Go wide! Hands-on with Canon&#39;s 11-24mm F4 L

Those are some very nice photos! Looks like a stunning lens; we can't wait to get our hands on one.

Feb 28, 2015permalink

Oleg March

Sharpness is not the most important aspect of lens. It's the ability to "hold" light- flair and coma control. I had a 14mm lens w. a front element as "pregnant" as this lens. My lens would have comas from lights behind the camera. The light would get reflected of the inner surface of the front element. The best lens I have is the Carl Zeiss 15mm. Very few problems. I shoot HDR so 1 of my 3 exposures is @ +2. The light from bright windows often spills on curtains and such. Good lens should have a good control of such spill. So before I buy this lens I'll go to the store w. my camera and tripod and test 2 lenses under the toughest conditions- aimed at widows surrounded by dark wall and with a ceiling light shining into the camera on a high and oblique angle. Then I decide.

Feb 23, 2015permalink

TravelPhotog

Well, now they're just showing off.

Feb 15, 2015permalink

Scorpius1

Street price will be lowered after the first few months so I wouldn't be put off by the RRP,if the lens produces a low distortion and low CA image then it will be worth the money.

Flare control should also be good and considering the Nikon's 2.8 aperture its worth bearing in mind that this is 11mm which is a fair bit wider than 14mm!

Feb 14, 2015permalink

lemonhooker

I shoot in small spaces. This lens will make my life much easier. Thanks Canon.
Can't wait to use it . Just ordered it today.

Feb 13, 2015*permalink

mac701

I'm an architectural photographer, it's all going to come down to how sharp it is over the whole image. I jumped ship to Nikon specifically because the 14-24 is sharp across the image and the Canon 16-35mkII was awful at the edges. Even if it's top notch, at that price I can't see being tempted to jump back.

Feb 11, 2015*permalink

hjalmarg1

As per MTF charts this lens performance will be at the same level of the latest Canon 16-35mm f4L IS, which is sharp across the picture frame from wide open

Feb 12, 2015permalink

lemonhooker

you need the Canon 17mm Tilt Shift for architecture. I use one everyday and its as sharp as you can get.

Feb 13, 2015permalink

JRKeller

The Canon 14mm ii prime is better than the Nikon 14-24 (IMO, I switched). The IQ from this 11-24 should be better than defishing the Canon 7-14 fisheye (when set to 11mm). Canon has really built up their super wide angle offerings with impressive lenses.

Feb 16, 2015permalink

lost_in_utah

I thought the lens was large until I saw the price. It had better be the most magnificent piece of glass in that focal range by a decent margin.

Feb 11, 2015permalink

jonamafun

Will be interesting to see how this compares to the Sigma 12-24mm, especially given the price differential!

Found some sample shots from the Canon:
http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/canon-ef-11-24-mm-f.htm
http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-11-24mm-f4l-usm-lens-sample-images/

Feb 11, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

If this ever-widening trend continues, someday the photographer will have to hide his/her ears to keep them from becoming part of the picture.

Feb 11, 2015permalink

redjelly39

That cracked me up :) I use an 8mm and constantly have to bend or move to keep me out of the shot.

Sep 19, 2015permalink

Tizzio

Huh...what about the front element of my 600/4 EF

"According to Canon, the 11-24mm's front element is the largest ever manufactured for an SLR lens, at 87mm in diameter."

Feb 9, 2015permalink

stq66

This sentence is b*s.
Almost any big telephoto lens from C or N has a bigger front element.
Not to mention the venerable Nikon 6mm/2.8 fisheye... I think nothing tops that.

Feb 9, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

suspect they meant it's the largest ground aspheric element and dpreview mis interpreted the claim.

Feb 9, 2015permalink

Canon says that the front element is the largest "round front" ground glass aspheric made for an SLR. The emphasis on "round front" is necessary because several camera companies have made mirror lenses for SLRs, and mirror lenses of the common Schmidt design use aspheric corrector plates as the first lens element.

I think that the second element is much more interesting. Canon says it's the largest molded glass aspheric, and look at the shape in the diagrams. It's a thing of beauty.

I don't know if dpReview lost a few words, or if they got a different version of the Canon press release than I'm looking at now.

