Canon’s New EF 11-24mm f/4L Lens Gives New Meaning To UFWA

March 8th, 2015

Canon11-24mmI can remember when I first got my Canon 16-35mm wide angle and used it to shoot a listing for my wife. She scolded me severely and sent me back to reshoot several of the rooms where I had racked the lens out to 16mm. She said at 16mm effective the small intimate living room looked like a bowling alley. And she was right.

All you shooters that have Canon full frame DSLRs, think what you could do with this glass that goes out to 11mm! This lens gives new meaning to the term UFWA (Ultra F@#%in’ Wide Angle)!

Seriously though, Canon’s recently announced EF 11-24mm f/4L lens may be as good as the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED. The Nikon 14-24mm has for years been considered the best wide-angle lens available. There is a review at lens rentals.com that compares the 11-24mm to all the similar Canon glass and the 11-24mm appears to be close or better than most Canon zoom lenses. Only the Canon 24-70mm resolves better at 24mm and the 11-24 is very close.

Tim Dodd at PetaPixel has a review of the Canon 11-24mm. While this new lens the best ultra-wide-angle lens in Canon’s line up. I’m not sure that if I wanted something better than my Canon 24-70mm and 16-35mm that I wouldn’t rather use a TS-E 24mm f/3.5/ II to shoot interiors. I get myself in enough trouble going wide with my 16-35mm zoom! Besides the TS-E 24mm is $1300 less than the 11-24mm.

What do you think, are any Canon shooters going to add the 11-24mm to their bag for shooting interiors?

 

Share this

13 Responses to “Canon’s New EF 11-24mm f/4L Lens Gives New Meaning To UFWA”

  • This would be a good lens for the BMCC which has a crop factor somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.4.

  • Hi,
    I think that this lens is too wide for real estate, interiors or architectural photography.
    I wold rather go for the tilt&shift lens set or the 16-35.

  • I use a sigma 12-24 on FF. Works well. The canon will probably be a more refined lens in most aspects, but it is difficult to justify the price tag given the fee levels on real estate (commercial architectural work might be a different matter though).

  • In spite of the quality, which sounds superb, I think the $3000 price tag is pushing it too far.

    In practical terms, I can barely tell any difference between my Canon 17-40 and my Nikon 14-24, even though there is a $1000 differnce between them. And even then, for FF, 14mm seems to be where the usefulness starts to run out.

    11mm is about right on DX bodies, but I doubt real estate clients would even notice any difference between the new lens and the 10-18mm, unless chromatic aberation is non-existent on the new lens.

  • Like anything this lens can be used for good or evil.

    The desire of RE agents to see EVERYTHING does not mean we have to actually wreck our reputation by giving them a poorly conceived image. I bought the 17 TS-E when it came out and it was a brilliant decision.
    It was, however, not a panacea. Some compositions are just bad and are made worse with UWA.
    I have actually stitched frames from the 17 to get an effective 11mm with great results that look natural. OTOH I have some entirely wretched images made at 24mm.
    It all depends how one uses the lens. There are many samples on the web at present that do not show any perspectival distortion in architectural applications. Of course there are some “novelty” images that veer off into the “Wow, look how weird I can make things look.” cliche.
    I will be getting this lens for its IQ and its AOV and its ability to let me move quickly.
    I will sell my 17 TS-E, 16-13 f4L and a camera to get it but even if I didn’t, it would pay for itself in two shoots.

  • Like anything this lens can be used for good or evil.

    For me, it means getting around a project that much faster as I will not have to stitch frames on my 17TS-E or wrestling the distortions (optical) from a 14mm capture into submission.

    The AOV is stunning but with care can render very good perspective with little of the foreground/ background wooziness that can occur when used carelessly.

    No, it is not a panacea but then what lens is? There are many excellent example on the web already showing beautiful architectural rendering with no optical distortion and little perspectival distortion.
    I am ordering one and will sell several lenses including my 17TS-E to get it at no out of pocket to me. OTOH even if I had to write that check, it would pay for itself in a couple of shoots.

  • I would not go less than 16mm for an interior shot. I have used Nikon, Canon and Sigma lenses and found them all to be excellent.

  • At it’s longest focal length, it just barely touches where I try to live, for most of my interiors work… So no, I won’t buy it.

  • Too wide for real estate and interiors. Sure you could probably get some great shots and use out of it, but the people paying you for the shots would be mad while you’re having fun.

  • This is a rectilinear lens we’re talking about here, not a fish. As such, it will work very well when used properly in the context of real estate and architectural photography, both interiors and exteriors.

    This lens was made for the upcoming 5D.

  • Adorama has this lens listed at $2999.

  • I just recently picked up the Rokinon 14mm but the de-clicked aperture version (T3.1 as opposed to the f2.8) and I reserve using this lens (on FF) for very tight spaces i.e. small bathrooms. I also find PT Lens takes care of 90-95% of the barreling/distortion and the results are palatable and informative.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply