Uwa 11-24

I like taking landscape shots. I like using as wide a lens as I can. My lens of choice is the 17-40 L. I typically stop it down, since the large majority of the time, it's in decent light.

I also shoot in lower light, and will use bracketing to eventually do HDR.

While the 11-24 seems like a nice lens, it's a lot of dough to achieve a few more mm of angle.

A much simpler solution is to take two shots, blend them into a pano.

Even realtors or architectural types do editing of their photos, so it's not a big deal to use a stitching program to get an even wider angle.

If one is going to spend 3 grand on a lens, it seems a better deal to buy the 17-14 or the 16-35 and put the extra cash toward more lenses or a camera body, to expand the kit.

Just my 2 cents.

Those few mm gives you a FOV about 45% wider.

I agree you can get the wide angle by stitching, I have been doing quite a few of those hand held lately and have had very good luck.

What you will not be able to re-create is the look and feel a lens this wide will have. I owned the 14mm L and the 16-35mm II, the 14mm had a complete different feel because of the width and distortion.

Definitely some cash needed for that lens. But stitching isn't always the answer. Of course, it isn't really possible if any element of the scene is in motion or perhaps practical if taking a large number of shots. To Pros time is money.

That said, this lens isn't likely to find its way into my kit.

Btw, this thread reminded me of the group that stitched a huge number of shots of Machu Picchu taken with a 100-400. Great shot. File size was enormous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Btw, this thread reminded me of the group that stitched a huge number of shots of Machu Picchu taken with a 100-400. Great shot. File size was enormous.

---

I seem to remember something about that...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=4484

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shutterdown

If one is going to spend 3 grand on a lens, it seems a better deal to buy the 17-40 or the 16-35 and put the extra cash toward more lenses or a camera body, to expand the kit.

---

I'm betting dollars to donuts that you've never shot with the Canon 14/2.8 or the Zeiss 15/2.8. Five minutes with the Canon, and you'll get it. Then five minutes with the Zeiss and you'll find yourself asking "do I really NEED autofocus to shoot XYZ?" just so you can take the Zeiss instead of the Canon. I bet five minutes with the 11-24 and I'd find myself asking "how quickly can I sell my wife's 14/2.8, and how many future rental reservations need to have the Zeiss 15 canceled and the Canon 11-24 reserved in its place?"

I will await test results, but, another thought on the 11-24 f/4, it may be a great starscape lens. If you follow the 500/ focal length rule of thumb, that is a 45 sec exposure before you start seeing star trails. So, a bit less than a 1/2th stop more light than I get with my Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 (or the Nikon 14-24) or a bit more than a stop of light compared to a 24 mm lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

...another thought on the 11-24 f/4, it may be a great starscape lens. If you follow the 500/ focal length rule of thumb, that is a 45 sec exposure before you start seeing star trails. So, a bit less than a 1/2th stop more light than I get with my Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 (or the Nikon 14-24) or a bit more than a stop of light compared to a 24 mm lens.

---

I do not know if I would go that far. For my 24 mm, the rule of thumb says I should max out at 21 seconds. For stars I would usually shoot 24 mm at 24 seconds, f/2, and ISO 3200.

Assuming the same ISO, your calculated shutter speed is one stop higher, but the two full stops lower in aperture value. I think it is going to be a little dim.

Even with your example, it needs a 1/3 stop more shutter speed than your Rokinon, but has 1 full stop less light getting through the aperture.

If you could make it work, it would be borderline. Having said that, I not implying everyone would want an exposure just like I do it, and lower exposure may very well work for someone else. However, you would leave yourself with very little room for adjustment to changing conditions or light pollution.

Pat

Point taken. It would be ballparkish similar to a 24 mm f/~2.8 lens in terms of exposure. Looking at my post, I failed to mention what I thought may be unique, which is the 11 mm perspective. Perhaps a more accurate comparison, in terms of exposure: the Zeiss 21 f/2.8. I've seen several references to it as a favorite nightscape lens. The 11-24 would be letting in a similar amount of light (just a little less) at the 11 mm perspective.

Absolutely, some lenses will let in more light, but I think this lens will let in sufficient light for a nightscape at the 11 mm perspective.

Just another potential use of a lens I will likely never own. But I look forward to the pictures....

I'm dying to see some samples from this lens, I was about as excited to see this released as the 5Ds.

However, I'm hoping that Sigma might step in and release an update to their 12-24 sometime soon. I'd love a fixed aperture lens at f4, but would even take a variable aperture if it had the same characteristics of their latest zooms. I'm especially hoping for this so they can save me a lot of money!

