Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Camera

[iMagic]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

I am sure the GMo Glass helps with keeping the price lower. Hopefully Canon's process is up to that challenge.

 

[Zv]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share.

I'm a little confused about Lee filters though and was wondering if somebody could just educate me please?

1. The vignetting mentioned in earlier posts at longer focal lengths, is it software removable or is it the actual adaptors that enter the frame?

2. Would a current filter system work with a 12-24 or 14-24 or would a new system need to be developed, based on the dimensions of the front element?

3. Can a filter system be 'adapted up'? Say you purchase a 77mm system and your next lens has a 82mm thread, would a step up 82mm adaptor make the 77mm usable?

4. Kinda similar to question 3. So I can buy a 16-35ii now for a good price and I'll then invest in a Lee system. But if Lee had to create an unique system for the 12/14-24, does that mean having to buy a whole new filter system again?

1 = mechanical elements in the FOV. Not correctable through lens vignetting algorithms -- more like a clone tool fix, but I am a rookie with using these. Others may have slicker tricks.

2 = the kick in the butt. Apparently around 15mm (FF) focal length, most manufacturers give up on front-filterability and the Lee system will not work. So if you are using Lee (there are alternatives), their 100mm system is the one most of us use (for the 16-35 II, 24 primes, 17-40, many Zeiss wides, etc.) Well, apparently Lee thought the Nikon 14-24 was worth engineering a specialized workaround for, and they made the SW150 system just for that lens: (http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150). As I understand it, it's not as fully functional as the 100 system as it doesn't support something important.. was it a CPL? It's something non-trivial for landscape folks.

3 = as stated my someone else, you get adaptor rings for the lens' filter diameter. That's really the only added cost once you've invested into the system. $50-60 or so if memory serves.

4 = See #2. The Lee 100mm setup is for front-filtering lenses only. That generally means you are locked out of the fun on lenses with a wide end under 16mm or so (FF, I mean). You could hand-hold certain items in front of wider lenses, but depending on the FL, a 4"x6" (i.e. 100mm) filter may not be wide enough to cover the entire FOV. The next time you have a wide angle lens in your hands, look down over the top of it and imagine the comically wide V of the field-of-view, then imagine how big the flat things in front of it need to be when you get 15, 25, 35mm away from the front element. So a lot of really wide angle shooters (say, with the 16-35), have to thin up their Lee holder to only allow one creative tool instead of stacking two or three.

- A

I know the 17-40L has this feature but I've never ever heard of anyone using it - gelatin filters that slide in at the rear of the lens. Obviously useless for CPL but could this work as an option for ND filtering? Has anyone had experience with this kind of thing? Seems fiddly.

Could Canon make the 14-24 or whatever with some kind of rear drop in filter option like the super teles? Or is that idea just whack?!

 

[Khalai]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share.

I'm a little confused about Lee filters though and was wondering if somebody could just educate me please?

1. The vignetting mentioned in earlier posts at longer focal lengths, is it software removable or is it the actual adaptors that enter the frame?

2. Would a current filter system work with a 12-24 or 14-24 or would a new system need to be developed, based on the dimensions of the front element?

3. Can a filter system be 'adapted up'? Say you purchase a 77mm system and your next lens has a 82mm thread, would a step up 82mm adaptor make the 77mm usable?

4. Kinda similar to question 3. So I can buy a 16-35ii now for a good price and I'll then invest in a Lee system. But if Lee had to create an unique system for the 12/14-24, does that mean having to buy a whole new filter system again?

1 = mechanical elements in the FOV. Not correctable through lens vignetting algorithms -- more like a clone tool fix, but I am a rookie with using these. Others may have slicker tricks.

2 = the kick in the butt. Apparently around 15mm (FF) focal length, most manufacturers give up on front-filterability and the Lee system will not work. So if you are using Lee (there are alternatives), their 100mm system is the one most of us use (for the 16-35 II, 24 primes, 17-40, many Zeiss wides, etc.) Well, apparently Lee thought the Nikon 14-24 was worth engineering a specialized workaround for, and they made the SW150 system just for that lens: (http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150). As I understand it, it's not as fully functional as the 100 system as it doesn't support something important.. was it a CPL? It's something non-trivial for landscape folks.

