12-24 or 10-22 2.8

[Headcase650]

With all the new ultra wide angle lenses hitting the market would it be wishfull thinking that someone would be comming out with a fast ultra wide zoom.

This would be a life saver for many people, you would only need 3 lenses. 12-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 pluss maybe a 1.4 converter for that extra reach.

I know it would lighten my bag.

Is an ultra wide fast zoom imposible to make, would it cost a fortune?

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 16-35mm f/2.8 does cost a fortune!

[12345Michael54321]

Is an ultra wide fast zoom imposible to make, would it cost a fortune?
It's possible to make.

It would cost much more than would a slower ultra wide zoom. (It would also be larger and heavier.)

Moreover, since ultra wide angle lenses (1) tend not to be frequently employed in situations where minimal depth of field is sought (due to ultra wides having enormous depth of field even at large apertures); and (2) can be handheld with sharp results at shutter speeds far slower than the minimum typically required for sharp handheld results from a telephoto lens; the rationale for creating fast ultra wides is somewhat limited.

This is not to suggest that there are no circumstances where it would be pleasant to have a 16mm f/1.4 lens. Just that - in general - there's less reason to work hard to create an excellent ultra wide lens of large maximum aperture, than there is to work hard to create an excellent long lens of large maximum aperture.

Consequently, it's somewhat unlikely that Canon will be coming out with an f/2.8 ultra wide angle zoom anytime soon.

I would point out that many of the difficulties in creating such a fast ultra wide are minimized, as the necessary coverage (ie. size of sensor) is reduced. So if such a lens were to be introduced, it would likely be limited to 1.6x crop factor DSLRs. (And this limits its appeal to users of expensive full-frame DSLRs, who would otherwise presumably constitute a rich potential market, given that the owner of a $6000 DSLR is somewhat more likely to purchase a $3000 fast ultra wide, than is the owner of a $600 Digital Rebel.)

Finally, while IS is not always a substitute for lens speed, it can sometimes serve as such. And the possibility of a wide angle zoom of moderate speed, but with IS capability (or incorporating some form of IS into the camera body, such that any lens may benefit from it) is by no means trivial.
--
Michael

[Andy_T]

Assuming that Michaels logic has pointed out the futility of waiting any longer for the 10-22/2.8 :wink:, you might find this review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml) interesting.

Especially the comparison to the Sigma 12-24 is interesting, but might be indicative of a bad Sigma lens tested.

Best regards,
Andy