Canon EF 11-24mm F4L USM Lens is here!

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17423368
Canon is still innovating !
Expensive or not, every year, new lenses or/and new version, yes it can be very expensive for some people, for other it's a bargain but when Canon put a new version of an ef-s lens at $300, complainers today, didn't complain last year, so this year let say it's the year of nice L lenses ... and L means ... Luxury = expensive
Canon have a huge range of choice AND prices, just be happy that your favorite brand continue to innovate in all direction

this lens is innovative...but i wouldn't go so far to say that most of their recent new lenses have been innovative

Charlie wrote in post #17419453
This lens can render wide tilt shifts obsolete (somewhat), while giving 11mm FOV to avoid stitching in general.

The is/will always be a need for stitching under some circumstances- it's all about perspective. As much as I love UWA for landscapes, I also enjoy landscapes with longer focal lengths due to the perspective. Also, for architectural and real estate, the TS lenses will always have their place so no, this lens is but another tool in the shed not a replacement for every UWA ever made. Funds permitting, I think a 11-24L, 17L TS and 24L II would just about cover any wide angle lover's needs

All that being said I am going to be one of those hunting one of these used this coming fall!

Yep! Point taken. You pays your money............Etc etc...... Currently on sale here for about £2800

fiebru1119 wrote in post #17423618
The is/will always be a need for stitching under some circumstances- it's all about perspective. As much as I love UWA for landscapes, I also enjoy landscapes with longer focal lengths due to the perspective. D

There will be zero difference in perspective between an image done with a single exposure using a UWA lens, or from a multi image stitch using a telephoto lens, that finishes with the same angle of view. Provided of course they are both shot from the same location. The Stitch may have the advantage of a lot more pixels. But you then have the difficulty in actually stitching the images together, and the problems that may entail. The perspective thing works the other way too. So an equivalent crop from a UWA will have the same perspective as the full image from a single telephoto image.

What will be different is the Depth of Field in either of the above scenarios (cropping and stitching) thanks to the different sizes of aperture for the same f number at different focal lengths.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17423909
There will be zero difference in perspective between an image done with a single exposure using a UWA lens, or from a multi image stitch using a telephoto lens, that finishes with the same angle of view. Provided of course they are both shot from the same location. The Stitch may have the advantage of a lot more pixels. But you then have the difficulty in actually stitching the images together, and the problems that may entail. The perspective thing works the other way too. So an equivalent crop from a UWA will have the same perspective as the full image from a single telephoto image.

What will be different is the Depth of Field in either of the above scenarios (cropping and stitching) thanks to the different sizes of aperture for the same f number at different focal lengths.

Alan

You're right, I'm used to printing landscapes so I'll take all the resolution I can get, and hence why I had stitching in mind. These are of course arbitrary numbers, but I could see where a crop from a 11-24/5Ds could be equivalent to a stitch from an 85mm/5Dc etc

I was excited by the rumours about this lens, and now it looks like it's a really good one too. I think I shall be getting one.

Madweasel wrote in post #17426001
I was excited by the rumours about this lens, and now it looks like it's a really good one too. I think I shall be getting one.

Yeah but so damn expensive.. So big and no filters for the moment. I would only regret to own that lens but not beeing able to use filters..

davidfarina wrote in post #17426021
Yeah but so damn expensive.. So big and no filters for the moment. I would only regret to own that lens but not beeing able to use filters..

as has been pointed out it does have a rear drop in slot for gel filters

Just in case mentioning it the third time doesn't work, here's some visual stimulation

interesting? what are filter gels?

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17426568
interesting? what are filter gels?

filters that go in the back instead of the front. see panicatnabisco's pic above--they slide into the marked area.

still we gotta invest in new filters

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17426682
still we gotta invest in new filters

Well to be fair, if someone can afford a $3000 lens, filters should not be too much of an additional burden

not just the price of filters, but 150mm are cumbersome to work with......

gels are supposedly inexpensive.

Charlie wrote in post #17427226
not just the price of filters, but 150mm are cumbersome to work with......

gels are supposedly inexpensive.

and.... not sure, but someone can probably do the calculations to figure out exactly the dimensions needed, but since those special adapted front 150mm rectangular filters have so far only been made up to i believe a 14mm lens, it's a possibility that the much wider 11mm will require an even bigger rectangular filter.

anyone with some math skillz and time wanna calculate the minimum rectangular filter size needed?

at some point using front filters is not practical anymore. for instance, given a 180deg fisheye, a flat filter of infinite size would be needed, which of course is impossible.

a better solution would be a round filter, if that could be produced. that would allow for much smaller filters for ultra-wides. or, just use the rear slot.