Why is there no "L" =< 10mm?

[gonzophoto]

I really want something in this focal length with the 1.6x crop but Looking at the images from the 10-22 the lens is a tad soft. It would be nice to get a 2.8 L in this range.

Keep wishing? Or wait patiently?

[august23]

16-35

[Wilt]

Keep waiting...Canon says it designated 'L' to no lens with EFS coverage, and an L 10mm with FF coverage is unlikely.

[Buggbairn]

I once did a test of IQ with my EF-S 10-22mm V's my 17-40L and there was very little difference between them, some members actually prefered the non L image.

Perhaps your 10-22mm needs looked at ?

[gonzophoto]

Originally Posted by Buggbairn

I once did a test of IQ with my EF-S 10-22mm V's my 17-40L and there was very little difference between them, some members actually prefered the non L image.

Perhaps your 10-22mm needs looked at ?

I don't own a 10-22

If there was a 2.8 professional build I would own one.

[august23]

Closest you'll get to that wide is the 14mm L. And that is a rediculously overpriced lens.

[Hawg Hanner]

Originally Posted by gonzophoto

I don't own a 10-22.

Then how do you know it is a tad soft?

Most experienced Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM users believe this lens rivals the resolution and sharpness of L-quality lenses. Don't knock it 'til you try it. I doubt seriously a 10mm prime is in Canon's future. The 14mm L is pricey enough. Your other option is to get a camera with a full-frame sensor, which has many more wide angle lens options.

[cjm]

10mm is a fisheye. The efs 10-22 is also partly a fish eye but it is framed/cropped inside the lens for crop cameras just past the fishy part and ground down just enough to give mostly the appearance of a normal lens. But it is in no way anything like a 24-70L or any other normal zoom lens. Ever notice how the crop UWA lenses look so completely different then all other lenses?

The widest you can get for FF is the 14mm L and that is all you will ever be able to get. And few people buy the 14mm because the 16-35 is a better deal.

[Don Powell]

I too am wondering how you can say that the 10-22 is a tad soft. It is a different lens, so it is not as easy to do a side to side comparison, unless you compare it with the same focal length. My lens is very sharp, and I would say it is comparable to my L lenses.
Best wishes. Don

[cjm]

Originally Posted by Hawg Hanner

Then how do you know it is a tad soft?

Most experienced Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM users believe this lens rivals the resolution and sharpness of L-quality lenses. Don't knock it 'til you try it. I doubt seriously a 10mm prime is in Canon's future.

Amen to that! I completely agree. At first I thought, bah this lens is soft, then I gave it a chance and wow what a lens. Close enough to L and not be one, in my mind. And the price of it is L price. Even the build is L, it just is not a L because it is not weather sealed and there will never be a efs L lens.

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by Hawg Hanner

Then how do you know it is a tad soft?

Most experienced Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM users believe this lens rivals the resolution and sharpness of L-quality lenses. Don't knock it 'til you try it. I doubt seriously a 10mm prime is in Canon's future. The 14mm L is pricey enough. Your other option is to get a camera with a full-frame sensor, which has many more wide angle lens options.

yowsa Hawg Hanner !

ed rader

[Buggbairn]

Side by side comparison of my 10-22mm & 17-40L

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=168826

There's nowt soft about the non L lens

[cwphoto]

HH, those snow shots are stunning.

[JaGWiRE]

Originally Posted by cwphoto

HH, those snow shots are stunning.

Ditto.

[tellingthm]

Originally Posted by JaGWiRE

Ditto.

i especially love that first one. great work.