Feb 10, 2015*permalink

Does the veracity of this claim have any bearing on how the lens performs or what it can be used for?

Feb 10, 2015permalink

abi170845

I want it!!!! Got it on preoder and I hope formatt Hitech will have the adapter for this lens as I have theirs for my 14mm Mk2. I think lee will be making one soon too with the SW system.

Feb 9, 2015permalink

Old Cameras

Nikon's legendary 13mm f5.6 rectilinear lens was, to my knowledge, the widest (serious) rectilinear lens ever made for a full frame camera, and here were have an astoundingly wide zoom starting at 11mm. I think it's over the top amazing, I want to read a lens test. I wish DPR would test more lenses, that's more interesting to me than a test of a new camera. Hell, test some old lenses.

Feb 9, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

voigtlander made a 12mm/5.6

Feb 10, 2015permalink

ajendus

That's an impressive lens. I'm looking forward to seeing it in action.

For those who balk at the f4 aperture, while I would love to see it at 2.8 or whatever, I think Canon had to make a very important decision. The Nikon 14-24, which I dearly love, is not a small lens. This 11-24 is even bigger. I'd venture a guess that an 11-24 f2.8 would be massive... maybe beyond a functional lens for most photographers. Not to mention, it would likely make it prohibitively expensive. ($3000 is already a very pricey lens.)

Nikon, Canon, Sigma, etc. could make a 14-200 f2.8 lens or a 24-70 f1.4 but I think we all know the same scenario unfolds; huge, expensive, heavy, etc. Lens manufacturers must give way to physics and the economy; law of diminishing returns.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

(Wrongly placed reply. Sorry...)

Feb 8, 2015*permalink

Why on earth does a camera review (Canon 5D R) get ten times more comments than a lens' review? Bodies come and go, lenses stay (even more so in this digital age); that's why lenses are the heart of a phogorphic system. It should be the other way round, but I guess cameras have more gizmos and fancy figures... oh well.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

Because nobody has seen any images from the lens. The only things to discuss at this point are (a) is the front element bigger than some other front element? and (b) is this really the best 11mm lens available or does Nikon make a better 11mm?

Those are fascinating topics, but with the bodies, people have some idea of what to expect. Obviously, there is some disappointment with the bodies but the lens is an unknown.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

I see your point, but... what good is a body for without a lens?

Feb 8, 2015permalink

EthanX

What's there to read about a lens?
A lens is a lens. you snap it to your camera and take photos.

Ok, it's quiet, it's fast, it's reliable...
That's all there is to say.

With a camera - you can easily fill 20 pages!

Feb 8, 2015*permalink

What's there to read about a camera? It's just a tool. In two years it will be obsolete. Anyway, I think you missed the point. It was about the relative importance of bodies compared to lenses.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

brendon1000

Well I am sure the number of people who will buy the camera will exceed 10 times the number of people who will buy this lens if not much more.

Feb 9, 2015permalink

gLOWx

According to the guy who run lensrental.com, 9 on 10 ppl buy an inter lens camera...and NEVER change the stock lens.
You can buy second hand cameras with lenses "sticky" on their mount, used for 5 years or more.
On my side, i just bought my first (digital) inter lens camera and already use 3 lenses for 3 different uses.
And even if i will never buy this lens, i find it very interesting. Because i know value of lenses. in general.
The argument about ppl who will never buy this lens is exactly the same about body ;)
Who will buy a 7D Mark II now and brand new ?
Not so much. But ppl will discuss a lot more about it.
Like OP said, a lot of ppl don't value lenses vs body. Too bad...
Features are one thing (body win), but passion should win with lenses. Seeing that beautiful engineering, i'm in love even without "test" pictures ;)

Feb 10, 2015permalink

http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-11-24mm-f4l-usm-lens-sample-images/

I'm not so sure. At 11mm, the lens can do something that hasn't been done before (probably not that useful but we'll see a lot of it until people get it out of their system.)

The cameras, at best, will capture more detail than some other camera with fewer megapixels. It will be hard to find an image that would have been impossible with less than 50mp.

