# First Tests: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L a Winner



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 27, 2015)

```
LensRentals.com has completed their initial tests of the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM. They have come away extremely impressed and they look forward to further testing and most importantly, making images with it.</p>
<p><strong>From LensRentals.com</strong></p>
<blockquote><p><em>As you can see, the center t 16mm has an even higher resolution than the two extreme ends, although the edges are just a bit weaker.</em></p>
<p><em>But all of that is hair-splitting; this is a remarkable lens. Canon made the widest full-frame rectilinear lens available, and made it with superb image quality throughout the zoom range. Once again, hat’s off to Canon’s lens designers.</em></p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-11-24-f4-l-mtf-tests" target="_blank">Read the full first test</a></strong> | <strong>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>
```


----------



## RGF (Feb 27, 2015)

Thanks Roger for the quick test and valuable information.

Too bad I can not have you test lens for me to make sure I don't get a bad copy.

If you ever decide to add that service, please let me know.


----------



## DRR (Feb 27, 2015)

On a side note, I have always said that I would place full trust in LensRentals' repair services if they offered them. Would be a great alternative to Canon factory service.


----------



## The Flasher (Feb 27, 2015)

I'd love to see a comparison at 14mm versus the current 14/2.8 II at f4. 

Ah who am I kidding. Sold.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 28, 2015)

It's a shame that most of the LR tests are done wide open only, since the tests are so good there. Let's face it. For the most part, people don't shoot 16-35 IS, 11-24, 14-24, etc. at wide open, but more likely f/5.6-f/11, so I'd love to see the lenses tested at say f/7.1 (enough to avoid too much diffraction but also to get more of a sense of landscape shot performance). (and when you do shoot f/4 and faster and especially f/2.8 and faster, wide open, you are not as often caring about the edges corners as when stopped down a bit)


----------



## Mr1Dx (Feb 28, 2015)

Patiently waiting for mine to arrive. Good words from Lensrental is not helping at all :


----------



## ejenner (Feb 28, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's a shame that most of the LR tests are done wide open only, since the tests are so good there. Let's face it. For the most part, people don't shoot 16-35 IS, 11-24, 14-24, etc. at wide open, but more likely f/5.6-f/11, so I'd love to see the lenses tested at say f/7.1 (enough to avoid too much diffraction but also to get more of a sense of landscape shot performance). (and when you do shoot f/4 and faster and especially f/2.8 and faster, wide open, you are not as often caring about the edges corners as when stopped down a bit)



True, they will likely be closer at f7/8. But obviously the 11-24 is going to be bad-ass whatever, and likely better than the 16-35 f4 for instance.

Looks like the quality does justify the price. Shame I can't justify the price (yet).


----------



## Zv (Feb 28, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's a shame that most of the LR tests are done wide open only, since the tests are so good there. Let's face it. For the most part, people don't shoot 16-35 IS, 11-24, 14-24, etc. at wide open, but more likely f/5.6-f/11, so I'd love to see the lenses tested at say f/7.1 (enough to avoid too much diffraction but also to get more of a sense of landscape shot performance). (and when you do shoot f/4 and faster and especially f/2.8 and faster, wide open, you are not as often caring about the edges corners as when stopped down a bit)



Fair point and I would like to know f/8 performance too however if it kicks ass at f/4 we can naturally assume it will be even better at f/8! For a lot of lenses though wide open performance is a key factor in deciding about it's usefulness. Since all lenses perform decent stopped down it wouldn't really give much away about the flaws of the lens. Wide open is where we are likely to catch those flaws.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 28, 2015)

I wonder if this will quell the complaints about the price?

IMO Canon has been very good at creating class leading lenses of late and in some cases creating the class and setting the standard.
The price of this lens is eminently fair considering the balance of performance and the limited volume it will enjoy.
I know I can make money with it.


----------



## garret (Feb 28, 2015)

You only need three Canon Lenses: the new 11-24mm, the 24-70mm F2.8 mk2, and the 100-400mm mk2 and maybe one Sigma: the 50mm 1.4 Art, but on which body? the new 50megapixel?

Garrett van der Veen


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 28, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> I wonder if this will quell the complaints about the price?
> 
> IMO Canon has been very good at creating class leading lenses of late and in some cases creating the class and setting the standard.
> The price of this lens is eminently fair considering the balance of performance and the limited volume it will enjoy.
> I know I can make money with it.



Nope, price complaints will always exist. I'll be waiting to see where the price settles in about a year.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 28, 2015)

ejenner said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It's a shame that most of the LR tests are done wide open only, since the tests are so good there. Let's face it. For the most part, people don't shoot 16-35 IS, 11-24, 14-24, etc. at wide open, but more likely f/5.6-f/11, so I'd love to see the lenses tested at say f/7.1 (enough to avoid too much diffraction but also to get more of a sense of landscape shot performance). (and when you do shoot f/4 and faster and especially f/2.8 and faster, wide open, you are not as often caring about the edges corners as when stopped down a bit)
> ...



