|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM - $2,999.... WHY!
Why is the new Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM so expensive? After all it is an f/4! USM is not enough to make this lens so expensive at least not to me or is it, but WHY? P.S. What is the widest lens with a Canon EF / EFS mount? May 05 15 03:13 pm Link You can blame your Canon Fan Boys for that!!! lol May 05 15 03:17 pm Link KBStudio wrote: Because their research says it will sell for that much. May 05 15 03:18 pm Link makes me appreciate my lowly 17-40f4! but i suppose if you have a business justification for needing to shoot at 11 then you can justify the price. 17 has been fine for me on FF (along with my 15mm fisheye). but i'm not a landscape photographer. May 05 15 03:18 pm Link Wait...Get the Tamron 15-30mm VC. It got some good reviews..and is hell of a lot cheaper. If you are looking for an cheaper solution. And it has Vibration Control. The First wide angle with VC. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct … hUqnqlVzFA May 05 15 03:23 pm Link ontherocks wrote: As of 2 months ago I've been shooting Landscape and will be selling Plexi-Glass prints but this price is astronomical! Oh and no IS even if it did have it it's way to expensive. It's more expensive than the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 MK II and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 MK II. May 05 15 03:26 pm Link did the radioactive earthquake event in japan make lenses more expensive or something? some of these new/upgraded canon lenses aren't cheap! if i were starting over i would probably be looking to buy used or non-canon brand for at least some of these. KBStudio wrote: May 05 15 03:28 pm Link DOUGLASFOTOS wrote: I really want to go wide as possible without going fish eye. to have my setup without any gaps (Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and WHEN THE PRICE GOES DOWN..... WAY DOWN Canon 11-24mm f/4. May 05 15 03:30 pm Link Take a look at the Sigma 12-24mm I was considering it for my 5Dii but went with the Sigma 10-20mm for the ef-s for my 7D instead. $635 eBay http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/67 … 4f4556iiff http://www.ebay.ca/itm/like/40090005945 … rmvSB=true May 05 15 03:43 pm Link MicMar Photography wrote: I shoot mostly at night in NYC so I'm not sure how a f/4.5 would fare(probably not to my liking), Looking for something f/2.8 and under. May 05 15 03:46 pm Link KBStudio wrote: Tripod ? May 05 15 03:48 pm Link MicMar Photography wrote: True! Was looking at getting a Manfrotto with a ball head or The 3 Legged Thing as a tripod.... May 05 15 03:51 pm Link KBStudio wrote: Simple: because the nearest similar lens is 14mm, or roughly 130% the focal length. If everyone's longest lens was 300mm, I would expect that the first 400mm lens to come out would be a lot more too. May 05 15 06:58 pm Link KBStudio wrote: I like Manfrotto. They seem to be the ideal combination of weight, sturdiness, and price. May 05 15 07:05 pm Link Crazy - that's why I just use reasonably priced fast primes for portraiture. The 24mm ef-s pancake is a cracker for just 200 bucks. May 06 15 12:47 am Link KBStudio wrote: Again look for used gear like the light stand you talked about before May 06 15 06:40 am Link I had the opportunity to shoot with this lens (the EF 11-24 f4L) while I was visiting a friend at his studio a week ago ("Where does he get all of these wonderful toys?"). A couple of notes, it is big and heavy (2.6 punds!), twice as heavy as the 16-35 f2.8L II. It also produces a remarkable image at 11mm on a full frame camera like the EOS 5D series. A careful examination of the image showed very little distortion, certainly none that wouldn't have been corrected using lens correction software in the camera. I purposely lined up a door frame at the edge of the picture, and it was straight up and down in the final image. And remember, this is a zoom lens, and as Zack Zoll mentioned, the first in this range. The f4 maximum aperture? Well, for what this lens is designed to do I doubt a photographer would find this to be a limitation. First, very wide lenses are primarily used to shoot architecture and landscapes, so depth of field (which would be very big anyway regardless of aperture) is hardly an issue. f8 or even f11 are common apertures to shoot landscape and architecture. Also it's not like we are worried about the the autofocus hunting when shooting buildings, they don't move as fast as you might think. And at 2.6 pounds? If it was an f2.8 lens it might weigh 10 pounds! The math of light at these focal lengths is interesting. According to what my friend had to say, this lens will probably replace his EF16-35 f2.8L II in his bag. Now, I have the EF 17-40 f4L, and that is a great general purpose zoom which I use all the time on both my full frame EOS 5D II (soon to be EOS 5Ds!!) and my EOS 7D (where it is used frequently when shooting fashion). I doubt I really have a need for the EF 11-24 f4L lens, and at $3000 there is (for me) a cost ceiling which is prohibitive. But why worry, be happy, my friend has one and he's only a couple of blocks away!! Just a note, my friend's collection of "toys" is truly remarkable, When I'm there, I'm not beyond asking him if he by any chance has a left handed framus. my friend will go into a closet, pull out a rack and ask, "Do you want the green one or the red one?" I'll say I was hoping he might have the left handed framus mini, in blue. And he will say, "Oh, why didn't you say so, that's in the box over there". This would be funny if it wasn't so true! John -- John Fisher 700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 (305) 534-9322 http://www.johnfisher.com May 06 15 08:36 am Link still-photography wrote: Touche. That's kinda what happened with the new 35mm f2 IS USM STM yada yada yada, no? It used to be a lot more expensive. May 06 15 10:00 am Link I think Zach has it right. This is the first time Canon has ever offered a lens in this focal range. It's ridiculously wide and the research and development that had to go into this lens is extensive. Also, there are two things