July 22, 2014, 04:15:23 PM

Author Topic: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]  (Read 32506 times)

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1461
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #105 on: April 24, 2013, 03:53:03 PM »

Now it is not so much cheaper, if any...to build the crop sensors, compared to full frame. 

Where did you get this information from?

So...again...why are people going to pay $2700 for a body that is hobbled by such a small sensor size? 


I for one don't think Canon will price it at $ 2,700. I think it will be priced slightly lower than the 6D giving users the option to go for a high end crop camera or a entry level FF.

Ok.  Maybe they will buy because of the "cool factor", and because it's the Canon name and reputation behind it.  Or maybe they won't buy as many as Canon would like.  Time will tell.


-1. Crop cameras have their uses. A hobbyist / enthusiast looking for a camera for sports / birding will get the 7D II. If this logic was right, the 6D would never have managed to sell. 

One thing is for sure.  5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

Agreed. I feel though that the 7DII will come very close OR may even better the 5D3 under good lighting conditions. High ISO will however, be a different story.

You sure like to quote me!  I got the information from here, and other sources.  Are you denying the cost of producing full frame sensors, has come down relative to the cost of making a crop sensor...from the early 2000's?

I never said crop cameras didn't have their uses.  Stop putting words in my mouth. But a hobbyist is FAR less likely to pay $2700 for a camera body (especially for a crop camera body).  And if the 7D2 costs less, and does not have "revolutionary" features such as some kind of large "pro" body (that uses the larger triple cell battery similar to, or the same as, the 1DX and previous 1D bodies), and advanced auto focus...then what are we really talking about?  I'm talking about the rumored 7D2, and you seem to be talking about the 70D.  Given what you "think" the 7D2 will be, I don't see room for a 70D...unless of course it's really just a glorified Rebel...but they already have glorified Rebels...so again, I don't see your logic.

Hi Carl!

No offence intended in my above post and I don't think I said what you think I said (see above). I was merely alluding to the cool factor.

Crop sensors are still considerably cheaper to produce as compared to the FF ... that's why you have so many cameras with the same crop sensors going very cheap. What will come out in the 7D2 is still an unknown.

While I agree a hobbyist will be unlikely to pay $2,700 for a crop cam, I doubt if it will be priced at $2,700 or it will be priced out of the market. I do think the 7DII will be better in IQ ... A stop maybe and will be an improvement with better AF and other features (WIFI, GPS)over the 7D as it stands.
Light is language!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #105 on: April 24, 2013, 03:53:03 PM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #106 on: April 24, 2013, 03:57:35 PM »
While I agree a hobbyist will be unlikely to pay $2,700 for a crop cam, I doubt if it will be priced at $2,700 or it will be priced out of the market. I do think the 7DII will be better in IQ ... A stop maybe and will be an improvement with better AF and other features (WIFI, GPS)over the 7D as it stands.

No problem here J.R.  I certainly agree, the 7D2 will be a vast improvement over the 7D.  Because it has to be.  If it actually is a "pro" body, and costs in the low $2k range, and has all the other features people seem to want, it will absolutely murder the Sony/Nikon and other crop format competition...no doubt about that.  That gets back to my other point...especially regarding the "pro" body aspect.  There will be a lot of unhappy 5D3 owners who shoot birds, sports, etc...in good light...especially if they have a series 2 great white.  Because their body will no longer be the cool kid on the block.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #107 on: April 24, 2013, 04:12:55 PM »
(Italicized quotes are from Jrista.)

“I don't think physics has anything to do with the inferiority of EF-S lenses. Optics are optics...it doesn't matter what kind of mount you use. If the optics resolve an extremely sharp image at the focus plane, you could slap on any mount you want, it doesn't matter.”

