Canon EF11-24mm@$3000! Am I missing something

Or is it that this one is made up of diamonds?
Well I try to get it, dust, water resistance, Super doper UD glass and subway! subwavvelenght coating (Or whatever it is), but then with all the great competition out there at the fraction of cost, what is that Canon thinking? Or am I missing something big?

LINK

This lens has no competition; there's no other constant aperture UWA zoom at 11mm. It also has 4 aspherical elements to correct distortion and those can't be made cheap

panicatnabisco wrote in post #17420995
This lens has no competition; there's no other constant aperture UWA zoom at 11mm. It also has 4 aspherical elements to correct distortion and those can't be made cheap

I'll stick to my Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. $297 from B&H, brand-spanking new. A stop faster than the Canon, and $2,700 cheaper. I could build custom vignetting profiles, if so inclined. Distortion correction is available, free. The Rokinon math works for me.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17421016
I'll stick to my Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. $297 from B&H, brand-spanking new. A stop faster than the Canon, and $2,700 cheaper. I could build custom vignetting profiles, if so inclined. Distortion correction is available, free. The Rokinon math works for me.

Exactly my point as I am using this ultra wide mostly for night deep sky shooting and manual really is my only option and then extra F, very beneficial.

But then agree that those aspherical lenses don't come cheap, specially 4 in a row, however I think this is over priced specially that now a days with computer assist, creating these lenses is a lot easier/cheaper than before. But just curious if you can still see any trace of CA on this new baby.

panicatnabisco wrote in post #17420995
This lens has no competition; there's no other constant aperture UWA zoom at 11mm. It also has 4 aspherical elements to correct distortion and those can't be made cheap

If you go by exact specs, you're right. If however you look at what's close, then you have competition that's been around for some time, the Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II, 1mm off on focal length, 1 stop on light gathering, and $2,000 less cost. After having spent over a year with my Sigma (car shows, streets of NYC, fashion shoots), I'm not willing to spend an extra $2,000 for 1mm and one stop.

Then maybe don't buy it?

Great! One less buyer of this lens! More chance for me to get one.

There is no other lens with that angle of view for any format, so if you want the widest lens possible, that's your only option and they can charge what they want for it. The difference between 11 and 12mm on FF is also about 5 degrees, which can be quite substantial.

There is also the matter of diminishing returns, where if you want the ultimate performance out of something, then you need to pay a lot of money for it. Similar lenses that are priced to the high heavens include the Otus 55 and 85, which are insanely great, but incredibly expensive even when you compare it to a 50L and an 85L.

mathogre wrote in post #17421139
If you go by exact specs, you're right. If however you look at what's close, then you have competition that's been around for some time, the Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II, 1mm off on focal length, 1 stop on light gathering, and $2,000 less cost. After having spent over a year with my Sigma (car shows, streets of NYC, fashion shoots), I'm not willing to spend an extra $2,000 for 1mm and one stop.

What about optical performance? http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 and from my reading of the MTF charts, the 11-24 should have broadly similar optical performance on the wide end as the 16-35.

this is like asking why the 500/600/800mm lenses are so expensive...i'm sure there's a lot of R & D that goes into them...then there's a lot of parts...and at the end of the day, there really is no competition

A lot of research and a niche market (not many units expected to sell) make for an expensive product! Another example is something like the tilt shift lenses. But if you need the Canon's features you're still likely to pick one up. In any case it'd be interesting to see at what price the lens will be in a year or so.

I agree it's overpriced, but it's not the most overpriced lens in the Canon lineup. That distinction goes to the greatly overpriced 14mm 2.8 which is $2250.00 at B&H Photo.

I have the 500mm series II and I use it a lot and no regrets on the 10K. This new lens in my bag would not get used that much so for me 3K is a little to much, but the Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG @ $995 would be a good buy for me. I was planning on renting one from my local camera store for a test drive.

Well since Canon has decided they are not going to make a super wide below F/4 I tend to agree with some others. The 16-35 F/4 IS seems the way to go. At least it has IS and you could probably hold it at an 1/8 and get sharp images when in low light. I can honestly say that at receptions, they seem to be getting darker and darker every year. I am so frequently at f/2.5 at 1/30 at 6400 and pushing in post its not even funny. And thats with a flash. I cant use F/4 for a lot of my needs. 12800 iso is good, but i dont want to be at 12800 all night either......who knows.....maybe Canon has something in the works and 25K iso will be the current 3200 iso on a 5D3 and thats why they are making F/4 glass.

I was really looking forward to this lens and was hoping it was going to come in at F/2.8 and priced to compete with Nikons flagship 14-24. I for one, am very disappointed with this announcement. and 3K is just stupid for f/4 glass with no IS....lame move in my opinion But im sure the canon fan club will drink this Kool-ade as fast as Canon can pour it

nightcat wrote in post #17421379
I agree it's overpriced, but it's not the most overpriced lens in the Canon lineup. That distinction goes to the greatly overpriced 14mm 2.8 which is $2250.00 at B&H Photo.

Rokinon to the rescue, again! My Rok 14mm f/2.8 cost me $297, and it focuses closer than the Canon.