3 = as stated my someone else, you get adaptor rings for the lens' filter diameter. That's really the only added cost once you've invested into the system. $50-60 or so if memory serves.

4 = See #2. The Lee 100mm setup is for front-filtering lenses only. That generally means you are locked out of the fun on lenses with a wide end under 16mm or so (FF, I mean). You could hand-hold certain items in front of wider lenses, but depending on the FL, a 4"x6" (i.e. 100mm) filter may not be wide enough to cover the entire FOV. The next time you have a wide angle lens in your hands, look down over the top of it and imagine the comically wide V of the field-of-view, then imagine how big the flat things in front of it need to be when you get 15, 25, 35mm away from the front element. So a lot of really wide angle shooters (say, with the 16-35), have to thin up their Lee holder to only allow one creative tool instead of stacking two or three.

- A

I know the 17-40L has this feature but I've never ever heard of anyone using it - gel filters that slide in at the rear of the lens. Obviously useless for CPL but could this work as an option for ND filtering? Has anyone had experience with this kind of thing? Seems fiddly.

Could Canon make the 14-24 or whatever with some kind of rear drop in filter option like the super teles? Or is that idea just whack?!

<joke mode> They could cooperate with Lee and put a slide-in slot just behid the bulbous front element for 100mm filters. IDK about the CLP however. </joke mode>

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

I know the 17-40L has this feature but I've never ever heard of anyone using it - gel filters that slide in at the rear of the lens. Obviously useless for CPL but could this work as an option for ND filtering? Has anyone had experience with this kind of thing? Seems fiddly.

Could Canon make the 14-24 or whatever with some kind of rear drop in filter option like the super teles? Or is that idea just whack?!

On the That Idea is Whack side:

• Unlike with supertele drop-ins, landscape guys need a lot more options -- NDs and ND grads have a boatload of darknesses and gradations. Canon likely wouldn't climb the mountain to make all that -- it makes a ton more sense to work with a Lee (or other partner) to make a specialized solution for a special lens like what Lee did with the SW150 system.
• Don't NDs and ND grads need to be wider than the FOV frame to avoid inconsistent shading? So you'd need a wider-than-the-mount housing on the lens close to the mount, right? (Dealbreaker or possible?)
• Some folks like to focus, meter, etc. with nothing in place first. I'm sure someone with a physics/optics background can conjure up why this might be problematic for a drop-in.
• Currently, having big filters with a tight/grippy-slippy fit in the holder allows nicer resolution of adjustments -- think of it like a long 'throw' on a MF lens' focusing ring. Making all that smaller will make fine adjustments difficult.
• ND grads don't just rotate, they slide up and down -- not sure how that would work in a rear DI filter format and still not let unwanted debris or light in.
• It's been my experience with my Lee setup that I'm often changing them out on location. Changing a rear drop-in strikes me as a problem when we're out in the elements, but in fairness I've never used those DI 52s on a supertele.
• Landscape guys like to stack things -- a straight ND, and ND grad, a CPL, etc. -- and some of those items need independent rotation control. That would likely be complicated to control so close to the mount.
  

On the Not-So-Whack side:

• If they pulled it off, it would be a major major scoop over the Nikon 14-24. To my knowledge, a lack of comprehensive filtering options is the only major drawback to that lens.
• Filter costs (after the initial orgy of spend to get such a system) would be quite cheap -- mount-sized filters would be a ton less glass.

Neat thinking, though. If they can integrally 1.4x TC a 200-400 or create a 52mm DI option for superteles, anything is possible, but the first bold 'is Whack' above is probably the dealbreaker.