Well, that’s what you think.  It matters huge at the wide angle end, and you know it does.  The 10-22 is not an f/2.8 lens.  So a narrower aperture coupled to a smaller sensor with higher noise floor, will achieve inferior results to full frame on a good quality f/2.8 wide angle lens (for wide angle astrophotography, night imaging, etc.)  The 10-22 Canon EF-S, is also very low quality…you just happened to either not look at your images at even 50%, or else you had an unnaturally good copy…or else you’re way off base.  Have a look at what the rental houses say about the 10-22.  The 10-22 is inherently soft in the outer 40% of the image, even closed to f/8.  It’s worthless crap.  Please post proof otherwise, if you have it, and it needs to be fairly ironclad, with full exif…say a shot done at less than 15mm, at f/8 or f/7.1…preferably RAW.  Notice I'm throwing you a bone and allowing for the handicapped sharpness.  I would ask for an f/3.5 image done at 10mm, but that would be a total waste of time.  It's also f/3.5 in a crop sensor vs f/2.8 on a full frame...

Honestly Jrista, or whatever your name is...you're so hyper enthusiastic about the series 2 great white superteles...that for you to even mention the Canon EF-S 10-22, is not only laughable, but it also chips away at your credibility regarding your wonderboy opinions about lens performance and the like.

“APS-C is not inherently "cheap", in terms of quality.”

That’s not what I said, and again, you know that’s not what I said.  You’re implying I’m saying the format itself, especially a camera body in the format…is inherently “cheap.”  I don’t think it is inherently “cheap”, nor did I say it was.  I was referring to most EF-S lenses, as can clearly be seen if you read what I said again, in context…rather than attempt to dissect it out of context.  You seem to have a lot of time to do that.  I suggest you go out and shoot more pictures, as I have been doing.

“Reach is everything for a number of fields of photography, and in that respect, APS-C offers significant value.”

And in the same sense, even smaller sensored cameras can offer even more value, such as the SX50.  But the SX50 doesn’t cost over $2k for the body, plus the $7k to $10k cost of a supertele.  “Value” is very highly subjective here.  What one person thinks of as high value, someone else with slightly different needs, might see as not a value at all.  Buying a series 2 great white, will always be the dominant part of the equation.  The “value” of a camera body, factors in very little, unless it is at or close to the level of the 1DX…or unless you have or need 3 or 4 camera bodies in the arsenal.  So if maximum reach with a given lens is all you value, then yes, bodies like the future 7D2 could be seen as representing "good value".  Just remember that the "good value" here, is because you can use a single supertele lens with two different bodies to achieve two "effective" focal lengths.  That's the only "value".  You can achieve BETTER value by simply using two different teleconverters, because then you have 3 possible "effective" focal lengths, rather than two...all for under $1k over the cost of the lens alone...as opposed to ~ $2k+ for buying the top class APS-C body. 

“That said...I'll also happily pay for a 5D III AS WELL. I can use both cameras...I do stuff at range, as well as stuff close up (such as macro, which can benefit from larger pixels), as well as landscapes and astrophotography. The only question is which one I'll buy first, not which one is better than the other.”

I’m happy that you can inform us all, as to what the “only question is”.  You are overqualified there, a happy coincidence for you.  It’s getting tiresome from here.  Good day.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 04:25:15 PM by CarlTN »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3706
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #108 on: April 24, 2013, 08:46:16 PM »
(Italicized quotes are from Jrista.)

“I don't think physics has anything to do with the inferiority of EF-S lenses. Optics are optics...it doesn't matter what kind of mount you use. If the optics resolve an extremely sharp image at the focus plane, you could slap on any mount you want, it doesn't matter.”

Well, that’s what you think.  It matters huge at the wide angle end, and you know it does.  The 10-22 is not an f/2.8 lens.  So a narrower aperture coupled to a smaller sensor with higher noise floor, will achieve inferior results to full frame on a good quality f/2.8 wide angle lens (for wide angle astrophotography, night imaging, etc.)  The 10-22 Canon EF-S, is also very low quality…you just happened to either not look at your images at even 50%, or else you had an unnaturally good copy…or else you’re way off base.  Have a look at what the rental houses say about the 10-22.  The 10-22 is inherently soft in the outer 40% of the image, even closed to f/8.  It’s worthless crap.  Please post proof otherwise, if you have it, and it needs to be fairly ironclad, with full exif…say a shot done at less than 15mm, at f/8 or f/7.1…preferably RAW.  Notice I'm throwing you a bone and allowing for the handicapped sharpness.  I would ask for an f/3.5 image done at 10mm, but that would be a total waste of time.  It's also f/3.5 in a crop sensor vs f/2.8 on a full frame...