Feb 10, 2015permalink

Cdatar

Sample Photos from Canon @11mm & 12mm

Feb 11, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

I just ordered this lens woowhoo!

Feb 8, 2015permalink

martin_k13

This lens fits the 5Ds(R) cameras perfectly - both the lens and cameras are for a niche market. For a pro these gear could be well desired, but I wonder how many amateurs or photography afficionados will buy into one of these pieces.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

Brucies Heroes

Interesting lens. I wonder if it was a tough decision for Canon to decide between an ultra ultra wide f4 zoom or a slightly narrower f2.8 zoom eg. 12-24 f2.8 or similiar. Personally i think that the f2.8 variant would have been more versatile.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

Vignes

Bruce... do you use F2.8 on wide angle on UWA lens. these are for landscape, architect etc and higher F numbers are preferable. Just asking.

Feb 9, 2015permalink

Brucies Heroes

Of course i do. One example are astro shots/star trails. But not only there, you can also perfectly use it to create depth of field effects like here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bruciesheroes/10211834413/
This is 14mm @ f2.8 on the D800. I like those alternate perspectives.
Btw: I think the 14-24 has quite a pleasant bokeh :)
UWA is not only about landscapes :)

Feb 9, 2015*permalink

slippedcurve623

Haha so many nikon shooters and even some canon shooters thinks that canon's wide angle lenses are weak compared to nikon s, but they obviously havn't shot with canon's 24mm tse ii L, man this lens is as sharp as the zeiss 21mm (now returned), nearly as sharp as my 55mm otus, and yes sharper then canon's own 17mm tse L :-)

Feb 8, 2015permalink

ThatCamFan

That is a tilt shift lens, not a regular wide angle one, so your comment is invalid.

Feb 9, 2015permalink

donsdavid

I don't think I am going to get one because of the f/4 aperture. I want at least f/2.8 for my astro and nightscape photography which is what this focal length is most useful for me. I am going to stick with my 14mm 2.8L II for now.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

I hope it's as good as it sounds like.

But I'll reserve judgement until it's out. Canon's had many weak UWA entries, IMO - especially if you don't count the specialty TS-E 17mm lens. This applies to both zooms and primes wider than 24mm on FF (or the equivalent on APS-C).

Feb 7, 2015*permalink

(unknown member)

yeah because the EF-M 11-22, EF-S 10-18, 16-24/4L, 17 TS-E that have all been done in the last 5 years are so weak.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Abu Mahendra

The 16-35IS pretty much matches the TSE17.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

The 16-35/4 L IS (I presume that's what "16-24" meant) is an improvement, but still fairly average. Canon's certainly going to have to do better than it on this lens. It's supposedly "good," but hasn't shown me anything that would make me want one. It's more of a concession - if you have a Canon body, it may be your best choice. Which is a sad statement on the state of Canon UWA lenses, frankly.

Can you please explain to me which of these lenses impresses you so much? Is it the entry level EF-S, or the available-some-places EF-M which fits a body Canon sort-of sells?

Feb 8, 2015*permalink

Lawrencew

The world doesn't revolve around the USA.
No problem buying an EOS M or EF-M 11-22mm where the overwhelming majority (95%) of the world live.

Feb 8, 2015*permalink

(unknown member)

16-35/4L is just "good" eh? okay then .. carry on. lenstip gives it a very high rating, DxO shows it competes against anything if you know how to look at their numbers and interpret them. lenscore which doesn't use a particular camera body to test with - calls it the best UWA zoom out there.

17mm TS-E is something that no one's done. as with this lens the 11-24mm it's optics that no one else has even attempted to create in a mass production environment.

the last "weak" UWA from canon was the 16-35L 2.8 II - which is 7 years old now.

Feb 8, 2015*permalink

There is no problem buying an EOS M anywhere. It's called mail order and even Ken Rockwell approves (although he thinks paying retail price by mail is buying wholesale.)

I expect the 11-24 to be excellent. But even if it isn't, it will be better at 11mm than all the other 11mm full frame lenses.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

Expensive new lens designs these days don't necessarily produce beautiful images. Not that all premiums lenses ever achieved this ideal - but historically, most at least tried.

Today, good numbers in "objective" measurements are so important (at least many cynical marketeers believe so) that beauty is left out of the picture.

