canon lens: Any experience out there with the Canon 11-24 f/4L ? Debating over it and the 14mm f/2.8L prime. Both are apples and oranges in one respect but the 11 mm range could be...

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Any experience out there with the Canon 11-24 f/4L ? Debating over it and the 14mm f/2.8L prime.

Both are apples and oranges in one respect but the 11 mm range could be useful to me for very tight real estate.

I am Canon loyal so I wouldn't consider 3rd party lenses.

Any thoughts from someone who has used this lens would be appreciated...

Clapperboard

Which camera is it to fit?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

catchlight.. wrote:

Any experience out there with the Canon 11-24 f/4L ? Debating over it and the 14mm f/2.8L prime.

Both are apples and oranges in one respect but the 11 mm range could be useful to me for very tight real estate.

I am Canon loyal so I wouldn't consider 3rd party lenses.

Any thoughts from someone who has used this lens would be appreciated...

I saw an article about a lens that Canon said had problems, but the article didn't get saved to my Feedly bookmarks. I'll see if I can find it.

Ken Rockwell says it's "Spectacular."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/11-24mm.htm

"Canon has produced a lens that’s as sharp or sharper than its prime counterparts..."
https://petapixel.com/2015/03/04/a-photographers-review-of-the-canon-11-24mm-f4l/

It sounds like a winner.

DLH13 Loc: Texas

I rented one from Lens Rentals. Awesome lens, but heavy.
I used it mostly outdoors. Interiors a little tricky with some distortion wide open.
You can rent it from them for less than $200 for a week with shipping and insurance and try it out.
I ended up getting the 16-35 4.

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

catchlight.. wrote:

Any experience out there with the Canon 11-24 f/4L ? Debating over it and the 14mm f/2.8L prime.

Both are apples and oranges in one respect but the 11 mm range could be useful to me for very tight real estate.

I am Canon loyal so I wouldn't consider 3rd party lenses.

Any thoughts from someone who has used this lens would be appreciated...

No experience, but I was just researching this myself this past week. As I sit here I am waiting for UPS to knock on my door with the 14mm f:2.8. I thought long and hard between the two but in the end both were great and I ended up choosing the one that was a little less.
Now is also a great time to buy if you might need two lenses or in my case a lens and extender - Canon rebates until the 3rd of June I believe.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

catchlight.. wrote:

Any experience out there with the Canon 11-24 f/4L ? Debating over it and the 14mm f/2.8L prime.

Both are apples and oranges in one respect but the 11 mm range could be useful to me for very tight real estate.

I am Canon loyal so I wouldn't consider 3rd party lenses.

Any thoughts from someone who has used this lens would be appreciated...

Catchlight, I've never used either one but here are my thoughts on it.
14mm is pretty wide. I will "assume" that anybody using those lenses is shooting a FF, and on a FF they are both pretty darn wide. To me, the 14mm is pretty wide. I have a 17-40 and it's very rare I go 17 on a FF.
So that would make the 14, for me, a very rarely used lens.
Now most people that will use either of those lenses will probably also own the either a 24-70 or 24-105.
The 11-24 will mate seamlessly with either of those two with NO gaps in coverage. The 14 will ALWAYS have a 10mm gap!
So for me the 11-24 would be a much more used and versatile lens.
If you own a 16-35/17-40 you can get rid of it!
That's my two cents!!! Good luck
SS

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

SharpShooter wrote:

Catchlight, I've never used either one but here are my thoughts on it.
14mm is pretty wide. I will "assume" that anybody using those lenses is shooting a FF, and on a FF they are both pretty darn wide. To me, the 14mm is pretty wide. I have a 17-40 and it's very rare I go 17 on a FF.
So that would make the 14, for me, a very rarely used lens.

I guess that depends partly on what kinds of pictures you take. Where you live, you apparently can find lots of space to photograph, so you need only so much wide.

I got a 10-20mm Sigma for my 1.5 crop Pentax because I often find myself in a museum where I "can't back up anymore" {words of the eBay listing where I first noticed this lens}. I don't use it "a lot", but it is always in my bag because when I want it I want it NOW. Much of the time I use it at 10mm, which is like using a 15mm lens on FF.