Honestly Jrista, or whatever your name is...you're so hyper enthusiastic about the series 2 great white superteles...that for you to even mention the Canon EF-S 10-22, is not only laughable, but it also chips away at your credibility regarding your wonderboy opinions about lens performance and the like.

“APS-C is not inherently "cheap", in terms of quality.”

That’s not what I said, and again, you know that’s not what I said.  You’re implying I’m saying the format itself, especially a camera body in the format…is inherently “cheap.”  I don’t think it is inherently “cheap”, nor did I say it was.  I was referring to most EF-S lenses, as can clearly be seen if you read what I said again, in context…rather than attempt to dissect it out of context.  You seem to have a lot of time to do that.  I suggest you go out and shoot more pictures, as I have been doing.

“Reach is everything for a number of fields of photography, and in that respect, APS-C offers significant value.”

And in the same sense, even smaller sensored cameras can offer even more value, such as the SX50.  But the SX50 doesn’t cost over $2k for the body, plus the $7k to $10k cost of a supertele.  “Value” is very highly subjective here.  What one person thinks of as high value, someone else with slightly different needs, might see as not a value at all.  Buying a series 2 great white, will always be the dominant part of the equation.  The “value” of a camera body, factors in very little, unless it is at or close to the level of the 1DX…or unless you have or need 3 or 4 camera bodies in the arsenal.  So if maximum reach with a given lens is all you value, then yes, bodies like the future 7D2 could be seen as representing "good value".  Just remember that the "good value" here, is because you can use a single supertele lens with two different bodies to achieve two "effective" focal lengths.  That's the only "value".  You can achieve BETTER value by simply using two different teleconverters, because then you have 3 possible "effective" focal lengths, rather than two...all for under $1k over the cost of the lens alone...as opposed to ~ $2k+ for buying the top class APS-C body. 

“That said...I'll also happily pay for a 5D III AS WELL. I can use both cameras...I do stuff at range, as well as stuff close up (such as macro, which can benefit from larger pixels), as well as landscapes and astrophotography. The only question is which one I'll buy first, not which one is better than the other.”

I’m happy that you can inform us all, as to what the “only question is”.  You are overqualified there, a happy coincidence for you.  It’s getting tiresome from here.  Good day.

Sorry, I never knew, and never will know, what you "mean" in your head. All I know is what you say. You clearly said you thought APS-C was only for entry-level cameras (and thus inherently "cheap", as that is what entry-level cameras are...cheap. Simple and logical extrapolation there, base on what you SAID.)

As for the lenses, the 10-22 is not as good as the 16-35 L in the corners because it is bending light a lot more with cheaper glass. You can control that better, and if the 10-22 was an EF mount L series lens, it would be...better-grade optical glass, aspheric elements, fluorite elements, better engineering, etc. My point, which you missed, is that it is not the MOUNT that makes the lens bad, nor is the EF-S mount limited by physics. The lens is "bad" (relatively speaking, compared to an L-series wide angle zoom) only because Canon did not make it an actual L-series lens. They explicitly choose not to utilize high grade optics in EF-S lenses...because they are designed to be entry-level and mid-grade/prosumer lenses. Just because Canon did not put in the effort does not mean it is impossible for an EF-S lens to achieve the exact same quality level as an L-series lens does. The mount isn't the problem, and neither is physics. Canon doesn't want EF-S to attain the prestiege that L-series lenses to...that's reserved for L-series lenses, so they just plain and simply don't design the lens to attain superior optical quality.

I'd say the market segment is the only thing against EF-S lenses, and that is a matter of active choice on the part of Canon, not nature.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2776
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #109 on: April 24, 2013, 10:07:12 PM »
So let's say Canon comes out with a 54Megapixel camera.... Think of a 21Megapixel 7D as the sweet spot of the big megapixel monster yet for half the price (or less)..... It will sell.

There are an awful lot of us that seem to be waiting on the 7D2.  It will sell.

