Canon Zoom Lens EF 11-24mm 1: 4 L USM Ultrasonic review by Photo Dzen

As an exchange of courtesies for my review S5 Pro and help in creating a review Nikon DF, this Canon Zoom Lens EF 11-24mm 1: 4 L USM Ultrasonic review, especially for our beloved Radozhivka, was prepared by Andrey Kondratenko, one of the project editors Photo dzen... Spelling and punctuation are preserved from the author, and were not ruled by the forces of Radozhiva.

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

The spirit of struggle is always present in everything - and not only in sporting events. And the ancient slogan “Citius, Altius, Fortius” in relation to the photo, you can try to rephrase as - wider, brighter, sharper (in relation to the lenses, at least).

So Canon, it seems, got involved in a "fight for the leader" with its main competitor in the face of Nikon, as they say - on all fronts. The recently introduced new 50-megapixel EOS 5DS and 5DS-R allowed Canon to outperform 36-megapixel Nikon D800, D800E, D810a and D810.

Well, now, the new Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM zoom lens has pulled out ahead in coverage angle and focal length, as the "main competitor" has the widest-angle lens to date - this is a rather old Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm 1: 2.8G VR N Nano Crystal Coat SWM IF Aspherical with “only” 14mm focal length at its widest position. We are talking about full-frame diagonal zoom lenses - not fixed and not fishey.

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

The Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM is the widest classic full-frame lens, with 126-degree diagonal coverage. To achieve such outstanding results, the manufacturer equipped the lens with a giant 108mm spherical front lens. Naturally, the only protection for the front glass is the “built-in” hood. There is simply nowhere to wind the filter. Unless you install attachments or use small internal filters for which special slots are provided on the back of the lens.

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Using the lens, I often found myself thinking that the front element was a bit scary, and I tried to hold the lens more often with the cap on it.

Lens specifications:

Focal length 11-24 mm for full-frame cameras; 17,6-38,4 mm for cameras with APS-C sensors
Maximum / minimum aperture F / 4,0 - F / 22
Zoom ratio 2,18 x
Viewing angles (wide - far position) 126.08 - 84.00 diagonal (11 mm to 24 mm), 117.17 - 74.00 horizontal (11 mm to 24 mm), 95.0 - 53.0 vertical (11 mm to 24 mm)
Optical design 16 elements in 11 groups, including 4 aspherical elements
Minimum Focus Distance 0,28 m - at a focal length of 24 mm, 0,32 m - at a focal length of 11 mm.
Max magnification 0,16x - at a focal length of 24 mm, 0,06x - at a focal length of 11 mm.
The number of aperture blades 9 (rounded type);
Technologies used USM (Ultra-sonic motor) L (Luxury) AL (Aspherical Lens) S-UD (Super Ultra-low dispersion)

UD (Ultra-low dispersion)

CA (Circular Aperture)

SWC (SubWave Length Structure Coating)

dimensions diameter 108 mm, length 132 mm.
Weight 1180 grams
Diagram: Optical design Canon 11-24
Price View–>
Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Looking at the characteristics that appeared after the announcement of the lens back in February 2015, it was clear that it was not small at all. However, “not small” in this case is said very softly. The lens is very large, heavy, and because of the huge spherical lens - it seems just huge. With amateur equipment, such as Canon 750D, using it is very inconvenient, imbalance is too strong - the center of mass is somewhere on the wide end of the lens, which is why it is necessary to hold the camera + lens beyond the edge of the lens.

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Anyway, with “cropped” cameras, such a lens loses all meaning, because its key advantage disappears - an ultra-wide angle.

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

11-24, like all top-end equipment, is made in Japan. The assembly is impeccable, the lens is very "knocked down" and monolithic, with a fairly smooth (or rather, even moderately tight) zoom stroke. Focus - not internal. The lens, while zooming, does not change its physical dimensions, but the back and front groups of lenses “travel”, so theoretically, dust inside the structure can leak out over time, despite the fact that it is an L-lens with dust and moisture protection.

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

The zoom and focus rings are rubberized, wide enough and spaced apart a large distance from each other - so that “focusing accidentally” fails. Since the lens uses a modern ring focusing motor, you can not switch to MF mode, and if necessary simply “to focus»During the shooting. Both rings have very short stroke - which is typical for an ultra-wide angle lens.

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

On the body there is a focus switching slider (MF / AF) and a focus scale window. Moreover - only 3 basic values ​​are applied - 11, 16 and 24 mm. As with all Canon wide-angle lenses, there is no optical stabilization.

11-24 is a completely unique lens. No matter how fantastic it may sound, it is super-sharp across the entire plane of the frame and at all aperture values. Not in vain, only having managed to appear, she immediately received 2 prestigious awards - both TIPA 2015 and EISA 2015.

Naturally, given the viewing angles - there are spherical distortions. But:

  • firstly, as for such an angle, they are very, very “modest” and visible only at 11 mm, at 24 mm straight lines remain straight even at the edges of the frame.
  • secondly, there is already a lens profile for Adobe Camera RAW, so that you can correct the distortion at the pre-processing stage.
Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Aperture 11-24 is not the most outstanding, "only" F / 4.0. But, looking at the sizes, I can’t even imagine what a lens with the same optical and technical characteristics (sharpness, minimal distortion) and aperture - F / 2,8 can be. Apparently, Canon also reasoned and decided not to shock us with monstrous sizes (and at the same monstrous price). Let me remind you that the recommended price of this device is $ 3000, which is very, very large.
But this is not a reportable lens, where shooting in low light conditions and with hands is often important. Its use is landscape, architectural and interior photography, that is, the ability to mount the camera on a tripod and thoughtfully take pictures. The lack of built-in stabilization, as if additionally hinting at it.

