Wider than the Canon 24 F1.4L, there are no lenses in the lineup faster than F2.8. Do others think there would be a market for a 16mm F2L or 18mm F2L prime lens? It would be a stop faster than a 16-35/2.8 which would be awesome for indoors shooting, night sky photography, photojournalism, etc. Would a lens as wide as 16 or 18mm at F2 be able to retain a 72mm or 77mm filter size?
What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
- Thread starter Loren E
- Start date
FYI:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/12/the-top-five-most-extreme-wide-angle-lenses-ever-built/
2.8 is fast enough for UWA - no point having a f/1.4 with tons of CA, coma effect and others, that would only be mild to tolerable above f/4..... sharp f3.5 with high iso is better than f2.0 images a lower iso I suppose.
I really don't know - maybe it's design/optical law restriction., and only can imagine either with huge front element (>95mm)
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/12/the-top-five-most-extreme-wide-angle-lenses-ever-built/
2.8 is fast enough for UWA - no point having a f/1.4 with tons of CA, coma effect and others, that would only be mild to tolerable above f/4..... sharp f3.5 with high iso is better than f2.0 images a lower iso I suppose.
I really don't know - maybe it's design/optical law restriction., and only can imagine either with huge front element (>95mm)
Upvote
0
Loren E said:
This has been on my wishlist for a while. Small light UWA prime. Fast, or with IS.
F/2 would be great but honestly at that focal length I'd be pretty happy with anything under f/4. I'd love to have a small prime option that goes in the bag easily. Right now if I want that FL I need my 16-35. I really don't need the zoom range as much as I need a size reduction. That's just me of course but I'd buy a fast 16mm or 18mm L.
Upvote
0
At the cost for a good lens, the market would be small. Since most (not all) wide lens usage is for landscapes, where f/16 is often used, it would be a waste. For real estate interiors, auto interiors, or in tight quarters, it might work, but having proper lighting would be better and cheaper than paying $5,000 for a lens, and then not having the depth of field needed for interior photos.
What kind of use would you have for it? A wide angle like that is not suitable for portraits.
What kind of use would you have for it? A wide angle like that is not suitable for portraits.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Concerts, night skies, photojournalism (poor light is common), all would be super suited to an F2 wide angle prime. For a lot of these examples, a flash is often not an option and you're stuck with what you got for light (+ shallow DOF is not a problem). It certainly wouldn't cost $5,000 either - that is a bit ridiculous of an exaggeration.
Upvote
0
NWPhil said:
Certainly an F1.4 wide angle would not be feasible with cost to produce and front element size, but an F2 16mm for example would be the same focal length as the 16-35 F2.8 version 1 at it's widest, not have all the glass associated with a zoom, and just 1 stop faster...seeing as the 16-35 F2.8 version 1 has a 77mm filter size, I wouldn't think that while losing the zooming but making it a stop faster, we would then be talking about a front element greater than 95mm. I don't know the calculations involved for knowing exactly so this is just based on what makes sense to me.
Upvote
0
Loren E said:
Perhaps I did not elaborate as to what I meant by a good lens. Check out the price of a Zeiss 15mm lens, its not f/2, but it costs $5,000. Wide angle lenses are very difficult to build, and that extra stop comes at a huge price. I use a Canon 135mm f/2 for concerts and theater, I do carry my 16-35L, but its far too wide for almost of my stuff. I don't do astronomy, but wouldn't coma be a issue on a lens at f/2?
Upvote
0
+1 I wished today for a 16mm f 2L lens (to tell the truth I wished also for a 14mm f1.4L too but pretend you didn't read that ;D )ahsanford said:
You see to day I was doing astrophotography with the 14mm 2.8L II and at the same time I tested my 16-35 f/4L IS. Wow! This zoom does not have coma (in contrast to my old 16-35 2.8L which has long gone!)
But it is an f/4 which is perfect for landscapes but not astrophotography. So for now,my 14mm 2.8L II remains as my most used lens for that purpose (even with a little coma).
Upvote
0
Nikon has a patent for a 10mm f/2
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/focal-length/patents-predict-nikkor.html
Canon has some unique lenses. A fast wide angle prime optimised for coma would be interesting. Something like a 24mm f/2 L "Astro"
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/focal-length/patents-predict-nikkor.html
Canon has some unique lenses. A fast wide angle prime optimised for coma would be interesting. Something like a 24mm f/2 L "Astro"
Upvote
0
surapon
80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
Loren E said:
Dear Loren E.
Our friend Mr. Dustin Abbot already post the review of Rokinon 14 mm. for FF Camera, After I red his great review, I buy this Lens too, and I love her so much.
http://dustinabbott.net/2013/10/rokinon-14mm-f2-8-wide-angle-review/
THANKSSSS, Dear Mr. Dustin.
http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE14M-C-Ultra-Canon-Black/dp/B003VSGQPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406078982&sr=8-1&keywords=14mm+rokinon
Enjoy.
Surapon
PS. The Attached Photos by Canon 1DS with Rokinon 14 mm.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
You can't base Canon lens prices on Zeiss lens prices. When does a Canon lens ever cost what it's Zeiss counterpart does? Canon's L 50 F1.2 costs $1,620 and the Zeiss 55 F1.4 otus costs $4,000. Yeah an extra stop is gonna cost more, but you have to be kidding to suggest that a 16mm or 18mm F2 L lens would cost $5,000. It's a Canon and not a Zeiss.
The 24 F1.4L is a super fast wide angle specialty lens and there is not a $3,000 surplus for the extra 2 stops compared to an F2.8.
I guess you don't get to shoot very close to the stage - when I shoot concerts I am either at the base of the stage or on the stage, and often use a fisheye lens at shows so the wider the better for some shots. With an F2.8 fisheye I struggle with shutter speeds though...F2.8 doesn't do it for dimly lit shows where I can't use flash even with an ultra wide angle. F2 would make a big difference (I've been a lot happier with F1.8 lenses, though even then I have to go to ISO 12,800. Thank god for the 5DmkIII. Point is every stop counts.
Upvote
0
candyman said:
A 20/2 would be heavy and probably need a bulbous front element like the 14/2.8. It would still struggle with selective focus, so I don't see the point now that modern full frame sensors are so capable.
The Zeiss 18/3.5 is a good guide to what can be achieved. If Canon were to announce an 18/4 IS with 82mm filters, I would pre-order immediately. That would be a perfect companion to the 24/2.8 IS, and plug the gap between 14 and 24 primes.
I have considered the TS-E 17, but would like filter options.
Upvote
0
Not yet for sale, Schneider has a 18mm Xenon FF Prime T2.4
It is a cine lens, but covers full frame... will cost a bit over $4000
It is a cine lens, but covers full frame... will cost a bit over $4000
Upvote
0