- A

 

[dlleno]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

nice analysis A. I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world. Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm

 

[sanj]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

16-35 f2.8II was the first lens I ever bought when I got into photography again after 15 years. I was very excited that I had bought (without reading any reviews) a great Canon lens. It was expensive. And then reality hit hard after I took my first few pictures. I could not believe how bad the corners were. Then I slowly realized it was a bad lens and got rid of it. Attached is the photo which I took. Hated the corner sharpness.

Now I have the Zeiss 15mm and 35mm. Canon 24-70 II. But I think this new lens is very tempting.

Excellent shot Sanj - it tells a great story!

Thank you Jamesy. Not that this picture is anything great but I do realize that it is always the story that matters, not the corner sharpness..

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

nice analysis A. I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world. Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm

One might argue lens and filter manufacturers should team up in certain focal lengths and co-develop lenses. Keep in mind that filter threads themselves add thickness to the vignetting problem. Killing those off would help.

Less Exciting but also Less Whack Idea:

• The lens company would design a WA lens with a flat front element and no front filter threads or make them removable somehow. This eliminates thickness add #1 -- the filter ring. (Admittedly, lens cap just got problematic.)
• The filter company would then use the lens's hood mount (outside of the lens on the barrel, possibly specially designed for this) as the basis to snap on an outrigger a la Lee Foundation that is ever-so-close to flush with the front element. This eliminates thickness add #2 -- the basic hardware to mount the filters.
• The final step would be wide as hell filters to support 15-16mm FF focal length needs without vignetting. They might be monstrously big, but it's do-able, right?

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Just wrote this in another thread, so I copy and paste it here.

If you want to compare prices you need to value in customs duties and taxes.

I live in the Netherlands.
For non-EU imports we have to pay customs duties.
Cameras and lenses are 6.7%
On top of that there is the value-added tax (VAT or BTW in Dutch) which is 21%.

The USD – Euro exchange rate today is about 0.73 so $ 1,000 is € 730
€ 730 + 6.7% customs duties = € 779
€ 779 + 21% VAT = € 942

American prices are without tax, so if you want compare these with Dutch prices you need to multiply the USD price by 0.942 => € 1,199*0.942 = € 1,129 which is pretty close to the € 1,099 price tag.
The customs duties in my calculation are based on the retail price, so in reality they will be less because it will be based on what the retailer is paying and not the price you pay in the shop.

If people want to compare prices they need to figure out if they have to pay customs duties and taxes and how high they are for the country they live in.

not only that, but they are all complaining about the USD price - as if Canon is an american company.

Canon is a Japan company, their products are in Yen. United states atypically gets subsidized because of the market size, however the same can't be said for other smaller zones.

if you look at then price, magically the UK, euro price starts to make alot of sense. but some just want to complain.

 

[dlleno]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

nice analysis A. I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world. Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm

One might argue lens and filter manufacturers should team up in certain focal lengths and co-develop lenses. Keep in mind that filter threads themselves add thickness to the vignetting problem. Killing those off would help.

Less Exciting but also Less Whack Idea:

• The lens company would design a WA lens with a flat front element and no front filter threads or make them removable somehow. This eliminates thickness add #1 -- the filter ring. (Admittedly, lens cap just got problematic.)
• The filter company would then use the lens's hood mount (outside of the lens on the barrel, possibly specially designed for this) as the basis to snap on an outrigger a la Lee Foundation that is ever-so-close to flush with the front element. This eliminates thickness add #2 -- the basic hardware to mount the filters.
• The final step would be wide as hell filters to support 15-16mm FF focal length needs without vignetting. They might be monstrously big, but it's do-able, right?

