| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
  | sent on 07 Ottobre 2022 Pros: Excellent lens from every point of view, optical, constructive etc. Cons: Your shadow will haunt you Opinion: I do not want to bore you with strictly technical considerations that I gladly leave to others. I bought it used last December, not really for a piece of bread, but it repays in satisfaction the economic effort expended. The optical quality is without question as well as the construction, it has a front lens that puts awe but is protected by the integrated hood not very long, given the angle of view, but there is. In use it allows incredible perspectives with the effect of making elusive in an unnatural way what is framed at the edge of the image. This phenomenon is sometimes annoying especially if at the edge of the image there is a subject with known dimensions that is deformed. It is clearly an extreme lens with all that this entails and must be known how to use. As anticipated in the "cons" one thing will persecute you, your shadow that will inexorably enter the field and therefore will force you to pay attention to how you are dressed. Seriously, it's an excellent optics. |
 | sent on 20 Giugno 2022 Pros: Everything but the weight. Cons: Weight. Opinion: Exceptional lens, I use it for interior photography / furniture / architecture. Canon has done an excellent job, the build quality is excellent, the yield of the lens also, already at full aperture (except for a little vignetting). The distortion is exceptionally minimal and in any case lower than the old 24-70 or 24-105, in backlight not from big problems considering the extreme focal length, just a few small tricks. I have also used it for sports in some events, extreme lens and therefore not very easy to exploit, but if used well it can give truly spectacular results. Only negative note in my opinion, the weight, I certainly have no problems (yet) to carry around kilos and kilos of equipment ... but this "little one" is a nice brick, more than anything else obviously not having the bracket like the canvases, when you carry it over the shoulder, the body is not well balanced and this a little disturbs. However, it remains a great lens, wonderful from all points of view! |
 | sent on 23 Febbraio 2019 Pros: sharpness, focal length, flare resistance, use of slab filters, very low distortion, chromatic rendering, construction Cons: Vignetting with 11/12mm slab filters, not attributable to the lens and easily resolvable in post Opinion: A lens that returns in satisfaction the economic commitment made to purchase. The chromatic rendering, the sharp detail, the resistance to flare, given the size of the front lens and the absence of particular distortions, are a pleasant surprise. The maximum aperture at F/4, does not make the lens suitable for astrophotography, except this, is the best wide lens on the market. Coupled with the 24/70, I was led to the sale of the 16-35, which suffers more distortion, despite the minimum focal less extensive |
  | sent on 20 Dicembre 2018 Pros: Focal excursion, uniqueness, distortions controlled in a masterly way directly from the optical scheme, body that although not in metal is quite solid and allows temperature changes without problems that a metal construction would lead behind Cons: Price Opinion: It's a gorgeous lens, if it didn't cost a crazy figure it would be a recommended purchase. Unfortunately the online reviews are extremely misleading, and among those who can not read a graph MTF, and who defines a lens "professional" (to do what I still have to understand), you have to clarify. If you buy it hoping that your landscape photos suddenly become magical, you're throwing the money. What this lens guarantees you is an immense angle of field, with all the consequences of the case. It has a beautifully insignificant distortion, which at first impact could make you say "wow", pity that then takes over the other aspect: look at the world with a focal length of 11mm. If on the one hand the lines are beautifully straight, on the other you will notice how the subjects in the center seem far away from you, and almost "distorted" while not being. This means that your central subject will decrease in size, and you'll have to get used to that "vision". The yield to F4 is fairly low to medioframe\\edges, you have to close to F8 on dense sensors. You will find online reviews of photos made with 5d Mark III, which already makes you understand the preparation of these individuals, but it goes well. Not fully recommended for astrophotography without astrotracker due to the AC (in solvable daytime photos) and the low uniformity centro\\edges at F4. In conclusion, it is a beautiful lens, certainly innovative, but personally I would not buy it even if it cost €1,500 (bought fortunately used and resolute even more). I have not found in the focal so wide that magic that so decanta, but I found a lens extremely heavy, cumbersome and with problems of flare obvious given the exaggerated size of the front lens. In my opinion you can spend considerably less and buy a Sigma Art 14 1.8 or a 14-24, globally more balanced. The final weapon of this lens is its control over distortions, but in my opinion it does not justify the faults that it carries, and the price to which it is sold. |