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Given this wide angle, I expected to see some pretty noticeable vignetting in the corners, at the widest aperture. But even then a surprise awaited. Yes, at F / 4 at 11 mm there is darkening in the corners of the frame. But, open the aperture to F / 5,6, and here it is minimal, and again - easily fixable using the profile in Camera Raw. This is clearly seen in the test shots. In addition, the lens actually does not catch parasitic "bunnies". In any case - I have not been caught).

Another misfortune of "super-wide" - chromatic aberration. They are minimal, and to get them (and demonstrate) - you had to try pretty hard. Below is a frame where they can be clearly seen along the edges of rose leaves (thin purple stripes). But the picture was taken on a sunny day, against the sun and on the most closed aperture. And in the same picture you can see a drop in detail on the most closed aperture in the widest angle of the lens.

Shot on a Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Shot on a Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Original RAW ('.CR2') photos can be download from this link.

It was not for nothing that I mentioned the brand new Canon 5DS and 5DS-R at the beginning of the article. A lens with such outstanding optical characteristics can fully reveal the 50-megapixel matrix of new cameras. I am sure that professional landscape photographers are already “rubbing their hands”, looking at such a “tandem”.

True, one should not forget that shooting landscapes and architecture often involves long journeys in search of “that same place and perspective” with photographic equipment in hand (or a wardrobe trunk). So, and the weight of the lens in kilograms and 200 grams, this is already not small, and if you add here the weight of a full-frame camera and a tripod, your shoulders and neck will quickly "make themselves felt."

Below is a photo for comparing the dimensions of two structurally similar lenses. Lumix 7-14mm F / 4 and EF 11-24mm Canon F / 4L USM. The Lumix 7-14 is a lens that I always take with me when I travel, as it is light, small, and yet the widest for an equally light and small MFT mirrorless system. Yes, Lumix 7-14, taking into account the "crop" 2x, will give a focal length of 14-28 mm, which is certainly not 11-24, and optically it is somewhat simpler. But three times less weight and dimensions for long hikes with a camera around the neck are for me personally a more weighty argument (I did not mention the price - but it is also three times lower). IMHO.

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM

Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM


Conclusions:

The Canon EF 11-24mm F / 4L USM is by far the best ultra-wide angle lens on the market without exception. It is simultaneously the widest, sharpest and fastest lens with simply unique optical qualities. Until recently, it seemed that 11 millimeters in a full frame, and even not in a fisheye design, was fantastic, but Canon was able to really surprise. I don’t remember for a long time that the lens caused me such enthusiastic feelings.

Of course, all this “splendor” weighs a lot, but is very expensive, but until none of the competitors presents anything like this, the price will not go down, and I’m sure that there will be plenty of people who want to buy it.

Add a comment: anonym

 

 

Comments: 255, on the topic: Canon Zoom Lens EF 11-24mm 1: 4 L USM Ultrasonic review from Photo Dzen

  • anonym

    It also says at the entrance that it is forbidden to take pictures and videos.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      If about “Mikhailovsky Zlatoverkiy”, then it says “it is forbidden to conduct video and photography of WEDDINGS” (it seems that way). And no one forbids taking pictures :)

  • 777

    The best?

    Samyang 14mm 2.8 per level is better in price and quality and aperture.

    • Dmitry K

      yeah, and 11 mm and 14 are the same ..

    • Alexey

      not funny. Samyang uses plastic lenses, does not have AF, is a fix and not a zoom, and so on and so forth.
      you are comparing a Chevrolet Avea to a luxury Mercedes. certainly chevrolet is cheaper, smaller, lighter ...)))

  • Lynx

    Nenene, I won’t even edit / read it! let people see what some reviews are worth!
    “The lens is wearing a hood” “the same”, “not enough”, “you can see at the edges at the edges of the frame” and so on ...
    Damn it, it's not a schoolboy who was hanging over on his knee with a hangover, but "the editor of the project!"
    My Bogege! editor!!!
    not to mention the indestructible smell of jeans emanating from the entire article as a whole.

    • Jury

      You are strict. The review is interesting, the topic is covered, there is no “water”. Of course, an editor would not hurt, but the text is already readable.

      • Lynx

        And the truth is - an article where there are half a dozen mistakes for each paragraph (hello, children of the EGE!), Endless praise, but without specifics or pointing out weaknesses - this is validity.
        Actually, this article was written by the editor.
        again, in capital letters PROJECT EDITOR!

        Although, "to whom and the mare's bride" (c)

        • Jury

          I agree that there are some shortcomings, but I think that you shouldn't take the position of “project editor” to heart - it's still not lenta.ru, but an amateur site, where there is not even a page “about us”. I think if they had extra money, they would have hired a real editor with a higher philological education. Nevertheless, thanks to them for telling them about the new lens, the purchase of which will not shine for many. This is better than a perfectly competent overview, which is a description of the characteristics and chewing on the obvious things.
          “I have no more questions” (c)

          • Lynx

            Do you really think that phrases like “put on a hood”, “just the same” can be noticed only by a professional philologist, but for “just an educated person” is this the norm?

            • Jury

              What are you, of course, this is a manifestation of illiteracy. I believe that many reviews and articles are written by ordinary people who tend to confuse “same” with “also” and err with the placement of commas. Moreover, I can find a bug in almost any Arcadia review. But, again, this is not the main thing. It is important that the review carries valuable information for us - subjective sensations from using the technique, at least some testing - something that is not indicated in the characteristics.

            • Jury

              What philologist? “Professional”?

              • Lynx

                Praesesaanalny!

