Fixed lenses are easier to design than zoom lenses. The designer might optimize the project for only one focal lenght and does not need to worry about correcting distortions in several different focal lenghts. So, one could expect that Canon might produce a fixed lens wider than the 11mm, as it happened in the past, when we had the 16-35mm (and 17-40mm), but also the 14mm. However, today the widest Canon lens is the 11-24 (and also the widest rectilinear wide angle lens - hooray Canon). Why can´t we have an 8mm, a 9mm or a 10mm rectilinear lens? Is there a theoretical limit for wide angle lenses on DSLRs due to, for example, register distance or mirror clearance distance?
Why Canon won´t design fixed lenses wider than 11mm?
- Thread starter antonioleandro
- Start date
Expense vs potential market.
11mm is VERY wide and difficult to use (lots of distortion).
I have the 12mm f/2.8 Laowa lens, it's very good but even this is limited in usefulness.
11mm is VERY wide and difficult to use (lots of distortion).
I have the 12mm f/2.8 Laowa lens, it's very good but even this is limited in usefulness.
Upvote
0
there is also the canon 8-15mm f4, which, although not rectilinar but fisheye, can be corrected
Upvote
0
Probably not much of a market for it? 14mm is pretty darn wide. The 11mm on the zoom is reaaaallllly wide.
Just seems it would have a very limited use.
Just seems it would have a very limited use.
Upvote
0
Not to blow off your question, but be grateful Canon sells a rectilinear 11mm prime already! (The 11-24L allegedly has a placebo zoom ring b/c everyone seems to post only 11mm shots taken with it. ;D)
I just checked B&H, and the 11-24L and the Irix 11mm f/4 gets you down to 11mm on FF. That is it for modern, still in production glass. So this isn't just a problem for Canon to deliver. No one else shoots wider than 11mm on FF today unless you want a fisheye.
The technical tipping point where a rectilinear shot no longer becomes possible I am not aware of, but I'm guessing the front element will get really big really quickly to the point that it's a $10k / 10 lb monster that needs a tripod ring.
- A
I just checked B&H, and the 11-24L and the Irix 11mm f/4 gets you down to 11mm on FF. That is it for modern, still in production glass. So this isn't just a problem for Canon to deliver. No one else shoots wider than 11mm on FF today unless you want a fisheye.
The technical tipping point where a rectilinear shot no longer becomes possible I am not aware of, but I'm guessing the front element will get really big really quickly to the point that it's a $10k / 10 lb monster that needs a tripod ring.
- A
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
You know what's funny about front element size... it must just be modern design that makes them so large. I play with legacy Asahi Takumar lenses. Nearly all are 49mm front elements. Even the f/2.8 models are that small from 28mm f/3.5 all the way through 150mm f/4 are just 49mm filter threads. I have a 135 f/2.5 and a 200 f/4 and they are 58mm. They are tiny lenses compared to Canon. I know I have read on the forum about how front element size is calculated, physics, etc., but that must be because of the type of design (double gauss, rectilinear, ?). I have no idea. I'm sure you and some others would know. I just don't. These are FF lenses too. 50mm f/1.4 = 49mm.
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:
Neuro knows a bit more about this -- we had a thread (I can't find, sorry) about why Leica lenses are so damn small and yet so damn good. Seemingly all their rangefinder glass is a crazy small diameter (their SL line is another story!) while Canon / Nikon / Sigma keep putting out pickle jars.
It had something to do with microlenses (or lack therein) on their sensors? Really foggy on that answer, hopefully Neuro (or others who know) chime in.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
It would be interesting to find out. They work beautifully on my Canon, but they are manual focus. I'm thinking Kumao Kajiwara had a thing for keeping his lenses very small.
Upvote
0
If one defishes an image taken with the Canon EF 8-15mm fisheye, what would be the equivalent FOV?
Upvote
0
Antono Refa said:
That´s very interesting. I wasn´t aware of the existence of this lens. However, the angle of view of this lens is listed as 130o and the Canon 11-24mm has an angle of view of 126o5´, so it´s almost 4o wider.
Thank you!
Upvote
0
antonioleandro said:
Somebody here that owns the Canon 11-24 says it is a masterpiece. That is high praise, and he's a very reliable, guy so I have to believe him.
Upvote
0
antonioleandro said:
AFAIK, a circular fisheye has the equivalent angle of view as a 0mm rectilinear lens.
Upvote
0
Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 fisheye goes to an amazing 220 deg field of view (actually looks behind itself). A used copy can set one back $100k. This gives you an idea of why we don’t see many lenses wider than 11mm.
Upvote
0
Back in the 1970s I owned both the Nikkor 7.5mm f/5.6 180 degree fisheye, and the 6mm f/5.6 220 degree fisheye lenses. You had to lock the mirror up, and you obtained a circular image on the film. The problem was I never found much practical use for either lens. While in college in 1967, a photographer in the news service did find a spectacular use for a 180 degree fisheye. During a pole vault event, he positioned the lens straight up right next to the box where the pole is planted, and the picture showed people standing 360 degees around the standards as the vaulter was about to clear the bar. Nothing I ever shot with my fisheyes were that interesting.
Upvote
0
jolyonralph said:
You've just got to know how to go low to use it.
http://hkvisuals.com/5-reasons-why-you-should-go-wide/
Some of the images at the above link are stunning. Most were shot from inches above the floor/ground.
Here's another example that's totally different.
Kris Meeke, Rally Italy Sardinia 2015 by Graham Lloyd, on FlickrAnd this one:
https://flic.kr/p/Ubhpwq (the owner has embedding disabled)
https://www.linyangchen.com/Canon11-24mm/i-QwCtkZd
Pulau Ubin Wayang actors backstage Hungry Ghost Festival Fo Shan Teng Tua Pek Kong temple by Yangchen Lin, on Flickr
Upvote
0
Yep, you beat me to it. I have a couple Voigtlander bodies and one of the crazy wide lenses, though not the 10, it might be 12. Uses a view finder of course. They are TINY and cover 35mm film.
Oh, maybe it's the aperture too. I swear mine is only f8, maybe it's 5.6. Think of the difference in even the 50 1.8 vs 1.2. I'm sure the info is out there why the 11-24 is so large. I carried it around on a mtn hike Monday to use with a 5dsr
Upvote
0
I only take it out when I plan to shoot something that requires that wide. Otherwise, I take the 16-35mm f/2.8 mkII
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)