Get 6 Months of ShootQ Free With Any Workshop Purchase!

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

Canon Lens Updates: EF 11-24mm F/4L for $3,000? 100-400mm In November?

By Anthony Thurston on October 12th 2014

We shared a rumor a while back about a new Canon 11-24mm F/4L, and today, we have an update for you. Canon Rumors is reporting that they have received multiple confirmations on this lens, enough so that they believe the rumor is legit.

canon-11-24mm-f4l

CR also speculated on the price, saying that they have been hearing most often that the lens will be available for around the $3,000 mark. In case you need a refresher, the 11-24mm F/4L rumor first surfaced about 2 weeks ago (after initially being thought to be an F/2.8 as early as August), and has just been gaining steam since then.

In addition to the update on the 11-24mm rumor update, CR has an update on the 100-400mm. According to the rumor site, the 100-400mm was originally supposed to be announced with the 7D Mark II at Photokina as was heavily rumored. But the lens was pulled at the last minute due to some sort of delay.

100-400mm IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens-canon-digital

CR says that the 100-400mm could be announced in November and have availability as soon as December, but they “aren’t holding their breath.” No update on pricing for that lens though. It is also notable that Canon has officially said a replacement for the 100-400mm is coming, it’s just a matter of WHEN and HOW SOON.

My Thoughts

As for the 11-24mm F/4L coming in at $3,000, I seriously have to wonder who Canon expects to pay that sort of money for an F/4 lens. Yes, it is wide, and yes, it is an L lens, but unless there is some sort of revolutionary new technology on board that we aren’t aware of yet, I can’t help but wonder how on earth that price is justified.

I also wonder about that “delay” on the 100-400mm. I wonder if it at all has to do with Sigma’s release of two 150-600mm lenses. It wouldn’t be too surprising to me if Canon saw what Sigma was going to announce, and decided to go back and make some changes to their lens (likely to make the lens more competitive on pricing). That is complete speculation on my part, and I doubt we would ever find out even if that was the case.

____

What are your thoughts on these Canon lens updates? Would you pay $3,000 for the 11-24mm F/4L? Did Canon’s pushback of the 100-400 have something to do with Sigma’s dual 150-600mm lenses? Leave a comment below!

[via Canon Rumors]

This site contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links, however, this does not impact accuracy or integrity of our content.

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. J D

    Didn’t the 24-70 f2.8 II cost $2799 when released?

    And as a business Canon could be leaking the “cost” as $3000 to see what the market will pay. I don’t see $3000 being the final cost but who knows with Canon.

    | |
    • Scottie Nguyen

      Agreed. I think it will be $2300

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      $2300 or $2400 seems to be the sweet spot for “flagship” zoom lenses, indeed. However I’m still just not entirely on board with the aperture and focal range of this thing. It just makes soooooo much more sense to make it f/2.8 and 14-24…

      | |
    • Scottie Nguyen

      Mathew, this lens is totally 100% for landscapers. It would be hard to find a situation to get this as a portraiture lens or any other uses. So being a landscape lens, most landscapers want f/11 or f/16 on a tripod. If they make it f/2.8, the trade off is more distortion according to physics laws of optics. So rather than sacrificing the trade off of getting f/2.8 where most landscapers likely won’t use, they rather design it at f/4 to improve on the distortion. All ultra wide angle suffer from perspective distortion. I think instead of the trade off they designed it for quality and sacrifice one stop.

      | |
  2. Matthew Saville

    I’ll say again what I said before, and every other time that Canon rumors hinted of another f/4 ultrawide:

    Canon doesn’t need this. They have an awesome f/4 fisheye zoom, and an awesome 16-35 f/4 IS, both of which largely buck the historic trend of, well, canon being absolutely pathetic at off-center sharpness in any lens wider than 50mm.

    In other words, It is Canon’s 16-35 f/2.8 mk2 that desperately needs an update, and it is Nikon’s 14-24 f/2.8 that innumerable Canon users are using via adapter. NOT another f/4 zoom.

    In my opinion, thankfully, this 11-24 is just a photoshop dream. There is no real source for this lens’ rumor, as far as I know, just a ton of wishful thinking by idiots who don’t know Canon’s shortcomings or lineup gaps…

    So, here’s to hoping that what Canon ACTUALLY has up its sleeve is a 14-24 f/2.8 L…

    And also, here’s to hoping that the surprisingly low prices of other recent new lenses will dictate that this 14-24 2.8 L IS doesn’t cost more than the Nikon 14-24 either. :-D

    =Matt=

    | |
  3. William Emmett

    I can’t even think of a place for this lens. A Canon EF 11-24mm f4L lens, priced at $3000.00, and no mention of IS, is crazy. I’ve seen photos of the modified Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM lens, and the amount of distortion on a full frame is wild. Plus, you get a nice photo of the toes of your shoes. The mod is only on the mount, so the lenses are left alone. If the lens does not show any distortion, I’m sure Canon used a lot of resources to remove the distortion to make this lens. To re-coup the R&D expense, the lens would have to be expensive. I’m also wondering what diameter the outer element will be. It may be larger than 82mm, which is the standard for this type of lens so far. I own the Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L and find I can stitch photos to get the ultra wide shots for a panorama, for a lot less than $3000.00, the software comes in the box with a new 7DII.

    | |
  4. Mircea Blanaru

    I totally agree with the author. Some lenses prices are very high, I think, even for a professional photographer. For me, an amateur one (even if I am trying hard to become a pro) the prices are untouchable…

    | |
  5. Mads Helmer Petersen

    Really looking forward to the new 100-400 ! :-)

    | |
  6. Kim Farrelly

    Nikon’s ultra wide and near perfect lens, the 14-24mm F2.8, is $2000 – perhaps Canon is playing to that market? Oh wait their one is F4 so it can’t be that. Perhaps it comes boxed with a free camera for $3000?
    Considering their other ultra wide L lens, the 8-15mm, is also F4 and ‘only’ costs $1350 there must be some magic happening under the hood (ahem) to justify the price.

    | |
  7. Derek Schwartz

    Well, there’s no other full frame lens this wide, in any aperture, available right now that I know of, and especially not a zoom. If the IQ is amazing, and you need UWA lenses, this might be a helluva lens.

    | |
  8. Greg Avant

    Well we all know the the “L” stands for expensive as L.

    | |
  9. Daniel Thullen

    This is Canon we’re talking about. They don’t have to use pricing logic. A certain number of people will buy it because it is a Canon (likewise when Nikon brings out equipment for Nikon fanatics.) I doubt whether camera equipment is a significant percentage on Canon’s revenue, as copiers and such are.

    | |
  10. Greg Silver

    Agreed $3,000 for that lens is crazy. I would think the quality won’t match the price. Maybe around $1500-$1750 (IF the quality is outstanding).

    | |
    • Anthony Thurston

      Yeah, unless there is something crazy revolutionary going on with this lens, I can’t imagine its worth anywhere near $3,000. Though, this is Canon we are talking about… and they just may be delusional enough to think that lens could sell for 3k.

      | |
    • Scottie Nguyen

      Anythony, they were delusional with the 5d Mark iii for 3500 and it sold for awhile. If the quality is up there with the Zeiss Otus, it will sell. I use Canon but man I hate that they jack us with prices. Really want to jump ship to Nikon.

      | |