  | sent on 23 Settembre 2018 Pros: 11mm, 12mm, 13mm, 14mm, 15mm sharpness, distortion correction at the mid focal, is unique in its kind Cons: Weight, footprint, price, flare with point light sources. Opinion: Before buying it I thought it was too extreme for my needs, I considered it more a demonstration of Canon's ability to achieve unique goals, but not useful for those who do not need it for ultraspecialist purposes. Since, after long thinking, I bought it (used, but still at a high price...) Practically no longer use the Pur excellent 16-35/4 l IS, because the expressive possibilities allowed by the range 11-16mm on full format are exceptionally... vast, and The combination with the 24-70/2.8 L II does not make me regret a bit longer focal length than the 24mm. Certainly compared to 16-35 this 11-24 can not be thought "alone" in a lightweight reportage logic. It is wrong, however, to believe that this objective is a specialist for architecture, Interior in particular: it is certainly useful in those situations, but in June I was taken to the Dolomites in the backpack together with 24-70 and 100-400: Well, despite the weight Of the whole was indisputably remarkable, it was absolutely worth it, because certain perspectives were greatly valued with Ultracorte focal lengths, provided you had the foresight to compose carefully, use the easel and place--every time you It was possible-a strong foreground to anchor the prospective momentum of the whole. The optical and constructive quality of this large wide angle is at the highest level. Personally I am not a fan of filters, not even ND, so I do not feel the lack of a frame dedicated to them. Only note is-sometimes-the onset of a certain flare (ghost more than decrease in contrast) in the backlight, but I think it is inevitable for a lens with these characteristics. A little bit of foresight in the shooting allows most of the time to remedy the problem. Even in the report has proved effective, obviously it is not a point of view for that, but when there are compact groups of focal people so short they allow you to literally "enter" The observer in the scene. Good light |
 | sent on 30 Luglio 2016 Pros: Crisp, precise, rugged and focal width! Cons: Price, weight and lens hood is not removable. Opinion: very interesting and versatile lens with its focal width. rnLe distortions are minimized, and the image quality you get is remarkable. rnDa my point of view suffers from a bit of flare especially in certain lighting conditions. rnUna lens that stimulates creatività.rnCanon has created a unique lens of its kind, a masterpiece. |
  | sent on 15 Maggio 2016 Pros: image quality, angle of view Cons: weight, size, price Opinion: The Canon 11-24 L is the most extreme wide-angle zoom (non-fisheye) currently on the market; the angle at 11mm is really spectacular! The image quality is very good, although not to the spectacular levels of the Canon 16-35 f / 4 IS: the center is crystal clear; in corners it is good about 20-25 megapixel sensor, while on 50 megapixel sensors and over we see a bit of decay in the corners, but nothing disastrous. The build quality is at the highest level, and the autofocus is fast and quiet; the huge front lens is a beauty also to be seen :-) weight, size and price are very high, but if you like the extreme wide-angle Canon 11-24 is really the best you can get, in my opinion is a lens absolutely advisable despite being so 'difficult'. |
 | sent on 03 Febbraio 2016 Pros: Sharpness throughout the frame, almost no distortion, uniqueness, singularity of the lens, it's like having a puppy in your hands (you name the species) to cuddle, the images it produces are similar to caress a receipt from the person you love most, beautiful, heavy, does not disappoint, knows combat flare. Cons: you can not fit traditional filters, the price? .... better not to talk about it .... But the heart can not control, do not speak ill of the wide-angle lenses that I had before, many photos have given me satisfaction even then ... .weight. Opinion: Very solid tropical conditions and is not afraid of climate change, once attached to the camera, with emotions in many circumstances, we must try to understand the way, his undisputed qualities, in short, I struggle to detach it from the camera. Beautiful and unique to 11 then you need to focus for a bit of time to understand and highlight anything you want really from 'image, now that I have at hand, I think it's irreplaceable. |
 | sent on 15 Marzo 2015 Pros: Sharpness, focal width, edge sharpness, distortion contenutissima, flare, uniqueness' of the lens. Cons: Cost, weight, inability 'of the use of filters. Gels limited to focal more 'long (The rear lens group moves back towards the rear of the lens most a when the lens is Set to wide end. Therefore in order to prevent the rear lens element from making contact with a filter (a when installed ) we raccomend using a filter only if the zoom ring is not set to the wide end) rnvuol say that you can use it up to 12 with the filter. Opinion: I changed the Sigma 12-24 II to take this 11-24. I 'happened to be a good price compared to Italy (still hard to find) in both the US (B & H) where the current dollar exchange rate does not help. The I took in Seoul in South Korea where I am part of the price for lavoro.rnA very disproportionate, should buy this lens? Generally No. 16-35 f4 IS I, and 'good, you can mount the filters, and' more 'light and handy and the quality' optical equal. Obvious that from 16 to 11 the difference '. Let's say that you buy for the gap that there is' between 11 and 16. For no other. And of course for the quality '. I think you can get good results with 8-15 fisheye purche 'is used in parallel with the horizon, and' a lens hilarious and costs the right. In 80% of cases, I think the Sigma 12-24 II do very good job, costing 1/4 and weighing less. The difference between 11:12 and not 'significant (sull'11-24 there' the notch 11 and 12 and Nos see this WOW !!) rnSe landscapers are considered good buying this lens. Costs a lot and in the end you can do everything withthe Sigma. Closed at f / 11 with excellent results. The only thing I like sharpness, distortion throughout the frame and this' much better. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
