shoot with a wide angle lens from a reasonable distance.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 27, 2014)

This would be an excellent lens for the landscape photographer, if its optics are good. I enjoy using the Sigma 8-16mm on APS-C. Canon has to beat its big brother, Sigma 12-24mm, in optical quality. Maybe Canon will wise up and sell us a filter adapter system or plan ahead, contact a manufacture of filters/adapters, and give them the lead time to develop the adapter in time to be launched simultaneously with the lens. 

In other news, Samyang Europe has just announced a filter holder for its 14mm lens. Cokin makes the matching filter size, which is a bit odd. So far there is a solid ND 0.9 and a grad ND 0.6 - unclear if the grad is "soft" or "hard", hopefully soft because one has to deal with distortion.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2014)

NancyP said:


> This would be an excellent lens for the landscape photographer, if its optics are good. I enjoy using the Sigma 8-16mm on APS-C. Canon has to beat its big brother, Sigma 12-24mm, in optical quality. Maybe Canon will wise up and sell us a filter adapter system or plan ahead, contact a manufacture of filters/adapters, and give them the lead time to develop the adapter in time to be launched simultaneously with the lens.
> 
> In other news, Samyang Europe has just announced a filter holder for its 14mm lens. Cokin makes the matching filter size, which is a bit odd. So far there is a solid ND 0.9 and a grad ND 0.6 - unclear if the grad is "soft" or "hard", hopefully soft because one has to deal with distortion.


I owned the Sigma 12-24 II and *LOVED *the ultra-wide angle FOV at 12mm. I didn't use it enough to justify keeping it around, and it was really only useable at f/11, so I sold it to fund my 300 f/2.8. If Canon can build an 11-24 with great IQ, I'd be first in line to buy it. Why anyone would care about f/2.8 at this focal length is just odd (for any use other than astrophotography). If you want bokeh at 24mm, buy the f/1.4. At shorter focal lengths, f/2.8 would only add weight, cost, and compromise IQ.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 28, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


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



I find it very amusing to hear that the 14mm has less distortion...on a wide lens there is no such thing. A fish eye has no distortion...if you shoot a circulr object to the edge of the frame....it stays circular, but straight lines become curved. With a rectilinear corrected wide lens, stright lines remain straight but circles to the edge of the frame become distorted and heavily egg shaped....so no good for portraits or group shots. 
Various wide lenses correct straight lines to various degrees. But there is always distortion present depending on the subject's shape and where it is in the frame.
The 16-35IIL walks an interesting path half way between fully corrected rectilinear and uncorrected (fish eye type of distortion). This allows a medium degree of correction, which can be pushed further in Post Production very easily. A fully corrected recilinear lens is quite rare and not particularly versatile...a 14mm and Sigma 12-24mm comes to mind. They pretty much become architecture and landscape lenses and not great outside of those genres. Where as a 16-35IIL is far more versatile and less extream correction. At the other end of the scale is a 8-15mm L fish eye zoom which is completely uncorrected and not very versatile either. 
I don't see that a 12-24 /11-24 / 14L / 14-24mm lens as a replacement to a 16-35IIL. No it compliments but doesn't replace. I have never found a single ultra wide lens which "does it all". I currently have four and I can't see that this will ever change. Sigma 12-24mm, TS-e 17L, 16-35IIL and 8-15L fisheye. Guess which one gets used the most and offeres me the best display of portfolio grade photographs? 
If this new Canon does get released....I'll be swapping out my Sigma for it, but keeping the other three lenses.
If I look at my lens arsenal, I have a lot of lenses which cover the 24-35mm range. Not all lenses perform the same with the same look for their focal lengths


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 30, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



TY...yeah, that is a better way of saying it. Just saying really that there are lots of ways to use an ultra wide. They aren't easy to use due to distortion, but when you nail the right angle, they can be quite awesome!


----------