          • Andrey Kondratenko

            Yes, we are a new and non-commercial project (at least for now). Everything that we write on the site is what we are interested in. And we write as it is interesting to us. Nobody pays us anything for reviews and tests of technology - this is an UNAUGHTED opinion - “not jeans”.
            As you rightly noted, the state has no proofreader with a higher philological education. We read the articles ourselves.
            Thank you all for your comments. I hope the article was useful and interesting. Thanks to Arkady for posting the article.
            Comrade "Lynx" does not even want to answer anything. The fact that I pointed out errors - thanks, I will take into account. The rest of the DEFINITELY THREE posts quoting my mistakes - this is self-affirmation at someone else's expense, no more. Simply, would-be critics are usually not able to do at least something interesting themselves, they can only look for their second of fame in someone's work. (And yes, I am not a “proEct editor”, but a co-owner and one of TWO authors - nothing more).
            PS If you find errors here, indicate, do not be shy :)

            • Lynx

              well, since out of habit, I started to immediately read the article, and quickly wrote down the bugs in the first quarter (I didn’t specify that it didn’t need to be edited), then, here, hold it, copied from the PM, I’m sticking up the mats:
              ....
              Well, now, a new zoom lens === A new zoom lens

              ..........
              lens with a cover on it. - Wearing, bl ***! dressed - this is a dress.
              …………
              Since the lens uses a modern ring focus motor (,) THEN you can not switch to MF mode,
              ...........
              When (together) than - only 3 basic values ​​are applied - 11,
              ...........
              remain straight even at the edges of the frame (, ninado) - point or;
              ………….
              But looking at the dimensions, I can't even imagine what a lens with the same optical-technical characteristics can be —–— But looking at the dimensions, I can't even imagine what a lens with the same optical-technical characteristics can be
              ................
              Apparently, Canon argued like this (- a space and not a hyphen in the same way, or also, but always without a hyphen !!!)
              ...........
              3000 dollars, which (space) is so very, very much.
              ...........
              that is (, unnecessarily) the ability to mount the camera on a tripod
              ....
              The lack of built-in stabilization, as if additionally hints at this. —- what kind of lurko ** yours ???????? "The lack of built-in stabilization, unobtrusively hints at it."
              ..........
              vignetting at the corners (,) on the most open aperture.
              ..........
              But if you open the aperture to F / 5,6 - and here it is minimal, and again - easily fixable using the profile in Camera Raw. —-— But, open the aperture to F / 5,6, and here it is minimal, and again - easily corrected through the profile in Camera Raw.
              ………….
              Below the frame on which they can be clearly seen at the edges of the frame (purple stripes at the edges of rose leaves). —-— Below is a frame where you can clearly see them along the edges of rose leaves (thin purple stripes).
              Bl *** WHAT FOR shkolotskoy Pushkin wrote to you ????
              lurkoe *** in, bl ***, “Pushkin had a three in Russian”, but I'm a fashion photographer !! ”… what a nightmare is this ?? O_O
              .................. ..
              I didn’t read further, it’s even worse there

            • Arkady Shapoval

              Just the Lynx editor of the Rainbow :) it’s not worth it to be offended, I will clean everything with time.

              • Lynx

                Need, Need! let them be offended!
                nervousness is the engine of progress and self-development!

              • Alexey

                already understood, not offended.
                if you still clean from the troll Alexander who writes nothing except rudeness, it will be generally excellent :)

            • Alexey

              Andrew,

              we will not talk about minor inaccuracies and stuff.
              questions - why upload photos - technical defects with lubricants?
              comparison with crop 2.0 - you know that almost any lens for crop 2.0 is several times cheaper, lighter, etc. than on FF? what is the point of your comment?
              it is obvious that the lens is a competitor of Nikonovsky 14-24. why not compare?
              Works great on 6D through an adapter with AF confirmation. even an AF adjustment can be written to the adapter).
              the problem is shirik - soap in the corners. why not compare at different focal lengths and at different apertures?
              you are doing a lens review - what is your opinion about the depth of field curvature? what is the nature of the distortion?
              And so on…

              • Andrey Kondratenko

                Comparison with crop is given solely for comparison of size / weight / price with “somewhere approximate” characteristics.

                Unfortunately, 11-24 was given only for 2 days and there was very little time. As soon as the opportunity presents itself, I will try to take both of the above lenses for a real comparison. For distortions - open RAWs (there is a link to them). As I wrote in the article - be surprised, but only at 11mm and at the maximum open aperture of F / 4 in the CORNERS of the frame there is a slight "barrel", vignetting and chromaticity. Look at the photo with the door as well as the photo of the temples. I myself could not believe that Canon designed everything like that - but the photo architecture speaks for itself - you can apply a ruler.

              • Alexey

                RAVy already downloaded, where there is no lubrication - the quality is fantastic.
                from experience with nikon 14-24 I think that 2.8 for the width is much less important for most tasks than the additional 3mm wide.
                I shot everything in architecture and landscapes at 8.

                crop 2.0 - open the file in the editor and you will be pleasantly surprised by the quality. there all the correction is software, the lenses themselves are far from the top-end kenon and nikon in optical parameters. and making a lens on a small matrix is ​​many times easier than on an FF.

                can be compared with super zooms, and with nikon 1. or is it more logical to compare with nikon 14-24? which weighs 1 kg, with a similar frontal element and with frequent breakdowns of the zoom ring (plastic guides).

              • Alexey

                Andrew,
                It would be interesting to see a comparison with the Canon EF 16-35mm f / 4L IS USM
                on comparable focal points. (The new 16-35 2.8 is only expected in 2016).
                16-35 / 4 is significantly better than the Nikon analogue, in comparable focal and apertures it is at the Nikon level of 14-24 2.8.
                he takes off like this
                https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/vmirefoto-blogspot/album/486288/
                relatively lightweight, at a reasonable price (about 1100 dollars), under a standard 77mm filter and a stub in the kit.
                what else do you need while traveling? oh yes, it is made in a protected version. by equivalent flu width on crop 2.0 is just its counterparts. (and for the price too)
                from personal experience, after buying it I was relieved :) I removed the heavy and uncomfortable 14-24 with the adapter and use 16-35 / 4 as the main shirik on the trip.