Recently Zeiss has managed to walk a very fine line between great measurements and beautiful images - attempting to sacrifice neither while achieving both. I'm not sure they've quite done it, but they're close.

The 16-35/4 L is a measurement-oriented design. It doesn't pick up the beauty of the light like better lenses do. I've seen the images from it. I don't want them coming out of my camera.

Feb 10, 2015permalink

The 17mm TS-E is nothing new - it's just Canon's (mostly successful) attempt to bring an old camera design to (D)SLRs. And 12mm vs. 11mm? Even at the wide end, 1mm is hardly revolutionary. Now if they can do it with great image quality, THIS will mean something. THIS is what will elevate it above Sigma's offering - not 1mm!

So this brings me back to what I first said - it'd better produce great results! Otherwise it was simply a nice idea.

Canon's been complacent in recent years. They still produce many great pieces of photo gear. But it's no help when people stroke their ego by praising mediocrity, when what they actually need is a kick in the tail.

Feb 10, 2015permalink

Oh, and "Kodak makes some excellent Wratten filters"?

Didn't they sell that business to Tiffen years ago?

Feb 7, 2015permalink

I think there's a word or three missing from "According to Canon, the 11-24mm's front element is the largest ever manufactured for an SLR lens, at 87mm in diameter."

Maybe "for a rectilinear ultrawide SLR lens" or "for an aspherical SLR lens" (if that monster is one of the aspherical elements in the 11-24.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

yeah I read that too and went .. huh? because the front element of a 800/5.6 is larger than this.

maybe largest ground aspheric?

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Indeed. Canon says that the front element is the largest "round front" ground glass aspheric made for an SLR. The emphasis on "round front" is necessary because several camera companies have made mirror lenses for SLRs, and mirror lenses of the common Schmidt design use aspheric corrector plates as the first lens element.

I think that the second element is much more interesting. Canon says it's the largest molded glass aspheric, and look at the shape in the diagrams. It's a thing of beauty.

Feb 10, 2015*permalink

COSTISTOICA

Yesss, canon wins. canon has need 40 years to beat Nikon 13mm f/5,6 wide angle lens :
" The 13mm is Nikon's greatest lens. It is Nikon's greatest lens because not only is it big and supremely expensive, it is Nikon's, and perhaps photography's, greatest lens because it lets us make photographs we can make no other way.

The Nikon 13mm is the world's widest non-distorting professional SLR lens ever made, by anyone, in any format. It allows us to get closer to our subjects, stretch distances and create images from perspectives otherwise unimaginable. "

Feb 7, 2015permalink

nerd2

Sigma 12-24 covers full frame and is relatively distortion-free.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

The Sigma 12-24mm Mk. I has very low distortion, low at 12mm, almost gone at 13mm. The Mk. II is quite different, with lots of it. Will be interesting to see the distortion level of the Canon 11-24mm.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Ross Murphy

so?

Feb 10, 2015permalink

ProfHankD

For the record, I hate this... because it might finally be something wider than what I use now, but it's way more expensive and even a little more awkward than what I use now. I absolutely adore ultrawide zoom lenses (and Sigma is the one to beat for that with their 8-16mm APS-C and 12-24mm FF), and I know they are hard to use simply because of their ultrawide view, but can't they be a bit more user friendly?

If anyone is listening, I think there's a huge market for an ultrawide that starts around 12mm (on FF, or 8mm on APS-C), is cheaper but still high IQ, and is small enough to carry around normally -- even if it's f/5.6 or f/8 wide open. I've happily used little fisheyes that started at f/8. As long as the aperture isn't past the diffraction limit, a slow aperture really isn't much of a penalty in such a lens.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Dan Ortego

You hit the nail on the head in my book. I was quite pleased with the 14-24 demo on the 810 combined with the FotodioX WonderPana 66 System. I really can't see this as an option with the 11-24 even if they were to make one.

For me, this is too much of a good thing' and the 500+ positive reviewers' of the 14-24 is a fairly decent track record. Less weight and less size and a perfected filter kit that doubles as a 'getter none' lens cap is sweet.