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

I received my 14mm and have been playing around with it. If your main purpose is real estate photography then I would probably go with the 11-24. Because if you have a smaller room the 11mm would definitely work better.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Japakomom wrote:

I received my 14mm and have been playing around with it. If your main purpose is real estate photography then I would probably go with the 11-24. Because if you have a smaller room the 11mm would definitely work better.

Some years back, when we were moving, my wife excitedly showed me pictures on the web of a house she thought looked interesting; after checking the address, I said something like "We looked at that yesterday - the gray house with the small living room". Because they had made excellent use of wide angle, they had confused her about the actual size of things {but she would have understood once she had one foot in the door}.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

I have a Canon MK4 and spent the morning reading and watching tutorials.

I ended up ordering the 11-24. The sharpness and barrel distortion were more important than f stop and the 11mm deep end adds more to the game.

I do have the 16-35 f/2.8ii. I want to have an edge with real estate and I think this will fill the bill from what I have gathered in research.

I will shoot mainly in Norway and quarters are generally tighter and I want that bigger look this lens will bring.

I appreciate all the comments and look forward to more.

Photocraig

SharpShooter wrote:

Catchlight, I've never used either one but here ar... (show quote)

I tend to agree with Sharpie. When I shot my Real Estate photos while a Broker at Lake Tahoe. I used a 20-35mm lens on my Canon SLR's. It was plenty wide to get everything including high ceilings and expansive lake views. I think you will end up cropping the 14mm often. Since you purchased it, good luck and share your experiences.
C

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

catchlight.. wrote:

Any experience out there with the Canon 11-24 f/4L ? Debating over it and the 14mm f/2.8L prime.

Both are apples and oranges in one respect but the 11 mm range could be useful to me for very tight real estate.

I am Canon loyal so I wouldn't consider 3rd party lenses.

Any thoughts from someone who has used this lens would be appreciated...

I think, while its a fantastic lens, for real estate photography it seems like overkill!

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

catchlight.. wrote:

Any experience out there with the Canon 11-24 f/4L ? Debating over it and the 14mm f/2.8L prime.

Both are apples and oranges in one respect but the 11 mm range could be useful to me for very tight real estate.

I am Canon loyal so I wouldn't consider 3rd party lenses.

Any thoughts from someone who has used this lens would be appreciated...

I was hesitant about this lens until Canon made it available at a workshop in Yellowstone. The most serious drawback to it is the fact that polarization is still a big deal to get. The front element precludes the use of a std. screw-on CPL, Canon makes a receiver in the rear for a gel. It is a little on the heavy side, and people who demand f2.8 are S.O.L. Shoot it and see what the lens coatings will do for you. I shot it in direct sun with no problems. Just read a review from a realestate type who mentioned having to stitch two 14mm frames to get what he needed, the 11mm answered his problem. I have not used it indoors. My 16-35 doesn't do as well, but it isn't designed to do so. It is a candidate for a rental try-out.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Japakomom wrote:

No experience, but I was just researching this myself this past week. As I sit here I am waiting for UPS to knock on my door with the 14mm f:2.8. I thought long and hard between the two but in the end both were great and I ended up choosing the one that was a little less.
Now is also a great time to buy if you might need two lenses or in my case a lens and extender - Canon rebates until the 3rd of June I believe.

J, for the sake of discussion, maybe I'm just cheap, but if I had the 16-35, I would not spend whatever the 14mm cost to get 2 more mm!
And when comparing distortion, did you compare the 14mm to 14mm on the 11-24, or was that full wide at 11mm? That could make a big diff.
Anyway, just saying.

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

SharpShooter wrote:

J, for the sake of discussion, maybe I'm just cheap, but if I had the 16-35, I would not spend whatever the 14mm cost to get 2 more mm!
And when comparing distortion, did you compare the 14mm to 14mm on the 11-24, or was that full wide at 11mm? That could make a big diff.
Anyway, just saying.

Yeah, if I had a 16-35 I am pretty sure I would sit tight with it. In my case, the widest I have(had) is 24mm, so I am happy with the 14mm. If the 16mm is not wide enough for the OP, then I would definitely be getting the 11-24mm. I did not compare both at 14mm - but honestly, I am surprised by the lack of distortion (very little). Canon has some great lenses!