            • Alexander

              Andrey, do not take tactless idiots to your heart!

            • anonym

              tovarischu "Lynx" certainly does not need to assert itself on this site, but the text really hurts

            • Antosha

              Thank you, the review is very interesting, good luck with the project. And do not be offended by Lynx, he hisses here at all, but few take him seriously)

        • OAG

          I also love when they write correctly. But at the same time, I do not remember all the rules of the Russian language myself, I make mistakes. And you, Lynx, should also refresh your memory (this, or that). Well, or be more tolerant of others, we are here for a different reason gathered :)

    • anonym

      We must be different. Lynx, do not substitute Arkady.

      • Lynx

        All keyboards are standard. Eat some more of these soft French rolls, and have some tea.

  • Yaroslav

    the most "wide" gray lens all the same є Canon EF 8-15mm f / 4L

    • anonym

      This is fisheye

      • anonym

        Well, not skіlki fіshay, the yak is 8 mm wide, but 15 super wide. Fіshay zdebіlshogo go fіksami!

        • Arkady Shapoval

          Not necessarily, for example, there are Tokina 107 Fisheye 10-17 F3.5-4.5 DX AT-X cropped diagonal fisheries and Tokina 107 Fisheye 10-17 F3.5-4.5 DX NH AT-X full frame circular fisheries. Because Canon EF 8-15mm f / 4L is really not enrolled in its category.

  • anonym

    Carenar Auto Zoom review was more interesting!

  • Pastor

    The coolest lens. My dream is to try to rent it, but, unfortunately, no one has this yet and can’t rent it anywhere. Before that I tried sigma 12-24 (it seems), here it is wildly wide at full frame. For a long time, this was the limit. And then the canon was born such a hefty gimmick. It is surprising how much distortion was even corrected by 11mm. Sigma is 12mm worse, as I recall. At such a focal aperture, the aperture is not particularly needed, in principle, even 5.6 would have been enough, had they made the cost even lower.
    For some reason, I immediately remembered fikon nikon 6mm 2.8. Also uniquely wide angle, but without distortion correction. But the price of Nikon is many times higher than Canon. And here both the zoom and distortion are fixed, and the sizes are quite wearable, unlike Nikon. And most importantly, this is a lens that will be sold everywhere, the circulation is not limited to several copies that will be caught on ebay. It's nice to think that after 0 years sigma (which the canon really plans to buy) or a tamron, well, even Samyang or Tokina will be able to release something like that at half price. Tamron 5-15 30vs actually does the coolest Nikon 2.8-14 24. Maybe the tamron will be born and some 2.8-11, also with a stub. In general, dreams, of course, but the course of events shows that sooner or later, for almost all worthy lenses, cheaper alternatives appear that are not much inferior in quality.

  • Yarkiya

    If you do not take into account the sharpness, then the feeling from the pictures is as if you are viewing Google maps. I don’t know whether this is good or bad, I’m not a very experienced photographer and I don’t understand anything at all.

    • anonym

      But what to understand? Who will like this egg-shaped wheel sticking out of the ass. I’ll say what Yarkiy was too shy to say, the photo sucks at a wide angle. And they pay 3 for this?

  • Zivert

    The geometry just made me dizzy. I understand that Photoshop rules and rules, but every shirik has a limit of rationality. A photo with a rose is about nothing. The rest is a bad dream ...
    The indicator “the widest of all shiriks”, in my opinion, is a dummy of the next obscurantism of marketers.

    • engineeringyuriy

      I agree with you, but with reservations. In Chufut Kale or in Norway on waterfalls, where there is nowhere to go, such a lens would be useful to me. I used Sigma 8-16 mm and it happened that all the objects did not fit into the frame. Surely it’s useful to someone from the pros. I think his price is high precisely because it will never become massive. due to too wide angle and strong distortion.

  • anonym

    “Open aperture to F / 5,6” - open from 4 to 5.6?

  • Toly084

    Good lens, and photos at such a wide angle look interesting. And some of the comments are similar to “the iPhone sucks, the android rules and costs less”))

  • Dmitry K

    here they pounced on the guy ... Well, illiterate. But for once a lens from a canon, and even in a full frame in joy. It's a good idea to collaborate with other projects and throw cross-links - you need to live together. And the corner is really wild. This lens is not for people, this lens is for photo maniacs and to demonstrate to Nikon “who's the folder”. Well, or as Ken Rockwell wrote about Nikon 13 mm 5.6 - this lens was made because they could make it. Here is the same thing - no one could, but they could, and even with good indicators.

    • Alexey

      in fact, kenon has a lot of things better than Nikon (and vice versa), only the Nikonists for some reason begin to violently troll anyone who mentions this (see Alexander’s remarks below).
      Can you imagine what will happen to all these people if competent reviews on the Kenon technique appear here? ))))

      • Lynx

        That's just with users, Canon is not always lucky. ;)

        • Alexey

          go to the photo ru, compare the photo in the branch mark 3, 6 d and others with masterpieces in the branches D8xx, DF and other D6xx.
          understand how wrong you were. )))
          I recommend to see Panteleev’s works (published in gloss) and his throwing, as he switched from Nikon to Kenon.
          or an exhibition of photos by another photographer, the winner of the National Geographic competition, who also takes pictures on the canon)))

          • Lynx

            Well, I’m not saying that sometimes Canon is lucky. )))
            The truth, as observation shows, is far from always.

