Canon 11-24

Muzzieman

Muzzieman

Messages
568
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
hi guys has anyone got/getting this lens I'm thinking of getting one but may plump for the Nikon 14-24 and an adapter which is half the price. Not as wide I know but still a stonking piece of glass. Thoughts anyone?
 
It's a confusing lens for me, as I love my UWA so this is a natural for me, but for that price it just needs to be a f/2.8 lens....

Why? because of astro work it really is optimum to be a f/2.8 over a f/4, for landscapes you don't really hurt being an f/4 but I don't really see it as a landscaping lens as it lacks the ability to take filters...

To be perfectly frank as a night time guy can I live with f/4? And the answer is yes but begrudgingly at this price so the key becomes what's the distortion like!

So no I don't own one, would I like one? Yes, am I going to buy one? Seriously don't know but I doubt it for at least 18 months unless it turns out to be the best lens ever made :lol:
 
I can get one from hk for around the 2k mark which makes it more appealing. It would suit my work but no current filter holder is a problem. However I'm sure it won't be long till one hits the market. Never had a problem with f4 but 2.8 would be better. There is no distortion whatsoever by all accounts which at 11mm is somewhat of an achievement!
 
The price is because of no distortion and the fact it's still new? Doesn't it take slip in film filters on the lens mount
 
Most of what you see isn't distortion, it's perspective. There's a huge difference!

The distortion a on the 11-24 seem well controlled but with any zoom it will never be free of distortion.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Most of what you see isn't distortion, it's perspective. There's a huge difference!

The distortion a on the 11-24 seem well controlled but with any zoom it will never be free of distortion.
Click to expand...
No that is distortion u see. It's controlled relatively ok but to say it has none is false though.
 
I never said "none", there's no such thing as a zoom with no distortion ;)

But I'm surprised you can see the pin cushion and barrel distortion (as this is all it suffers from, and a relatively low level of it). I can't unless there's a very straight horizontal line at 11mm?
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
It has a lot of distortion. Check out the review sample pics.
Click to expand...
jonneymendoza said:
No that is distortion u see. It's controlled relatively ok but to say it has none is false though.
Click to expand...
Make your mind up! Does it have a lot of distortion, or not?

And a link to these "review sample pics" would be helpful. If you're talking about the ones on the Canon UK website, they're useless for assessing distortion. So which ones are you looking at?
 
StewartR said:
Make your mind up! Does it have a lot of distortion, or not?

And a link to these "review sample pics" would be helpful. If you're talking about the ones on the Canon UK website, they're useless for assessing distortion. So which ones are you looking at?
Click to expand...
It has distortion. I told u that someone said it had no distortion and I said it does.

I will find someone Flickr account who has the lens. The distortion around a 3rd of of the image is very obvious
 
jonneymendoza said:
It has distortion. I told u that someone said it had no distortion and I said it does.

I will find someone Flickr account who has the lens. The distortion around a 3rd of of the image is very obvious
Click to expand...
If it's that obvious (affecting 1/3 of the image?!), I doubt it distortion caused by the lens, rather, as I already mentioned, just the massively wide perspective of an FF 11mm lens?

Post the image link and we can have a look.
 
Last edited:
Everyone knows with bulbous front elements from ultra wide FF lenses, front filters are an issue, so I'd imagine most buying this accept that.

Why are you determined to pick silly holes in a such a good lens? What's next, the texture of the bag not to people's liking?!?
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
It is a bit of a bummer for those who have already invested in some sort of filter system. most folks would be using 77/82mm type filters already and to abandon all of that and invest in these gelatin filters(which seem not a popular standard filter system) it is a bit of chore
Click to expand...

I've the samyung 14mm and found using 120mm film camera filters held with elastic bands works, but is a little heath robinson for a manufactures solution. Not sure how else you could mount a 82mm filter on a extremely wide lens without causing vignetting.
 
jonneymendoza said:
im not getting into an argument with you.
Click to expand...
It's not an argument, it's a discussion. What you are saying is lens distortion (in the a typical sense) isn't what you are seeing. It's not lens barrel or pin cushion distortion as a result of poor engineering, it's perspective. If our own eyes could see that widely, that's what we would see.