- A

I think the market will always demand the single screw-in filter, i.e. UV and even CPLs. for rectilinear lenses. I wonder if there are mechanical limitations using to the lens hood mount though - it was never intended to support any kind of weight and the last thing you want is breaking bayonet tabs. you would have to supplement with some secondary holding/fastening system, but that sounds doable.

but I must be missing something here -- if the lens mfg can design the front to accept a screw in filter without vignetting, then Lee can make an adapter to accommodate a new, larger, foundation kit and a larger filter set. However, as you rightly point out, the filter sizes and foundation system required to stack three things in front of a 16mm would be vast, however, and may approach the mechanical limits of the screw mount.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

nice analysis A. I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world. Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm

One might argue lens and filter manufacturers should team up in certain focal lengths and co-develop lenses. Keep in mind that filter threads themselves add thickness to the vignetting problem. Killing those off would help.

Less Exciting but also Less Whack Idea:

• The lens company would design a WA lens with a flat front element and no front filter threads or make them removable somehow. This eliminates thickness add #1 -- the filter ring. (Admittedly, lens cap just got problematic.)
• The filter company would then use the lens's hood mount (outside of the lens on the barrel, possibly specially designed for this) as the basis to snap on an outrigger a la Lee Foundation that is ever-so-close to flush with the front element. This eliminates thickness add #2 -- the basic hardware to mount the filters.
• The final step would be wide as hell filters to support 15-16mm FF focal length needs without vignetting. They might be monstrously big, but it's do-able, right?

- A

I think the market will always demand the single screw-in filter, i.e. UV and even CPLs. for rectilinear lenses. I wonder if there are mechanical limitations using to the lens hood mount though - it was never intended to support any kind of weight and the last thing you want is breaking bayonet tabs. you would have to supplement with some secondary holding/fastening system, but that sounds doable.

but I must be missing something here -- if the lens mfg can design the front to accept a screw in filter without vignetting, then Lee can make an adapter to accommodate a new, larger, foundation kit and a larger filter set. However, as you rightly point out, the filter sizes and foundation system required to stack three things in front of a 16mm would be vast, however, and may approach the mechanical limits of the screw mount.

You are 100% dead on. You could just as easily have replaced my three bullet point idea with:

• Do something unnecessary.
• Do something unnecessary.
• Lee solves the problem with epically large hardware.

The first two ideas I offered were just make the nasty magic wand / deus ex machina solution of 'a company solving it' less big than it might have to be. For instance, I haven't done the trig, but the first two bullet points might keep filters down to 6" wide, but not doing those two things might require 8" filters.

- A

 

[Skirball]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

While the new "L" lens seems to be getting all the love here, it's worth taking a look at the MTF chart for the 10-18 STM.

Compare to the 16-35 "L" f2.8

Others understand this stuff a lot better than I do, but this seems pretty good for a lens that retails at $300.

It appears this lens may rival the 55-250 EF-S for best bargain lens in Canon's lineup.

Why compare it to the 16-35? It should be compared to the 10-22. I'm sure there are some that want IS, and others that are bargain hunters that will go for the cheaper lens, but unless this thing is markedly sharper than the 10-22 I'd expect it to remain a big seller.

 

[Skirball]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

My 50mm f/1.8 has IQ equal to the 70-200II at f/8. So what? How about at f/5.6 or f/4? That's different totally.

You still lose some edges and most importantly, you can't see your composition while you compose. It doesn't work for me but if it works for you, good for you. I won't buy a fish eye anytime soon.

I meant at f/2.8. And I certainly can see my composition while I compose. It's in the viewfinder.

Great work! These four images and the accompanying explanation completely rationalize the statement "no one asked for the 16-35 f/4 IS".
Look at the number of people within this forum itself who have countered your statement. That is a testament to how many did ask for it.

Show me. I saw lots of people looking for a 14-24/2.8. I didn't see anyone looking for a 16-35 or a 10-18.

As someone who has had the misfortune of going through the last 11 pages in a single sitting, I can confirm that there are many people in the previous pages that said that they are looking for a new 16-35. And as someone who has been looking for one myself and thus has been searching through old threads, the CR community in general has been looking for a new one for some time.

I don't care about IS, and I don't care about f/4 vs f/2.8, for my uses. I just want a Canon EF UWA with reasonably sharp corners at f/4. If this proves to be a step up from the 16-35 and 17-40, at this price point, I will be a very happy man.