            • Alexey

              Photoru - the largest photo forum of the Russian Internet.
              if you study the official data, then among the pros the majority shoots on kenon. for the pros, service, accurate AF, color profiles and post-processing are important.
              nothing personal, question $$$)))

              • Lynx

                * there was a comment about the relationship between the concepts of “professional” and “wedding / portrait / child bombing”, dipping about the photo and the local serpentarium, as well as other “subtle hints” but I'm just too lazy.

              • Alexey

                Lynx, as usual, you said something, and then jumped off the topic.
                =========
                Lynx
                30.09.2015/22/40 at XNUMX:XNUMX Reply
                That's just with users, Canon is not always lucky. ;)
                =========
                this is in principle incomprehensible. and on the forums of the Russian Internet and according to statistics in general, the canon for the pros is number 1.
                I will repeat for you the obvious reasons. for example, the old unit, mark 2, mark 3, 6d, the new units of kenon, all actually have the same color.
                high-aperture AF fixes - only in canon. Nikon simply cannot do them due to problems with the bayonet.
                adjustment of phase AF for zoom at two extreme points - only for canon.
                etc. )

                reconfiguring all profiles and changing post-processing every time the matrix changes from Nikon to Sony or there to Toshiba - it's too expensive for the pros)))

              • Lynx

                It is unbearably sad and sad for me to chew you the meaning of this simple phrase. So perhaps I’ll just forget about this.

          • Alexander

            I know the facts when they switched from Kenon to Nikon. So what?
            You say, go in and see which photo won the competition and who is there and what "uploads" to the network. Question! Alexey, how old are you?) What does the system have to do with it? And what "statistics" are we talking about? That is, in your opinion, there is a magic carcass (s) that makes “masterpieces”?))) You are in general a typical amateur-child who praises his trick with the method of tight trolling.

            • Alexey

              you as usual invent some nonsense joyfully refute them :)))
              what a magical carcass? did you have a snack ))))
              I actually laughed a bit with Lynx. and we water as understood each other.
              seriously, you’re completely off topic.
              read specialized publications, everything is very detailed there.
              there is everything, including which focal points a glossy report is made, fashion, etc.
              in serious offices, the process-snapshot-processing-result has long been licked.
              there it is extremely important that when changing the carcass (say by age) the changes affect the minimum. therefore, according to official statistics (Nikon does not argue with her), most pros work on kenon. despite the fact that DD is better for Nikon))))
              gloss also sits on kenon - skin tone is important! ))))

              if you try to troll me, then it’s somewhat unsuccessful. )))
              I have Nikon and Kenon, and most photos, for example, in albums on Yandex, are just Nikon! ))))
              but in general I now have 4 cameras, 4 brands. which tsatska should you praise or scold? )))) here I will give Panasonic lx100 and take a new tsatsk-oolik MK2)))
              fantasize less)))
              practice more. for example, try to get a skin tone like Mk3 on the D800. or DD from D800 to Mk3))))

  • Alexey

    the lens is monstrously good optically. the engineers made the best possible lens in their class.
    on lense rentals tested different copies - there is virtually no scatter between the copies, which speaks of the excellent build quality and output control, which Nikon and other sleepyheads never dreamed of.
    in fact, we can say that the task was set by kenon - to make a better lens. regardless of the price, etc. and the engineers just made it.

    for whom this lens is - for the pros who understand why it is needed.
    companies buy such a lens; price does not matter. rents such a lens for specific tasks.

    the lens is not for those who
    - does not understand why she is needed
    - who doesn't need maximum quality
    Kenon Respect!

    • Alexander

      Kenonboy said))

      • Alexey

        said the man who shot for a long time on Nikon 14-24 2.8 + D800)))

        • Alexander

          Nikon 14-24 2.8 without exaggeration - gorgeous, without analogues, regardless of the carcass. And you, a typical kenon hamster)

          • Alexey

            The first sign of a troll is to put a label on someone. and then shit in the comments.
            okay, I won’t feed the troll)))
            that this shirik that Nikon 14-24 you still only see in the reviews)))
            as you do not understand the difference between focal 11 and 14))))))))

            • Alexander

              This is not the point. The fact that I can “only see” is just your speculation, and, moreover, it is not substantiated by anything :) But the fact that you are a typical kenon hamster is an indisputable fact;)

  • Alexey

    review ... so-so. better than nothing.
    Why lay out a photo of a cat where is the back focus with micro-lubricant?
    the second photo with cats - there is focus in the foreground. what should these photos show?
    that the author does not know how to focus or adjust the phase AF in the carcass?
    the lens was aligned on this 6D carcass?
    is a person aware of the depth of field curvature at such a width?

  • Gregory

    Great review. Arkady, thank you for your work !!!

    • Lynx

      this is not his review

    • Alexey

      :))))))))))
      if you had read carefully, you would have known that this is not an Arcadia review and the review itself ... not very ...

  • varezhkin

    dull color 6D, dull lens. Df review pleased, thanks.

  • drq12

    We were pleased with the comparison photo with the lens from the olik, because each kenonist has such a pocket in his pocket.

  • andrei2911

    What loud statements at the end. Well, for example, in sharpness he loses to Nikonovsky 14-24.

  • engineeringyuriy

    It seems to me that any review is good. Try to count the shops where this lens is on the shelf, and then count those in which you are allowed to shoot them in order to decide whether to take or not take. I'm not even talking about small towns where there are no photo shops at all. I counted nine sites that test lenses. There are not dozens or hundreds of them, so that you can find the right lens, and then compare different tests and opinions. So ... let's not grumble.