May 10, 2015*permalink

dcstep

I'm looking forward to this. I've been using the 15/f2.8 fish-eye (de-fished) for big-sky images and interior shots and was seriously thinking about the 14/f2.8 rectilinear to get rid of the artifacts I can see in the corners of my de-fished images (still good enough for 50" prints).

I'll give this a few months and borrow one and the 14mm from CPS to see which suits my shooting the best. The zoom ability is going a long way in my mind to justify the steep price, so long as the performance is as good as the potential indicated.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

mrc4nl

"According to Canon, the 11-24mm's front element is the largest ever manufactured for an SLR lens, at 87mm in diameter"

Nah, the front element of the nikon 6mm f2.8 is bigger(by a wide margin) 200mm!

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Presumably they mean "largest aspherical lens element", otherwise it doesn't make sense. The Nikon 13mm (to stay with the rectilinear lens type) is far bigger.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Peter Jonas

I was wondering about that staement too.
Front elements in the 200mm/f2.0, 300mm/f2.8, 400mm/f3.5 and 600mm/f5.6 are about 100mm in diameter, while in the 300mm/f2.0, 400mm/f2.8, 600mm/f4.0 and 800mm/f5.6 are even bigger at about 150mm. All of them way bigger than that in the 11-24mm/f4.0. All of those lenses have been made by Nikon and many of them by Canon.

Feb 8, 2015*permalink

Nikon 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8: 212mm.
Canon 1200mm f/5.6: 214mm!

Feb 8, 2015permalink

Karen Casebeer

My question is why this new lens doesn't have image stabilization?

Feb 7, 2015permalink

RRJackson

Because it's a wide-angle lens.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

ProfHankD

It does when used on a Sony A7II. :-)

Feb 7, 2015permalink

jaykumarr

in this kind of wide angle lens, the hand shakes are less likely. You can take 1/25 s, or 1/16 s shutter speeds without shaking it. So image stabilizaiton is not required.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

Karen Casebeer

Thanks! This makes sense.

Feb 9, 2015permalink

Vignes

ProHankD... had a good laugh, thanks.

Feb 9, 2015permalink

JRFlorendo

Compared to 11-24 , 14-24's mtf seems like a kit lens......just kidding, 11-24 is just better.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

How so? The 14-24 appears to have less astigmatism, and only provide data at f/2.8 to boot, making any sort of comparison somewhat flawed.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

the 14-24 may provide data at 2.8, however the 11-24 provides data at 11mm to 13mm

Feb 8, 2015permalink

Really? I thought the wide and tele MTF graphs corresponded to 11mm and 24mm, respectively?

Feb 8, 2015permalink

prossi

$3k/2kilos....uhmmm Do I really care about photography that much??
Oh, and we are supposed to use it with your not out yet but already outdated 50MP 5DS camera that will be for sale in 6 mo?
Canon cluelessly doubles down, again, on an empty table.
How empty must the coffers get before a shakedown happens at that company?

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Paul B Jones

Unlike some other camera companies Canon is profitable and sitting on a huge pile of cash so to the extent your happiness depends on Canon running out of money you should probably find a different thing to obsess about.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

prossi

Obsessing? Me? Noo. I just enjoy a good russian car accident video every once in a while, I feel a good one's coming up.

Feb 8, 2015permalink

RRJackson

It will be interesting to see how much this distorts. Finding distortion-free wide-angle lenses is next to impossible. The best one I have any experience with is the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 C Biogon T* ZM lens. It's the widest essentially distortion-free lens out there and Zeiss just discontinued it because of poor sales.

Of course, there's not a single digital camera that could really make use of it...in color, at least. It worked fine on the Leica M Monochrom.

I'd jump through all kinds of hoops, including changing platforms, for a lens as good as the Zeiss that could be used with a digital camera. We'll see soon.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

clickfinger

Why Zoom and not a prime?

My works for architects don’t need to be spectacular but right in point of view, clean perspective, and a perfect framing. TS-E 17+24 are perfect. But in some case the Sig 12-24 is very helpful for its 12 mm focal length on FF, especially for rectilinear panoramas. Note 12, not 14mm, because in theses situations you can’t have enough angle of view. O.k. serious architecture photography isn’t the domain of DSLRs, but after working with the Canon system + CamRanger it’s very hard to return to any MF-sensor camera: very fast in use, perfect in control, and they cover the quality standard about 90% of architecture jobs in the world!

Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss what we really need is 120 degree horizontal angle of view in a rectilinear prime lens to use on 50 MPx FF-Sensors. Don’t suggest to use a fisheye-lens and correct it digitally, because you only can make a perfect framing on the basis of what you see in the viewfinder!

Feb 7, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Only f4? Who wants a lens that slow? I think the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is still better.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

RRJackson

Really? Does f/4 really seem that slow to you? Because I'd buy an f/5.6 prime if the optics were free of distortion and chromatic aberration. I'd really prefer a slower lens that performs to the current crop of faster optics with a long list of design compromises.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

JRFlorendo

That's what I've been waiting for(11-24), but not the price tag.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

You can't compare 11 and 14mm, there is a huge difference.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Gerlesion

Can somebody please enlighten me who's gonna need 11mm focal length. I've checked several samples of this lense. I have an impression that many of them look weird. I'm very familiar with UWA lense as a long time samyang 14mm user. But those samples just dont look right. To focus on a subject, this distant must be very close, and perspective distortion is huge. And barrel distortion is obvious visible. I saw the last pic the corner is not in focus, probaly due to the extreme close distance. At this price, I would take the TSE 17 over this lense for better control of focal plane and perspective distortion correction.

Feb 7, 2015*permalink

BPLOL

And here I am, still thinking of getting a cheapo 17-40L for my 6D.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

nicolaiecostel

It sounds perfect until you get to the f/4 bit and the price.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

iShootWideOpen

I just pre-ordered mine through B&H. Unfortunately I needed get rid of my excellent 16-35L IS to make room. So now I'm pretty set as wides go with a TS-E 17 & 24, Canon FD TS-E 35, 24-70L II, and Sigma 35. I'm still going to miss the 16-35L IS.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Bill2802

Trading in 14mm 2.8 II for this new glass. Can't wait.

Feb 6, 2015permalink

Douglas F Watt

How does it get to be so big at just slightly wider (11mm vs the 12mm of the Nikon), while the Nikon is 2.8 and it's f4? Don't get that one . . . .

Feb 6, 2015permalink

mr bird

Nikon is 14 not 12. The canon has to be so big so it doesn't have major vignette issues. Bigger glass is more weight. That's why it's so big and heavy.

Feb 6, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Because the Nikon is a better lens..

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Starkiller

(Only) The entrance pupil is f4.0. It's located in the middle of the lens. The other lens elements do not count. The front elements can be as large as the manufacturer wants them to be. Just look at the vintage Nikon 13mm f5.6. It's only f5.6, but the lens is way larger than the 11-24mm f4 or the 14-24mm f2.8.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

11mm is much, much wider than 14mm. I'm not at all surprised at the size of the front element, & I, for one, am glad this lens isn't f/2.8. It would've been massive if it were. I understand some types of astrophotography may suffer because of this, but I suppose that was a sacrifice they were willing to make.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Douglas F Watt

Obviously, my mistake missing the Nikon being only 14mm. And of course that is a big difference with this lens. Disadvantages of rushing . . .

Feb 7, 2015permalink

LarryK

I'll take a look, but Canon still owes me an apology for the 16-35 II.

Feb 6, 2015permalink

Bernard Carns

As a former Canon fanboy I can't believe how many complaints there are about the uninteresting specs and unrealistic prices of Canon's new offerings.

Canon just doesn't get it!

Thank God my Canon lenses can be adapted to other cameras!

Feb 6, 2015permalink

Plastek

No, most of people here are gearheads that can't even tell the difference between 14 and 11mm lens, heck: some of them don't even know the difference between this lens and a fisheye or APS-C lens.
Go to some other forums and you'll see people being much more optimistic. Eg. On Petapixel this lens is viewed as a breakthrough.

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Suntan

"Is that the new 200 f2 I read about a while ago?... ...What? It's a wide angle?"