The best camera is the one in your hands

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1461
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #110 on: April 24, 2013, 11:19:54 PM »
So let's say Canon comes out with a 54Megapixel camera.... Think of a 21Megapixel 7D as the sweet spot of the big megapixel monster yet for half the price (or less)..... It will sell.

There are an awful lot of us that seem to be waiting on the 7D2.  It will sell.

+1 ... If the ISO performance is better, it would interest me immensely.

BTW, I'm not sure of the physics but what sort of processing power would a 21/24MP @ 10 fps require?
Light is language!

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3706
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #111 on: April 24, 2013, 11:20:46 PM »
So let's say Canon comes out with a 54Megapixel camera.... Think of a 21Megapixel 7D as the sweet spot of the big megapixel monster yet for half the price (or less)..... It will sell.

There are an awful lot of us that seem to be waiting on the 7D2.  It will sell.

Oh yeah, it'll definitely sell. The 7D has been extremely popular, as it fills a fairly unique niche. The 7D II can only be better! How could it not sell?
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #111 on: April 24, 2013, 11:20:46 PM »

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4352
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #112 on: April 25, 2013, 03:17:40 AM »
Oh yeah, it'll definitely sell. The 7D has been extremely popular, as it fills a fairly unique niche. The 7D II can only be better! How could it not sell?

Because the 6d is there.

In times of 7d & 5d2, the 7d mostly was the most expensive, i.e. "best" model in many stores, so people who wanted something "good" or "solid" were talked into buying that. Whith the 6d price on the decline, they'll probably buy ff quality & wifi/gps instead of 7d2 aps-c features a casual shooter doesn't need.

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #113 on: April 25, 2013, 04:56:25 AM »
Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 07:07:40 AM by insanitybeard »
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1150
    • View Profile
    • Zee-bytes
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #114 on: April 25, 2013, 08:54:18 AM »
Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)


I have both lens optical layout on my blog. I have used both lenses and the 10-22 is by no means "worthless crap".

http://zeebytes.blogspot.jp/2012/12/glassware-canon-10-22mm-f35-45-and-17.html?m=1
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50 f/1.4

EOS M | 22 f/2 | 11-22 IS

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #115 on: April 25, 2013, 09:56:55 AM »
I have both lens optical layout on my blog. I have used both lenses and the 10-22 is by no means "worthless crap".
http://zeebytes.blogspot.jp/2012/12/glassware-canon-10-22mm-f35-45-and-17.html?m=1


That looks like an interesting article Zv, I will take a better look when I have more time. Here is arguably my best image with the 7D and EF-S 10-22, not full size as the file is too big. Viewed at 100% (original file) the limitations of the lens are apparent but I wouldn't have got this shot without the ultrawide.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 10:01:27 AM by insanitybeard »
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

Skirball

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #116 on: April 25, 2013, 11:44:51 AM »
Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

There are a lot of people out there making a living off that worthless crap.

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3706
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #117 on: April 25, 2013, 11:46:55 AM »
Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #117 on: April 25, 2013, 11:46:55 AM »

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1461
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #118 on: April 25, 2013, 12:33:39 PM »
Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

none of the Canon UWA Zooms have fluorite elements.

10-22: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 819
17-40: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 799
16-35: 3 aspherical + 2 UD - $ 1,629

(Canon MRP, not taking into account the rebates / discounts)

Of course the quality of the elements used is different amongst the lenses but I would say that the 17-40 and 10-22 are very similar except that the elements would be smaller. However, there must be a reason why the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40.
Light is language!

Skirball

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #119 on: April 25, 2013, 12:40:13 PM »
Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

none of the Canon UWA Zooms have fluorite elements.

10-22: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 819
17-40: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 799
16-35: 3 aspherical + 2 UD - $ 1,629

(Canon MRP, not taking into account the rebates / discounts)

Of course the quality of the elements used is different amongst the lenses but I would say that the 17-40 and 10-22 are very similar except that the elements would be smaller. However, there must be a reason why the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40.

For all intents and purposes they cost the same.  But supply and demand play a role: there are no other options for UW on a crop, where as on a FF you have what, 4 choices?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« Reply #119 on: April 25, 2013, 12:40:13 PM »