    • Dmitry K

      Finally, there was adequate. Let the text even though by rolling the face on the keyboard is typed - do not care. The main thing is there are examples of photos, there is a basic description and a diagram of the lens (objective part). The rest (the subjective part) you will do it yourself, if there is a brain. And I will say to everyone intolerant of mistakes that Arkady himself is not far from a philologist. It's good to point out mistakes. Shout “vrotmnogo! who was allowed to enjoy? " it's nothing at all. Without this guy, they would reread the article about fujik for the sixth time.

      • Oleg

        Perhaps I agree. In general, the more I read the comments, the more I come to the conclusion that “Nikon is a sect”. Constant claim to “the best”. As for me, the lens is unique, but not everyone can appreciate it. Not much is missing “not city landscapes” in the review, where he would have shown himself in full. For a city, the distortion is still too big. Many thanks to the author of the review

        • Konstantin

          Here it’s not necessary “Nikon is a sect”, I’m Nikonist, but I want to buy Pentosho. A friend of Pentax Duc is also very good! And Nikon is good, and Canon is good, and everyone else is good. Take a picture of who you like!

          • Oleg

            Well, so I

          • Alexey

            so pentaks and nikon are hardly distinguishable in the picture.
            Because the same matrix is ​​the Sony firm.
            open RAVs in ravdiger (pentax uses non-disconnectable enhancers - ravdiger does not use them) and find the difference)))

  • Alexey

    Hello!
    The article states that "
    As with all Canon wide-angle lenses, there is no OIS. ”
    Maybe I didn’t understand correctly and we are talking only about ff lenses,
    but here on canon ef-s 10-18 is stm
    there is a stub.

    • Oleg

      I think we are talking about full-size models: 16-35 and 17-40, which belong to the professional series

      • Dmitry K

        in 16-35 which f4 is a stub, so I xs what he meant))))

        • Oleg

          This one with a stub. Cant

      • Alexey

        16-35 / 4 Elka exactly with a stub. works great. )

    • engineeringyuriy

      I now have a Canon 16-35 f4 with stabilizer. Helps a lot. Filming in the evening from the deck of a moving yacht is a common stuation for tourists. And here the stub is very appropriate. It's a pity that such an expensive lens was not equipped with a stabilizer. This increases weight slightly, but the benefits are tangible.

      • Alexey

        stub complicates the optical design, lens design, often reduces its resolution.
        enabled stub - always reduces the resolution (though not much). such a stub width is generally not needed. usually they take photo sessions with him with a tripod.

    • Andrei

      Yes, we are talking only about full-frame and yes, the EF 16-35mm f / 4L IS USM has a stub, I forgot about it - you are right.

  • Antosha

    The lens is absolutely fantastic.

  • Basil

    Thanks for your review! Great lens! Afftor was stuck in vain - in my opinion, quite a civilian review. I'm glad to revive just as soon as the Xenon glass appears - srach immediately begins. Because Nikon is a religion.

    • Alexey

      on the Nikono club ru, kenonists are generally kicked. there the excited Yulia will quickly show what and how. try to make excuses - it will be banned))) so here it is for good, just srach)))
      The most sane audience for all brands on the forum photo. IMHO. although there is often enough srach.

      • Lynx

        Shielding - that's right!

        • Antosha

          "Shield" to yourself)

          • Lynx

            need to shout out loud! to 10!

      • Alexander

        Notice the srach that you breed with your thick trolling.

      • Oleg

        Sick people

  • Alexey

    here is a fresh overview of 24-70 kenon lenses
    http://prophotos.ru/reviews/17318-sravnitelnyy-test-treh-ob-ektivov-canon-ef-24-70
    who are interested
    I would like to see something similar with Andrei.
    more reviews, good and interesting! )

    • Oleg

      Thank. Many interesting articles

  • anonym

    The lens is good, but Nikon has better! Normally…

    • Alexey

      do less pixel docs and work more really.
      Do you like DxO? compare paired focal lengths on the same diaphragms, taking into account the fact that 4 is already closed for Nikon. look less at the resulting parrots.
      and best of all - take paired shots. ))))

      • anonym

        Watch carefully! There, the table indicates: Canon is better at focal 18 at f4, and Nikon at focal 16 at f2.8! I hope you do not need to decrypt ?!

        At least they run the SAME test, and do not shoot different cats each time in different conditions with different settings ...

        A person can’t determine a lot by eye, for which TECHNICAL tests are needed!

      • anonym

        What was measured and what does it mean:

        DxOMark takes measurements based on the Raw image, which is a pure image file, as the sensor caught it (for comparison, jpeg has already undergone some processing, which may include reducing grain size or color correction before you can see the image). To determine the results, DxO Analyzer was used, which has already become the industry standard for testing the image quality of cameras. DxO conducts its trials using specially designed test retention marks under constant conditions in a laboratory environment.

        Since DxO also offers gradation scale and relative spectral sensitivity data, we will also look at the results of the following tests:

        ISO precision. Actual ISO measurements were compared with the manufacturer's ISO settings. Discovery: none of the ISO settings were accurate! Using this information, you can set your camera's exposure compensation to compensate for the difference between the “official” and actual ISO speeds.

        High ISO Low Light. Each camera's sensor is tested for its Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) to determine how much digital noise (also called grainy) will be generated in low light conditions at each of its ISO settings. The “Low ISO Illumination” nominal value reflects the higher ISO at which digital noise is considered acceptable (simply put, any SNR value above 30 dB is considered acceptable).

        Color depth. Each camera has been tested based on how accurately it can reproduce 24 shades against the Gretag Macbeth Color Checker. The results were shown on a lab card. The lab chart presents results as circles known as “noise covariance ellipses”. By their size and shape, these ellipses show each of the 24 shades and how well the camera sensor distinguishes them from neighboring shades. The larger the ellipses, the more “color blindness” is inherent in the camera (in photographs of the real world, this can be expressed as color banding). Smaller ellipses mean the camera will record color more accurately.