I'm guessing you haven't used that many UWAs?

If you google "axial magnification", this is what you are seeing.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
What you are saying is lens distortion (in the a typical sense) isn't what you are seeing. It's not lens barrel or pin cushion distortion as a result of poor engineering, it's perspective. If our own eyes could see that widely, that's what we would see.
Click to expand...
Spot on. What those images show is simply the exaggerated perspective you get with an ultra wide lens.
 
odd jim said:
It's not an argument, it's a discussion. What you are saying is lens distortion (in the a typical sense) isn't what you are seeing. It's not lens barrel or pin cushion distortion as a result of poor engineering, it's perspective. If our own eyes could see that widely, that's what we would see.

I'm guessing you haven't used that many UWAs?

If you google "axial magnification", this is what you are seeing.
Click to expand...
The part where you said i am just picking on this lens is incorrect though. i am not

That is baiting me into an argument with you. the first part of your post was valid and fine, as well as the above information you have provided me.

Good information. i have a 16-35L which is pretty wide and close to being classed as a UWA lens on a FF body.
 
jonneymendoza said:
The part where you said i am just picking on this lens is incorrect though. i am not

That is baiting me into an argument with you. the first part of your post was valid and fine, as well as the above information you have provided me.

Good information. i have a 16-35L which is pretty wide and close to being classed as a UWA lens on a FF body.
Click to expand...

Ok sorry, it wasn't meant to read like that, but the bit about the filters had nothing to do with the discussion :) That's the only reason I thought you were picking holes in it.

The 16-35 is indeed a UWA on an FF body but if you're using it on a cropped body you won't notice so much of the perspective magnification at the edges.
 
Byker28i said:
£92 for three days...
http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/product/canon-ef-11-24mm-f4-l-usm

So what's your impression of it Stewart? (apart from big)
Click to expand...
Big! And heavy. It makes the Nikon 14-24 look like a child's toy, which I'm sure is a deliberate move on the part of Canon's engineers. It's beautiful to hold and use, and it's very impressive optically. But 11mm is awfully wide. It would be great for architecture and interiors, since there is no distortion worth worrying about. But as we've seen here, the exaggerated perspective can produce some rather strange results if you aren't careful.
 
daugirdas said:
Do most of you really need 11mm? ...anything wider than the affordable 16mm? Doubt it... but there is also a cheap Sammy 14mm if you just want to have a little play.
Click to expand...
The Sammy is a great lens, and I must admit I use mine more than I thought I would.

Personally, I love UWAs and they're great for travelling. I think 14mm on FF is probably my limit though.
 
daugirdas said:
Do most of you really need 11mm? ...anything wider than the affordable 16mm? Doubt it... but there is also a cheap Sammy 14mm if you just want to have a little play.
Click to expand...

Ahem - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-11-24.581760/#post-6764474

I have one, cheap, good, fun, but took me a while to make a profile in Lightroom to correct most of it's issues and it's soft at the edges. manual focus doesn't worry me, I just use a depth of field calculator but AF would be nice.

Can't afford it though... not yet
 
Byker28i said:
Ahem - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-11-24.581760/#post-6764474

I have one, cheap, good, fun, but took me a while to make a profile in Lightroom to correct most of it's issues and it's soft at the edges. manual focus doesn't worry me, I just use a depth of field calculator but AF would be nice.

Can't afford it though... not yet
Click to expand...
I downloaded a good profile from the Adobe Lens downloader, works a treat.

Can't say mine is soft at the edges (stopped down at least), at f/8 the whole frame is nice and sharp! Love it.
 
odd jim said:
I downloaded a good profile from the Adobe Lens downloader, works a treat.

Can't say mine is soft at the edges (stopped down at least), at f/8 the whole frame is nice and sharp! Love it.
Click to expand...

Edges are slightly softer than centre but not really soft unless it is somewhat out of focus. Let me guess what the real problem is then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top