Canon EF 11-24mm f4 L

<p>Canon has stepped up in a big way with the 50 MP bodies so I guess this new lens introduction has fallen through the cracks a bit. I thought it deserved some attention. It will be a long while before I can add this lens to my 17 TS-E, but really looking forward to it for those times when I can't shift and stitch! At least I no longer have to consider the Nikon 14-24 or Sigma 12-24.</p>

<p>Here are the first image samples that I could find. I hope this will post:</p>

<p>http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-11-24mm-f-4l-usm-lens-sample-photos-26926</p>

<p>Thanks John,</p>

<p>Those sample images alone are proof that the 11-24mm slaughters the Sigma 12-24mm. I sold my Sigma as it was just too soft and particularly low in contrast.</p>

<p>I'm no Canon fanboy, and I personally don't see the 'slaughter' at all in those samples.<br>

The Sigma is a very good lens ( http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/676-sigma1224f4556iiff ). All such lenses will involve compromises, including Canon lenses.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm no Canon fanboy, and I personally don't see the 'slaughter' at all in those samples.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Neither am I, but those samples from the Canon lens definitely slaughtered the images I got from my Sigma regardless of the camera used.</p>

<p>I just don't know what you got from your copy of the Sigma, but I am still not blown away by the samples presented from the new lens. Go and buy the new Canon, if you're convinced by it.</p>

<p>I'll personally wait before going all "enthusiastic". I'd appreciate controlled tests of the same subject at the same exposures, etc. What can be judged from internet samples anyhow, I wonder?</p>

<p>All I'm saying is, my Sigma would never ever have been able to get detail like that. Maybe my copy was tat, which is highly likely given Sigma's QC reputation.</p>

<p>It looks like a good lens, but my initial enthusiasm is tempered by the $3000 price and the 1000 g weight, so I somehow I doubt I will even seriously consider it. I am back to thinking about the 16-35 f4 IS.</p>

<p>There were wild variations in testing different copies of the Sigma 12-24 over the years. Some were tack sharp while others were Blur City. I'm with JDM on this one.</p>

<p>I'm looking forward to borrowing one from CPS to try it out, using Digital Lens Optimization in Raw conversion to maximize its IQ. That's probably a few months away, but this could be an incredibly versatile lens for me.</p>

<p>Three grand...choke! gasp! For a lens that distorts everything and doesn't accept filters. Wow!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For a lens that distorts everything and doesn't accept filters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The lens takes rear filters like many lenses of this type. And can you recommend a zoom this wide that doesn't distort? Some of us take advantage of the distortion. <a href="http://bammagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/reignwolf-3554-620x400.jpg">This photo </a>is by a friend I often shoot next to, it's taken with the similar range Nikon zoom.</p>

<p>UWA lenses are superb for big-sky shots and shots using extreme DOF, such as with a near subject with a big-wide background. I've been doing a lot with a 15mm f/2.8 with a 180-degree field of view. After de-fishing, it's probably in line with this new lens so far as angle-of-view, but not up to the IQ. Another thing that I like to do is crop in a 2:1 or 5:2, to get a pano-like perspective.</p>

<p>Using Digital Lens Optimization and a lens that starts with minimal distortion, I think we'll potential for exceptional images.</p>

<p>UWA lenses are a different animal, but once you've used one for a while and learned to see the images, with and without DLO, then you can get perspectives not otherwise possible. I'm optimistic and excited to see how this lens really works for me. If I hadn't already had so much success with my current UWA, perhaps I wouldn't understand the buzz.</p>

<p>Just to be clear optical distortion is held to a minimum. As with any lens one must learn how to compose images well. This lens will definitely be a challenge to learn how to use well to either minimize the effect of perspective distortion or to exagerate it in an effective manner.</p>

<p>Good post processing can eliminate the need for filters. Superwide fans naturally choose lenses with bulbous front elements for what they are able to do and are not concerned with use of filters or possible damage to the front element from misuse.</p>

<p>This 11-24 will fit perfectly with my 8/2.8 fisheye and 17 TS-e. Unfortunately I will likely have to wait several years for a used one as I did with the 17. </p>

 

<p>With 50 megapixels it may become more practical to de-fish and still end up with an image roughly as sharp as a 20 megapixel rectilinear one. Assuming that your fisheye lens can resolve that detail, of course...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Good post processing can eliminate the need for filters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While good processing can<em> largely</em> eliminate the need for filters, there are many image effects that can not be properly done in post because even the RAW doesn't record all the information in the light coming through the lens (god help us if it did!). For example, trying to replicate (properly) the effect of a CPL would be very very difficult to do except if one is willing to spend a LOT of time doing so...</p>

<p>However, I'm glad Canon has finally taken this focal range seriously. At that price it'd better be serious! While I wasn't always pleased w/ the 12-24's performance (it was as much my fault as the lens's), considering that the <em>only</em> competitor is <em><strong>3x</strong></em>(<strong>!.!.!</strong>) the price, I would expect the Canon to not only completely trump the Sigma wrt IQ, but also leave little golden droppings for me to find and collect. ie. it ought to be ridonkulously good at everything (like the 24-70/2.8 II is).</p>

Now it's time for sigma to step in with art UWA for 2/3 or half price and to cut the sales.