        Dynamic range. One of the biggest complaints about digital photography is that digital transducers have a lower exposure latitude, or dynamic range, than film. This is important when you are trying to capture a wide area of ​​light in one shot, from bright highlights to shadow details. DxO has determined that the required minimum exposure latitude is 9 divisions and that a reading of less than 9 divisions will not provide an acceptable result. A reading of 11 divisions and above competes with positive film. The dynamic range changes as the ISO changes. Therefore, we show not only the optimal dynamic range of each camera, but also the point at which its dynamic range falls below 9 divisions.

        • Alexey

          "DxOMark takes measurements from the Raw image, which is the cleanest image file as captured by the sensor."
          ====================================================================== =========
          - complete nonsense.
          firstly, RAV is already the result of partial processing. secondly, many RAVs today include "enhancements" that will automatically be applied when RAV is opened in many editors.
          open the same RAV file in the Nikonov / Adobe developer and in the RAV diger - the difference is huge. does the same with RAV kenon - the difference is minimal.
          The problem has long been known, in fact because of this, it is the Nikonists, and other owners of cameras on the Sony matrix that are looking for and changing dozens of developers.

          Dynamic range. One of the biggest complaints about digital photography is that digital transducers have less exposure latitude, or dynamic range, than film ones. This is important when you are trying to capture a wide area of ​​light in one frame - from bright highlights to shadowed details. DxO found that the required minimum exposure latitude is 9 divisions and that an indicator of less than 9 divisions will not provide an acceptable result. An indicator of 11 divisions and above competes with a positive film. The dynamic range changes as the ISO changes. Therefore, we show not only the optimal dynamic range of each camera, but also the point at which its dynamic range falls below 9 divisions.
          =========================================================== ===
          perfectly. and now learn WHAT is the DD camera and WHAT measures DRL)))))
          I understand that advertising acts deadly on the neophyte’s fragile brains, but can it be time to study reality? )))))))

          • Alexey

            A small word of caution about DXO's dynamic range numbers. First off, Dynamic Range as defined by DXO is officially the ratio between the saturation point and the RMS of read noise. That is different than the ratio between the brightest pixels and the darkest pixels that contain image data… it is actually possible for useful image data and read noise to be interleaved, especially with a Canon sensor (which does not clip negative signal info like Nikon does .)

        • Alexey

          on DxO - the difference in DD cameras is 2.7ЕВ (!!!!)
          reality - see snapshot.
          you - see the difference in DD by 2.7EB ???? )))))))))

          • anonym

            showed in different ways - that's the whole difference!

    • Alexey

      https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=1052&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
      here is a real visual comparison of canon and nikon, it is immediately clear that canon is better. And that there this DXO-KALL writes numbers from the bulldozer is not important. You need to look at an illustrative example. like this one.

  • anonym

    ... and Nikon's cameras are better!

    • Alexander

      No no! What are you ?! Alexey has his own secret "statistics")) which refute everything in the world))

      • Alexey

        Alexander, you surprised me once again. you are proud of your ignorance. have you googled at all, looked at western sites where all this is laid out? but in general for your information, both nikon and kenon spread everything in the official quarterly reports - however, the law obliges! )))
        yes, I understand that it is difficult for you, there is an English, bourgeois language and a lot of numbers ...))))

      • anonym

        Until I see an adequate test, I will not believe it! ;-)

        • Alexander

          I assure you, you will not see;)

    • Alexey

      Yes Yes. it's better. shot, I know. ))))
      just what does this have to do with topic and review ???

  • anonym

    ... and Sony has finally learned how to use its sensors properly! We are waiting for the appearance of normal ergonomics and pentaprism!

    • Alexey

      Sonya does not have a sane optics park, uses instead of 14bit 11 + 7bit RAVs, has a standard gray-green skin tone.
      and in general, and to Sonya to the topic of the review ??? ))))

    • Alexey

      as soon as Anonymous learns not to anonymize with DRL and takes the cameras in his hands, he will probably understand that reality is different from the laboratory))))
      and as a beginning Anonymous, it’s useful for you to read WHAT measures DXO in parrots instead of DD (for example) and why in reality the difference in DD is noticeably smaller. and also why everyone who works with portraits in color somehow leaves the Sony sensors despite their wide DD. ))))
      this does not mean that Sony's sensors are bad. it just means that they are "sharpened" for the same tasks. sensors Kenon - for others. two approaches. different work of color channels and stocks in shadows.
      take two cameras, kenon and any on the Sony matrix, take paired pictures. working with what you like))) there will be no time for DRL and parrots, there will be an opinion!))))

      • anonym

        Your opinion:

        1. Canon - cameras with inconvenient ergonomics, losing to Nikon cameras in the same price range in terms of characteristics and image quality. There are no good inexpensive native glasses ... The "correct" skintone was invented by hovering (or blind?) Canonists to compensate for the above deficiencies.

        2. Sony - subcameras with sensors installed in Nikon DSLRs, where they open up.

        3. Nikon - good cameras (not all, but only a few! Marketing is to blame !!!) with adequate prices, convenient ergonomics, correct functionality, perfect picture, rubber RAWs (Capture One!), A fleet of good native optics (proven by Radozhiva !). The main drawback is that the flange distance does not allow using the old Soviet optics to the fullest ...

        • Alexander

          That is already understandable to all adequate people. Do not feed the troll) the Troll climbed a noble here)) For a long time I have not seen such)

          • anonym

            true eyes hurts!)))