 

[Khalai]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

While the new "L" lens seems to be getting all the love here, it's worth taking a look at the MTF chart for the 10-18 STM.

Compare to the 16-35 "L" f2.8

Others understand this stuff a lot better than I do, but this seems pretty good for a lens that retails at $300.

It appears this lens may rival the 55-250 EF-S for best bargain lens in Canon's lineup.

Why compare it to the 16-35? It should be compared to the 10-22. I'm sure there are some that want IS, and others that are bargain hunters that will go for the cheaper lens, but unless this thing is markedly sharper than the 10-22 I'd expect it to remain a big seller.

EF-S10-18 seems to have a slighty better corner sharpness and better corner contrast on the wide end, according to MTF tables.

 

[jeffa4444]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Reviewing further US and UK pricing and allowing for taxes the 16-35mm f2.8L II and the EF17-40mm f4L are comparable to US pricing (slightly more expensive). The 16-35 f4L however represents a 21% premium over US pricing in the UK clearly Canon Europe are extracting as much as they can out of early adopters. I will wait until the price comes down.

 

[Khalai]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Reviewing further US and UK pricing and allowing for taxes the 16-35mm f2.8L II and the EF17-40mm f4L are comparable to US pricing (slightly more expensive). The 16-35 f4L however represents a 21% premium over US pricing in the UK clearly Canon Europe are extracting as much as they can out of early adopters. I will wait until the price comes down.

Converted from my currency (CZK) to USD, estimated price is 1375 incl. VAT Still, that places it 275 above 17-40/4L and 475 under 16-35/2.8L II, which according MTF and other specs still sounds like awesome deal compared to 16-35/2.8L II...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

My 50mm f/1.8 has IQ equal to the 70-200II at f/8. So what? How about at f/5.6 or f/4? That's different totally.

You still lose some edges and most importantly, you can't see your composition while you compose. It doesn't work for me but if it works for you, good for you. I won't buy a fish eye anytime soon.

I meant at f/2.8. And I certainly can see my composition while I compose. It's in the viewfinder.

Great work! These four images and the accompanying explanation completely rationalize the statement "no one asked for the 16-35 f/4 IS".
Look at the number of people within this forum itself who have countered your statement. That is a testament to how many did ask for it.

Show me. I saw lots of people looking for a 14-24/2.8. I didn't see anyone looking for a 16-35 or a 10-18.

Come on, just search the forums. People were complaining about 16-35 and 17-40 corners and far edges for landscape work for years on FF. People were all over the place wanting a top corner to corner wide zoom, hopefully with IS. Why do you think there have been rumors about a 17-40 II or a 16-50 IS and so on for years too? Because people cared.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Just checked one of the main dealers in Ireland..Wait for it.....

Euro1399 yes thats $1920

In B&H
$1199 = Euro874

I could book a return flight to New York buy the lens and it would be cheaper. Outragous!

In the same shop the 16-35 2.8 is 100 euros more than the f4 version.

Maybe Canon gets kickbacks from the NYC tourism department. ;D

Anyway, yikes, sorry for that pricing. :'(

(although do keep in mind that the euro price include all taxes (??) and the B&H one fails to include the tax and that you have heavier tax but more services so it's a little hard to straight up compare, it still probably comes out a bit worse for you though)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Make sure that you understand sales tax in the USA.

In New York City, buying the 16-35/f4L IS over the counter will cost you over $1300.

Except...you can't buy one today, since the lens is only available for preorder. So, you'd need to have it shipped to your location later, and unless that location is in New York or New Jersey, B&H/Adorama won't charge you sales tax on it (although you're likely responsible for paying sales/use tax in your home state).

B&H doesn't charge direct sales to NJ. Only Adorama does.

 

[Slyham]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Can someone help me out. Why would I buy the new 10-18 and not the existing 10-22?