If the MTF charts are any indication, and lately they have been an indication of where the IQ falls compared to other lenses in the lineup, this lens will be extremely sharp.

But the giant bulbous lens is a big negative because it would be very difficult to use external filters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

But the giant bulbous lens is a big negative because it would be very difficult to use external filters.

---

True, but I like what Canon has done here. The 16-35 f/4 IS is "affordable" and great for most photographers. The 16-35 f/2.8 II is still in production for just a bit more, and now the 11-24 f/4 is available...or will be. The price, size/bulb, and extreme UWA is obviously aimed at a very dedicated niche. That group will likely not have an issue investing in the Wonderpana system.

While many do not use f/2.8 much for UWA, updating an f/2.8 UWA lens would complete the trifecta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

While many do not use f/2.8 much for UWA, updating an f/2.8 UWA lens would complete the trifecta.

---

If it was f/2.8 I would be more likely to buy it. At that aperture it would be a real nice starscape lens. As it is, it would just be a wide angle. For me the 16-35 f/4 fits my wide agle needs better.

Do people hate the rear-drop in filters? They could go that route. It's not a good match for a polarizer, but neither is 11mm on a full frame.

Kayaker, don't forget the EF-S 10-18 for the ultra-affordable/crop sensor end too. Canon has ultra-wide pretty well covered, I'd say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

If it was f/2.8 I would be more likely to buy it. At that aperture it would be a real nice starscape lens. As it is, it would just be a wide angle. For me the 16-35 f/4 fits my wide agle needs better.

---

If Canon introduced a sharp f/2.8 UWA lens (16-35 III or 14-24, etc), I would be torn. As you say, it would be a real nice starscape lens. But the IS on the 16-35 f/4 is a great selling point and perfect for certain situations such as walking tours of slot canyons or light travel/hiking. I would probably still lean toward the 16-35 f/4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Do people hate the rear-drop in filters? They could go that route. It's not a good match for a polarizer, but neither is 11mm on a full frame.

Kayaker, don't forget the EF-S 10-18 for the ultra-affordable/crop sensor end too. Canon has ultra-wide pretty well covered, I'd say.

---

I have no experience with rear-drop in filters. And they could go that route for solid-ND filters. As you mention, not a good match for a polarizer, but I was more thinking graduated ND filters, which is wouldn't work for either.

And EF-S opens up another door, including the 10-18 (never owned it myself, but I've seen good shots) and 10-22.

Like Brant said, it is ND filters, graduated as well. The rear filter is for the most part for me would be useless.

Looking at the MTF charts it looked like it would be a good 24mm choice, I could use it for much of my 24mm use because I usually go without a filter. But I would still need my 24mm L prime or 24-70 II for ND and Graduated filter use.

So it takes the 11-24 out of the equation for replacing that lens.

Maybe its just me, but I do not look at the 11-24mm and think should I get this or the 16-35mm.
To much separation between the two lenses to make them similar enough.
The comparison I would make is should I go with a 14mm F/2.8L, 15mm Zeiss or the 11-24.
Comparing 11mm to 16mm, the 11mm is 1.45 times as wide. It is like comparing a 24mm to a 35mm.

This actually reminds me of the other reason why I would lean toward the EF 16-35 f/4 IS if I choose to add a UWA lens to supplement the Rokinon 14 f/2.8: it accepts 77 mm filters.

That is significant for me. Not necessarily for a polarizer, but I do not want to overlook the use of a polarizer for reducing glare/enhancing colors in waterfall shots (for example), but also I already have all the ND and grad ND filter set up for 77 mm threads.

For the price, the Rokinon is an amazingly capable lens. Yes, it has terrible distortion. No, it doesn't accept filters. No, it doesn't have autofocus or electronic aperture.

But the distortion (and vignetting) is fixed fairly well PTLens and as long as you can deal with the other issues, this is a lens that you can really enjoy. I love mine and use it relatively often. And now that I think about it, that $400.00 lens has seen about as much use as my 85L II.

Sean, I finally came out of my trance, as I gazed at those images of yours. They are wonderful. Truly wonderful.

Was your camera mounted on a tripod?

Thanks for linking them. I think I'm ready to let them mesmerize me again! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shutterdown

Was your camera mounted on a tripod?

---

I'm glad you liked them! To see exactly how I captured the 360-Degree panoramas, check out this info. :-)

Sean