        • Oleg

          Kenon is generally a very nasty thing. They create cameras with 50 megapixels. Aperture lenses 1.2. For some reason, they climb into the 11mm FR for some, and even the head begins to spin from the Budun. Accident ??? Don't think

          • Alexey

            100%.
            terribly nasty company. Beginner photo-dreamers having read DxO and impressed by the parrots that they intended there, make such conclusions that it becomes scary for the “unenviable” fate of the photo of the canon iron))))

        • Alexey

          anonymous continues to anonymize. ))) on DxO, apparently he already ... na-ananimil? )))
          writes first-rate nonsense.
          we look - 50mm STM 1.8 new - the price of kenon is 125 dollars)))
          Shirik on a full frame 16-35 / 4 elka - 1100 dollars which is identical or cheaper than nikon 16-35 / 4 which deservedly received the title of a rare gauno on the lenstype.
          standard zoom 24-70 2.8 nikon - design defects, the famous breakage of "crunches" with a repair price of 650 dollars. a new one with a stub for 2000 dollars.
          the famous kenon 24-70 2.8Mk2 - nikon is resting)))
          Televisions - Nikon simply does not have them. no 100/2 (canon - $ 400), no 135/2 with normal quality (canon $ 1100).
          Nikon simply does not have AF of high-aperture lenses - and will not. bayonet problem, my friend Anonymous! )))

          what is better for nikon is fifty-fifty 1.8 / 1.4 (the kenon will have it in 2016), optics for crop cameras, old non-AF lenses.
          Kenon and Nikon have bad lenses. both in mechanics and in optics.
          if you are a lover of old junk and sit on a crop camera - Nikon is probably the best choice. )))

          technologically nikon lags behind kenon for 2-5 years. fluorite from kenon for a long time, nikon began to use recently. impact diaphragm and other technologists 50 years ago - Nikon plans to change apparently because everything is patented now.)))
          on AF - nikon is an order of magnitude behind kenon. Have you seen double crosses in AF for a long time? )))) or something similar to a dual pixel?
          you probably don’t know that Nikon swore in time that he wouldn’t release FF because he wasn’t kenon (then there was D700) and he won’t switch to CMOS because he wasn’t kenon (of course he was completely late two years later)

          ergonomics - Nikon is more convenient for me. for many years I was still on Nikon)))
          but kenon has a joystick - an extremely convenient thing! )))

          once again advice to you - anonymize less, look less at pixels on sites, work more with real technology. the result is actually important, not the technique))))

          • anonym

            Only fixes! Zooms don't roll! Three Nikon glasses (underlined in red) - the perfect set!

        • Alexey

          Anonymous and Alexander, people and the ship (almost according to Mayakovsky!) - this is the picture dedicated to.
          Nikon D600 and D610 - magnesium, super duper plastic. after complaints about breakdowns during real operation, the cameras were disassembled and examined.
          The mounts of the mount are highlighted in red - they are PLASTIC.
          Obviously, this design is worse in impact resistance than magnesium, which is used in Kenon 6D. especially since there is simply no damper and the blow is transmitted inside the camera)
          for reference - Nikon D750 uses composite, Canon 6D and Canon 5D Mark 3 use magnesium.

          • anonym

            Not all yoghurts are created equal! Not all Nikons are good! D610 is a misunderstanding! Disassemble the D800 / 810 better!

            PS You can foolishly break a carrot!)))

            • Alexey

              D800 - why disassemble? ))) let it work)))
              we are not talking "with a fool" but a comparative design. The problem arose because the FF with the attached lens weighs a lot, the camera inevitably clings to something during unloading.
              well Ok, D600 / 610 - misunderstanding (agree)))
              here is the D750 - such as a replacement for the D700 but it is neutered at most I can not with the problem of exposure.
              or my D800- did not calculate the bandwidth so they use compression. colors are gray.
              the endlessly redesigned AF module with 700 turned out to be unimportant at such a small pixel. and most importantly - the detonation from the impact of the shutter gives such a micro-lubricant that Nikon herself released a manual (available for download on Nikon's website) where it is directly written that you need to use live view)))

              the problem was partially solved in the D810 - an electronic shutter, color profiles are unscrewed.

              or epic fail - Nikon DF)))). complete failure in sales. a camera sharpened for high ISO with an AF module unable to work normally with a lack of light and with software disabled video, in fact the camera is worse than the D610 but at a price 50% more))))

              Nikon 1 - it's generally hard to call a camera. The first episode under recess due to factory defects. monstrously bad picture, worse than Sony Rex. huge lenses at horse prices. discounts up to 75% do not help. ))) crop 2.7 for BZ- beyond the brink of good and evil)))

          • Lynx

            taking into account the fact that d600 are amateur cameras - everything is correct.

            • Alexey

              given that the amateur Kenon 6D, in principle, does not have such problems)))
              that 6D and had no problems with the oil on the shutter. and the price today is 900 dollars)))

              • Lynx

                about! "Non-kenonophobe / non-kenonofanat" announced. ))
                the six have enough of their problems.

              • Alexey

                "about! "Non-kenonophobe / non-kenonofanat" announced. )) "
                ===============================================
                we skip nonsense ...

                "The six have enough of their own problems."
                ===============================================
                about! did you work with her ??? what are her design problems ????
                I'm intrigued. ))))
                her analogue from Nikon has two class action lawsuits, TV broadcast to the whole of China as Nikon refuses to recognize the problem and only when the California court took Nikon for ... only then Nikon recognized the problem and released the clone D610 already without sunflower oil, but with the same plastic guides under bayonet (!)

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2015/09/canon-ef-11-24-mm-f4-l-usm/comment-page-1/?replytocom=115187

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2015/09/canon-ef-11-24-mm-f4-l-usm/comment-page-1/?replytocom=115187