What might be the difference in iq?
I can only think I'd use it for landscapes (probably using a tripod, though even without I don't find too little light unless it's way before dawn or if I have a nd filter, in which case I doubt IS would be enough.). I find photomerge works pretty well with a 35mm (and is pretty hopeless at 18mm (my existing widest), and I can't imagine ever taking a picture which included people at less than 18mm due to the distortion.

Why would you buy the 10-18 over the 10-22 (listed in order of the most to least important reasons):

• Cheaper, and considerably so.
• IS for stills. Very useful for low light handheld situations with non-moving subject, indoor without a flash, etc.
• IS and STM for video. Less shake, quieter focusing, etc.
• Newer + shorter zoom range might give it a chance to be sharper, but I haven't looked at the MTF charts.
• Lighter and shorter -- more likely to go with you in your bag.
• If you have neither lens' diameter filter already and have to buy, a smaller filter diameter will be cheaper.
• Less total EF-S money invested if you ever move to a FF body.

Why would you buy the 10-22 over the 10-18 (listed in order of the most to least important reasons):

• Faster max aperture -- better for moving subjects when light is challenging. (I'd say the normal adage of 'faster lens = better bokeh' is not a real consideration for this FL unless you like to shoot cows' noses from comically short distances.)
• USM focusing speed obliterates STM focusing speed -- vital if your targets are people, animals, sports, etc.
• Undoubtedly a better build quality -- that EF-S 10-22 is 'high end for APS-C' build like the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS. It's not a tank-like L lens, but it's well assembled and solid feeling.
• If you have neither lens' diameter filter already and have to buy, 77mm filter thread is far more common for nicer lenses you might buy someday, esp if you ever migrate to FF. Your 'going to use that diameter again' likelihood is a 99% certainty with 77mm.
• The 10-22 internally zooms (i.e. doesn't change length while zooming), which is a nice feature -- less moving surfaces to let dirt/sand/junk into the lens, it won't suddenly open up and change length in your bag, it would likely be a more rigid/stable construct in the wind, etc.
• Slightly more reach on the long end -- the 10-22 was made to the be APS-C equivalent of the 16-35. In my hands, when I owned the 10-22, I used the 22 end quite a bit as serviceable walkaround FL option. (The 10-18 might make you feel a bit limited in that regard, but it depends on what's in your bag -- there's a really good chance if you get the 10-18, there is a 15-, 17-, 18-something lens also in there, I'd guess.

And if you really want to get nerdy and compare, ask Mr. Carnathan:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=950&LensComp=271&Units=E

- A

+1

I have been saving for the 10-22 but unless the 10-18 is not nearly as sharp I will be getting the 10-18. Main reason is cost. It is less than half the cost and I already have a 67mm CP filter. IS and STM are an added bonus, but it all comes down to cost for the budget photographer.

 

[dlleno]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

ok I'm tired of seeing arguments about how no one asked for a lens that several of us want and a few have already ordered.

I'm more interested in this topic:

You are 100% dead on. You could just as easily have replaced my three bullet point idea with:

• Do something unnecessary.
• Do something unnecessary.
• Lee solves the problem with epically large hardware.

The first two ideas I offered were just make the nasty magic wand / deus ex machina solution of 'a company solving it' less big than it might have to be. For instance, I haven't done the trig, but the first two bullet points might keep filters down to 6" wide, but not doing those two things might require 8" filters.

- A

You are spot on. I just ran first order approximation, using a 98 degree horizontal viewing angle and assuming that 77mm diameter threads occur right at the viewing angle boundary. In order to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle at 2 inches beyond this point, the filter surface would have to be 193mm wide. Add margin to that and you are right at 8" just to place something two inches beyond the lens -- and lenses that have 82mm fronts are even worse. I doubt that is going to happen though-- it is 4x the filter surface area and probably 10x the cost.

This isn't too hard to visualize though. if our filter is only 100mm and the front diameter is already 77mm (or 82mm), then you can see that the 100mm filter will have to be placed very close to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle.

using a 150mm instead of a 100mm filter would buy us some, but again the cost...