driving this price. Demand and Demand. I use that twice because there is a small group who have been screaming for a wide zoom for many many years. These people will purchase this lens, no matter what the cost. They "need" it for the types of photography they do and will recoup any expense with sale of the images they expect to produce with it. The other side of it is that this group is so small, that there is no benefit to a mass production of the lenses. So they are far more expensive to produce than say the 17-40 L. The best I can suggest to you is to find a good rental house and rent the lens for the few times you think you need that much field of view for a project. Years ago, I bought a $2000 Nikon 14-24mm and have used it a handful of times. Probably not worth it for the times I really needed it is pretty small. I found myself looking for reasons or excuses to drag it out, but I've not been terribly satisfied with owning it. May 06 15 10:48 am Link KBStudio wrote: They want your money to become their money. Simple May 06 15 10:59 am Link Because good wide angle lenses are difficult to make. I always hated the 16-28 or 35 or whatevers. Tons of flare, chroma and soft images. When the Nikon 14-24mm came out people seriously thought it was witchcraft, there was never a wide angle zoom that good. People created mounts to use that lens on a Canon thats how good it is. Its taken this long for canon to figure out how to do it and it has an even wider field of view. The round front element alone is $400-500 to replace May 06 15 11:38 am Link Yingwah Productions wrote: Exactly! High quality super wide (more like EXTREME wide) angle lens are expensive to design and build. There are always trade offs when building a lens to sell at a lower price and this is a specialty lens that commands a higher price. This isn't a mainstream lens that will sell millions of copies, that adds to the price too. May 06 15 03:24 pm Link Instinct Images wrote: I think you're mistaken, it will be a lens that's made in high volume. Many pro/semi-pro photographers will have it in their standard trio along with 24-70mm and 70-200mm, just like most working sports photographers have a 400mm May 07 15 03:48 am Link Just checked my Canon lens app on my phone and the 11-24mm f/4 L is going to sell for $4,499.... I just DIED! May 07 15 11:44 am Link I wouldnt trust your phone app http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 … l_usm.html You cant have Lobster on a TunaFish budget Be thankful you dont shoot sports and need Super Teles The price tags on those would bilnd ya May 07 15 12:04 pm Link Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote: It's the official Canon app. But I see what you're saying. May 07 15 12:48 pm Link You're paying for edge-to-edge sharpness with minimal vignetting. The price is justified for those who rely on their equipment professionally. May 07 15 01:10 pm Link KBStudio wrote: Use a computer for internet May 07 15 01:22 pm Link Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote: LOL May 07 15 05:21 pm Link MicMar Photography wrote: Do you have any sample images with this lens? May 07 15 06:04 pm Link MicMar Photography wrote: Look at the edge difference in the MTF charts of the nikon 14-24mm, the canon supposed to perform similar, thats the difference in price people are paying for. May 08 15 02:12 am Link New intros are always high. It'll probably drop once the "I must have it" folks buy them and sales slow down. I'm sort of annoyed that I fell into the "I must have it" D800E which was $3,600 at intro, but now can be had for $2,999 for the D810. Oh well. The Canon will probably drop to $2,300 or so which is still sort of high for a f/4 lens with the surrounding models. Hopefully it will beat the Nikon 14-24mm in sharpness and be a good match for their new 50MP camera. The Nikon 14-24mm has been a thorn in Canon's side for too long. It should be sharper at f/4 and maybe why Canon didn't push it to a f/2.8 too as it might show some deficiency in their new high MP camera. If it does well, then the price may stick to the high end. If not, then it might drop a bit more if sales fall flat. Hope it does well once the technical reviewers get to it. May 08 15 04:00 am Link Yingwah Productions wrote: I suppose that depends on your definition of "high volume". I see it as a specialty lens not replacing the 16-35 f/2.8 II May 09 15 02:11 am Link That's really wide. If it's an absolute optical masterpiece it could just be worth it. Nikons widest zoom is the 14-24 f2.8, which drops in at $1999 after its had a few price increases. Or get the Canon 8-15 f4 + 17-40 f4, which together cost between $2k to $2300, depending on if you want IS with it. As a unique offering in the marketplace it's prob about $500 overpriced. May 09 15 02:54 am Link Robb Mann wrote: The 8-15mm is a fisheye though. How would I go about correcting the image warp? May 09 15 06:36 am Link Amusing the comments about f4. Do you realise how huge this lens is? It an 11-24 rectilinear lens with virtually no distortion! Anyway many of the technical reviews are already in. It's exceptional and peerless. Thats why it's so expensive. However I'm sure it'll lose $500 in the next year or so.. May 09 15 09:57 am Link "P.S. What is the widest lens with a Canon EF / EFS mount?" This is really two different questions. If you have an EF-S (crop sensor rebel) the 10-18mm STM, or the 10-22mm USM are the widest (non fish eye) lenses for your camera. But these lenses are no where near as wide as the lenses you are referring to on a full frame body, which would be approx. 6.9mm. May 21 15 05:37 pm Link wow that is totally lame, 3 grand? Fuck off with that noise lol Tokina 12-24 .. the sleeper of the lens companies. Tokina = quiet giant of lenses. I can't imagine a lens that wide on FF May 21 15 06:27 pm Link Solas wrote: I might get the Tokina AT-X 11-20mm F/2.8 PRO DX instead. May 23 15 07:31 pm Link KBStudio wrote: Lighroom has lens/camera models for most OEM glass these days. Pincushioning and Keystoning can be removed almost by default, but you will still have that weird perspective. May 25 15 06:40 am Link |