-Suntan

Feb 6, 2015permalink

If you desire a ultra wide(say below 15mm) rectilinear lens, or rather desire the image it produces, then it's better to buy a sharp Fisheye, say the new FF Samyang 12mm f2.8. With a fisheye you have a possibility to have the absolute widest FF shot(if needed), and additionally you can rectilinearize the fisheye afterwards to your liking, producing either a fully rectilinear 10-15mm equivalent, or even wider semi rectilinear shot. You also get more light with the fisheye and in my experience a sharper image, it's much more difficult to optically remove the barrel distortion thus keeping the distortion in the lens and removing it with software produces a sharper image, the Samyang fisheyes for crop and FF sensors are amazingly sharp and cheap, you don't basically have to focus them in normal shots...

Feb 6, 2015permalink

Felice62

That 12mm from Samyang is a blast. and who needs af at that focal length?

Feb 6, 2015permalink

Alec

I agree. Future cameras may in fact have the in-camera software to do this. As we move further into the future I see 200MP+ cameras whose megapixel counts are used in conjunction with SUPER sharp but simple lenses (thus high microcontrast, wide aperture, high flare resistance) but produce all sorts of distortions, which are fully correctable digitally.

Feb 6, 2015permalink

mr bird

I like the Samyang fisheye but never had a good experience getting the lines straight and everything proportional in post.

Feb 6, 2015permalink

chriscotec

I would be interested to see the image quality of this lens at its widest setting. Correcting a fisheye image with software to create an 11mm equivalent rectilinear image requires a huge amount of interpolation (generating pixel that weren't there in the sensor scan). Unless Canon made a real mess of this lens design, it is going to leave a software corrected fisheye for dead. I think it is fine to get the lens rectilinearly corrected as close as possible optically and tweak it with lens profiles, as many camera systems now do, but, in the end, if image quality is important to you, a fisheye is a fisheye and a rectilinear is a rectilinear.

This lens has to be big to be an 11mm ƒ/4. It would have to be much bigger to be an 11mm ƒ/2.8. ƒ/4 goes with the territory. It's fine with todays high sensitivity cameras.

I hope it's a success. Kudos to Canon for putting out another ambitious lens design. Now, if only they could try a bit harder with their bodies . . . . . .

Feb 7, 2015permalink

You can fully rectilinearize a fisheye photo(even in just Lightroom), and from my experience with the 12-24mm sigma at 12mm and when comparing it with a rectilinearized fisheye they compare pretty well, the fisheye is a lot more sharper in the middle as the middle part of the photo contains more original pixels, the corners are interpolated but they definitely are not sharp on the 11 or 12mm rectilinear lenses either. Here are few samples from my a6000 with a Samyang 8mm fisheye, the first interior shot is almost rectilinear, and sorry it's very high iso, so bit noisy, all others are much wider than 11mm rectilinear, but they are not fully reictilineariced, barrel distortion just reduced, note that also the aspect ratio is wider, an optical rectilinearization loses the sides due to the sensor aspect ratio: https://plus.google.com/photos/116331416069860982168/albums/6113006125094787665?authkey=CO3snuGxx8-Pfw

Feb 7, 2015permalink

Felice62

For those interested in the Samyang 12mm fisheye for the 24x36mm sensors take a look at here http://www.slrlounge.com/rokinon-12mm-f2-8-full-frame-fisheye-lens-review-urbex-extreme-adventure-photography-lens/

Feb 9, 2015permalink

All the newer Samyangs(with the red ring) seem to be extremely sharp, I have the 8mm f2.8 Fisheye and the 12mm f2.0 wide-angle for Sony e-mount(crop) and both are extremely sharp. I would buy that 12mm 2.8 fisheye for my D800, but I'm waiting to see if Sony comes out with the rumoured A9(or what ever it is called), and if it's what I hope, I'm ditching my D800, and switching to all mirrorless. Definitely getting the 12mm f2.8 for the Sony(or Nikon if the new Sony is not what I'm hoping for)

ps. I liked the SLRlounge review, but the reviewer definitely not too familiar with de-fishing fisheyes, you can do it also in LR, without loosing any of the FOV on the sides or tops of the frame, not that any of the Adobes de-fishing algorithms really are any good, but they get the job done.

Feb 9, 2015permalink