Holiday Sale! Secret Bundle + 30% Off

Your content will be up shortly. Please allow up to 5 seconds
Gear Rumors

Canon EF 11-24mm F/2.8L Coming Down The Pipes?

By Anthony Thurston on August 9th 2014

According to a report over on Canon Rumors, Canon is working on a new 11-24mm F/2.8L lens. A release date is not known yet. That same rumor also speculates that select Canon L lenses will have price drops come September 1st – though no lenses were named.

canon-lens

Currently, Canon’s widest (non Fisheye) L lens is the 16-35mm F/2.8L, a very popular lens. Canon did just release a new 10-18mm lens for its EF-S lineup, so maybe this is Canon bringing that to the full frame market. Canon also has the 8-15mm F/4L, but that is a fisheye lens.

The post over at CR says that this new 11-24mm lens will run you $2800, a somewhat disappointing number, if you ask me. But then again, it is not a mass appeal sort of lens, so I guess I can live with Canon charging a little more for that. One thing I do find interesting is that lack of IS, which Canon seems to be sticking on EVERYTHING these days, though in truth, on a 11-24mm IS seems a bit overkill, so what do I know.

__

What are your thoughts on this rumored lens? Do you think it is a focal range than Canon needs to have in its L lineup? Leave a comment below!

[via Canon Rumors]

Anthony Thurston is a photographer based in the Salem, Oregon area specializing in Boudoir. He recently started a new project, Fiercely Boudoir to help support the growing boudoir community. Find him over on Instagram. You may also connect with him via Email.

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Michel Andy

    Can’t wait to see a review on this lens

    | |
  2. Raoni Franco

    + 1 here against these little side pop up thingy. It is, indeed, annoying as hell. And it seems to me that these sometimes confuse your website code when I try to login. More than once, in different computers with different browsers, a pop up shows up just after I type my username and password and click login, and then it gets stuck in the “redirecting” message.

    | |
  3. Dave Lyons

    If i shot canon i’d rather shoot the nikon 14-24mm masterpiece for almost half the cost and live with whatever penalties you get for the convertor

    btw… these little side slideouts are annoying as all hell (next & previous posts)

    | |
  4. Phil Bautista

    I own a Tokina 11-16/2.8. Stabilization would be nice if you intend to take landscapes and interiors handheld cos those shots are usualy taken with smaller apertures to get greater depth of field. Smaller apertures means less light, thus requiring faster shutter speeds to keep pics free from camera shake. IS would allow the shooter to shoot at slower speeds handheld to get some motion blur in their shots (think silky water, fields or clouds) while keeping the rest sharp.

    That said, no serious landscape or interior photographer would be caught dead without a tripod which is why I agree IS isn’t necessary in an UWA, specially one this bright.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      I’m always torn in this respect, as someone who shoots both landscapes and wedding photojournalism. I’d love stabilization for those moments when I’m shooting from the hip and really pushing my shutter speed rules. Then again, stabilization adds to the price and weight, which is never good for an adventurous type who likes to do a lot of hiking on a budget.

      This is why even in my no-budget wildest dreams, I usually wind up with an f/2.8 prime and an f/4 zoom…

      | |
  5. Rafael Steffen

    There are so many variations, but this lens becomes useful for a certain number of pictures, which makes it extremely pricy and expensive to buy.

    | |
  6. Stan Rogers

    Lemme think… we’ve got a lens that would “Sunny Sixteen” out to 1/3200s wide open at ISO 100 (with quite a bit of DoF) and a “cripes we’re being conservative around here, aren’t we” 1/2f handheld shutter speed ranging from 1/25s to 1/50s. That’s an awful lot of “we don’t need no steenkeeng IS” range to work with, no matter how you look at it, especially when ISO 400 carries no real penalty and ISO 1600 cleans up nicely enough to take out for a fancy dinner at a high society establishment these days. Cine types might have a genuine requirement for IS at those focal lengths, but it’s really, really hard to argue that a stills shooter would need it. If you’re going for the long exposure, it’s almost always for a long-enough exposure that sticks aren’t optional – several seconds. And I can imagine that the lens would be complicated enough that adding IS would add more than a couple of bucks to an already-high-enough price tag.

    | |
    • Anthony Thurston

      I am with you Stan, I was just noting how I was surprised that Canon didn’t have it in there, since they seem to be putting it on all their lenses these days.

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Stan, it’s all about the ability to push the envelope in low light. Stabilization, no matter how fast / wide the lens, will ALWAYS be able to help someone do something they couldn’t otherwise effectively achieve. Maybe most don’t need it, but there’s always gonna be a few that use these tools to truly push the envelope…

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      I think the 12mm number is just a load of crap—I mean wishful thinking, on the part of Canon fanboys. There’s really not much way you can sharply go from 12mm to 24mm and achieve f/2.8 the whole way. Sharply. Just look at the Sigma 12-24, note it’s aperture range, and note it’s relatively deplorable sharpness issues and horrible distortion.

      I could be mistaken, but I hope I’m not. Why? Mainly just because Canon could REALLY use a 14-24 2.8 for HALF the price, much more than they could use such an absurdly expensive (and most definitely absurdly heavy) lens…

      | |
  7. James Matthews

    For $2800, I’d probably want IS even if I wouldn’t use it much. Think I’ll stick with the 8-15 and the 16-35 :)

    | |