It depends though. Its a myth that they all do the same at more typical landscape apertures. The 24 1.4 Mark I vs. Mark II vs 24-105 vs 24-70 II vs 24 T&S vs 24 T&S II etc. show a LOT of differences at landscape apertures. That's why it's too bad LR mostly tests stuff at wide open.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 1, 2015)

looks like a lens in my future.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 6, 2015)

A couple recent shots, just goofing off and not using the best camera settings but still interesting perhaps to see. Just downward, right in the spruce tree shot you can see my right boot print. I had to reach the camera way out to avoid my boot. What a fun lens and not heavy by my standards!

Jack


----------



## Viggo (Mar 6, 2015)

My 16-35 is sharpest wide open and follows a nice smooth curve with a steady decrease in sharpness all the way to f22. This is according to FoCal and I agree doing test shots.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 6, 2015)

Viggo said:


> My 16-35 is sharpest wide open and follows a nice smooth curve with a steady decrease in sharpness all the way to f22. This is according to FoCal and I agree doing test shots.


I think I'm going to need a huge target to calibrate the 11-24 with FoCal. The Sigma 12-24 had to be about a 30cm from the standard A3/8.5x11" target at 12mm just to see it...so this will be even more difficult...


----------



## LovePhotography (Mar 6, 2015)

Isn't there a fisheye straightening tool in Photoshop? (Or something?)
How good is it How much does it degrade the image? Can you get close?
I've got an 8-15mm, but my old PS crashed and I haven't bought a new one yet, and I really balk at the Creative Cloud blackmail.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 6, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> Isn't there a fisheye straightening tool in Photoshop? (Or something?)
> How good is it How much does it degrade the image? Can you get close?
> I've got an 8-15mm, but my old PS crashed and I haven't bought a new one yet, and I really balk at the Creative Cloud blackmail.



I've typically applied the Canon 15mm fisheye profile in LR to defish the 8-15 and adjust as needed. It stretches out the fisheye projection to the edges and corners, and the further away from the center the pixels are the worse the stretching. You can crop the defished imaged to eliminate the worst of the artifacts, but then you're sacrificing AOV. Images with geometric patterns (think cabinets, floors and ceilings) are easier to interpolate and look OK, but for details (landscapes), it'll be pretty poor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't there a fisheye straightening tool in Photoshop? (Or something?)
> ...



The very cheap Plugin FisheyeHemi is a fantastic tool for defishing fisheye images, it doesn't do full rectilinear corrections so doesn't have the edge projection issues a simple remap can introduce, it uses a more complicated remapping algorithm and the pixel level IQ remains very high.

http://www.imagetrendsinc.com/products/prodpage_hemi.asp


----------



## Invertalon (Mar 6, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I think I'm going to need a huge target to calibrate the 11-24 with FoCal. The Sigma 12-24 had to be about a 30cm from the standard A3/8.5x11" target at 12mm just to see it...so this will be even more difficult...



Do you really need to use FoCal with this lens? I mean, the depth of field is so massive that any front/back focus will just change the overall sharpness of the image so slight with respect to the hyperfocal distance that you wont' ever notice anything at 11mm lol

24mm may offer some visual difference, but I highly doubt 11mm will do anything!


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 6, 2015)

Invertalon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'm going to need a huge target to calibrate the 11-24 with FoCal. The Sigma 12-24 had to be about a 30cm from the standard A3/8.5x11" target at 12mm just to see it...so this will be even more difficult...
> ...


Honestly, I don't see myself using FoCal on it, as I doubt I'll even use AF most of the time. If I do calibrate it, I'll report on the humor of it!


----------



## Zv (Mar 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > LovePhotography said:
> ...



Have you seen this guys method of defishing using FisheyeHemi? He changes the canvas size for a landscape shot into a portrait shot to run it through Hemi again so that it corrects both axis. 

http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/

The FisheyeHemi stuff is near the end of the article.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 7, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > My 16-35 is sharpest wide open and follows a nice smooth curve with a steady decrease in sharpness all the way to f22. This is according to FoCal and I agree doing test shots.
> ...



You use 50x the focal length, the 1635 was at 80cm and worked great. The 1124 would only need 55cm so with the A3 target there should be no problem ?


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 10, 2015)

ejenner said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It's a shame that most of the LR tests are done wide open only, since the tests are so good there. Let's face it. For the most part, people don't shoot 16-35 IS, 11-24, 14-24, etc. at wide open, but more likely f/5.6-f/11, so I'd love to see the lenses tested at say f/7.1 (enough to avoid too much diffraction but also to get more of a sense of landscape shot performance). (and when you do shoot f/4 and faster and especially f/2.8 and faster, wide open, you are not as often caring about the edges corners as when stopped down a bit)
> ...



Brian (TDP) has his test images up...


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2015)

Zv said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



I had not seen that or used that technique, thanks. I don't seem to get the same results as him on the second run but I'll keep playing.

One thing I will say, and always do, that old Canon EF 15mm f2.8 fisheye is an outstandingly good lens.


----------

