Canon 11-24 F4L

Andrew Davies Photography

Andrew Davies Photography

Messages
761
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
So the new lens from Canon which is due soon ...

As a Wedding photographer who also shoots Commercial and Landscapes I have been for some time hoping for a new ultra-wide zoom to add to the collection, I have to say really dissapointed in what Canon are offering with this one as it seems to be missing the mark on just about all accounts:

F4 rules it out for general use at weddings as i prefer the shallower depth of field.
No IS rules it out for other wedding commercial and general use where i don't want to be setting up tripods.
No filters rules it our for landscapes where i would want to use all my existing filters and not have to replace them all with a new heath robinson device to fit over the bulbous end.
The price for what it is ? simply over the top
Could buy the canon or samyang 14mm , the 16-35 2.8L II or the new tamron 15-30 2.8L - all of them offer more.

Anyone else interested in this lens and if so what uses do you see for it ?
 
nickjohnwatson said:
It seems a bit of a bizarre one. The only thing i could think it would be useful for really is interior work for homes / buildings etc.
- no filter thread = no no for landscapes and its not a wide enough aperture for astro either
Click to expand...

I would like 2.8 for interiors too to be honest for the more arty shots where there is more background separation.
 
Could it be seen as an upgrade to the 10-22mm? I know they launched the EF-s 10-18mm as a more or less direct replacement, but this would (hopefully) have significantly better IQ than the 10-18mm.

Surely they would have been better to either add IS, or make a direct rival to the apparently superb Nikon 14-24mm f2.8…
 
Cyprino said:
Could it be seen as an upgrade to the 10-22mm? I know they launched the EF-s 10-18mm as a more or less direct replacement, but this would (hopefully) have significantly better IQ than the 10-18mm.

Surely they would have been better to either add IS, or make a direct rival to the apparently superb Nikon 14-24mm f2.8…
Click to expand...

As its an ef lens it would not be that wide on the crop bodies so not sure that's the market either, i would love to see the official write up on what the market is for this lens when they get round to it !
 
dinners said:
f1.4 or f1.8 yes but unless you're getting really close to your subject, at 11mm on full frame, the difference between f2.8 & f4 would be slim.
Click to expand...

For some commercial and interior work yes i would be getting close to the subject and the difference between 2.8 and 4 is quite obvious, for some advertising work i did recently i shot it at f2.2-2.5
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
So the new lens from Canon which is due soon ...

As a Wedding photographer who also shoots Commercial and Landscapes I have been for some time hoping for a new ultra-wide zoom to add to the collection, I have to say really dissapointed in what Canon are offering with this one as it seems to be missing the mark on just about all accounts:

F4 rules it out for general use at weddings as i prefer the shallower depth of field.
No IS rules it out for other wedding commercial and general use where i don't want to be setting up tripods.
No filters rules it our for landscapes where i would want to use all my existing filters and not have to replace them all with a new heath robinson device to fit over the bulbous end.
The price for what it is ? simply over the top
Could buy the canon or samyang 14mm , the 16-35 2.8L II or the new tamron 15-30 2.8L - all of them offer more.

Anyone else interested in this lens and if so what uses do you see for it ?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think you (or me) are the target market for this lens. It is OK, because somebody may actually need it AS IS.

Also, I think I need to specifically reply to some of your points:

* Are we really expecting shallow DOF at 11mm? 20mm? No. Nope. Nein.
* How do we all use 24-70mm f/2.8 and manage to stop it down occasionally in the weddings?
* 11mm on FF is far far too wide for most reasonable landscapes. The 21-24mm is getting more reasonable, but there are clearly better and cheaper lenses here. Does Nikon 14-24 have filter thread? No...
* Show me a sharp FF 11mm rectlinear lens. Hence the price. It doesn't matter you don't need one.
* Samyang is OK. Go and buy it if you want a cheap super wide lens. I almost never need mine.

Or just buy excellent Canon 16-35mm f/4 which ticks every single box except f/2.8, but then you can just bump the iso in the unlikely event you need more exposure. You'll probably already have some f/1.4 or even f/1.2 primes for that shallow DOF.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
So the new lens from Canon which is due soon ...

As a Wedding photographer who also shoots Commercial and Landscapes I have been for some time hoping for a new ultra-wide zoom to add to the collection, I have to say really dissapointed in what Canon are offering with this one as it seems to be missing the mark on just about all accounts:

F4 rules it out for general use at weddings as i prefer the shallower depth of field.
No IS rules it out for other wedding commercial and general use where i don't want to be setting up tripods.
No filters rules it our for landscapes where i would want to use all my existing filters and not have to replace them all with a new heath robinson device to fit over the bulbous end.
The price for what it is ? simply over the top
Could buy the canon or samyang 14mm , the 16-35 2.8L II or the new tamron 15-30 2.8L - all of them offer more.

Anyone else interested in this lens and if so what uses do you see for it ?
Click to expand...
You won't need a tripod to use this outside. Especially for weddings.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
You won't need a tripod to use this outside. Especially for weddings.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention outside ? if i am in a church and want a wide shot without flash i will often shoot at 2.8 or wider and at dusk sunset there are times when shutter speeds drop right off outside too. I have just finished a commercial job of photographing restaurants in natural light inside which required close to 2.2-2.5 on most of the wide shots. So yes I would need a tripod with an F4.
 
daugirdas said:
I honestly don't think you (or me) are the target market for this lens. It is OK, because somebody may actually need it AS IS.

Also, I think I need to specifically reply to some of your points:

* Are we really expecting shallow DOF at 11mm? 20mm? No. Nope. Nein.
* How do we all use 24-70mm f/2.8 and manage to stop it down occasionally in the weddings?
* 11mm on FF is far far too wide for most reasonable landscapes. The 21-24mm is getting more reasonable, but there are clearly better and cheaper lenses here. Does Nikon 14-24 have filter thread? No...
* Show me a sharp FF 11mm rectlinear lens. Hence the price. It doesn't matter you don't need one.
* Samyang is OK. Go and buy it if you want a cheap super wide lens. I almost never need mine.

Or just buy excellent Canon 16-35mm f/4 which ticks every single box except f/2.8, but then you can just bump the iso in the unlikely event you need more exposure. You'll probably already have some f/1.4 or even f/1.2 primes for that shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

I have to say extremely tempted by the 16-35 F4 IS mainly for landscapes and the odd wedding shot if needed. Have you used it ?
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
I didn't mention outside ? if i am in a church and want a wide shot without flash i will often shoot at 2.8 or wider and at dusk sunset there are times when shutter speeds drop right off outside too. I have just finished a commercial job of photographing restaurants in natural light inside which required close to 2.2-2.5 on most of the wide shots. So yes I would need a tripod with an F4.
Click to expand...

My mistake, I had large group shot outside in my head. Even so, on a new FF body you can still handhold at higher ISOs at f/4 at those sort of wide angles, and still get a crisp shot.

I used to all the time on a 40/50d and the 10-22.

On a 6d or 5d3 it would be even easier with this or any UWA. In fact thinking about it, I've never used a tripod for a wedding shoot!

For normal interior stuff then yes, if definitely use a tripod though even with faster glass.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top