Canon 11mm f/2 APS-C Patent

10mm f2 is going to make all the difference for you?

I would MUCH rather see the 15mm f1.4! I'd even settle for 15mm f2. 11mm is just crazy wide and I can't think what I would shoot at 11mm that needs f2. 15mm would give us a baby 24L for croppers, so I would be all over that.

tkbslc wrote in post #12162617
I'd even settle for 15mm f2. 11mm is just crazy wide and I can't think what I would shoot at 11mm that needs f2. 15mm would give us a baby 24L for croppers, so I would be all over that.

Definitely. 15/2 and a 22/2 would be fantastic. Update the 50/1.4 with ring USM and we'd have all the primes for crop.

If this is true I'd likely get it instead of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, assuming the image quality is there and the price isn't insane.

tkbslc wrote in post #12162617
10mm f2 is going to make all the difference for you?

I would MUCH rather see the 15mm f1.4! I'd even settle for 15mm f2. 11mm is just crazy wide and I can't think what I would shoot at 11mm that needs f2. 15mm would give us a baby 24L for croppers, so I would be all over that.

I just happen to like being able to multiple the FL by 1.6 and come up with a number w/o decimals.

YankeeHotelFoxtrot wrote in post #12163221
Definitely. 15/2 and a 22/2 would be fantastic. Update the 50/1.4 with ring USM and we'd have all the primes for crop.

A 21 or 22/2 would be intersting (kinda what makes the ZE 21 appealing).

I agree, but doesnt have the same effect on a crop...

Although 11- f/2 sounds great, would be lush for doing indoor haha

A lens like that would make me want to keep a crop-sensor body!

tkbslc wrote in post #12162617
10mm f2 is going to make all the difference for you?

I would MUCH rather see the 15mm f1.4! I'd even settle for 15mm f2. 11mm is just crazy wide and I can't think what I would shoot at 11mm that needs f2. 15mm would give us a baby 24L for croppers, so I would be all over that.

Creatively leaving things out of focus while maintaining the wide perspective?

I dunno, i do agree, a 24mm f/1.4 or f/2 equivalent would probubly be more practical, But I'll take ANY nice EF-S lens Canon gives me right about now

Poe wrote in post #12162602
I'd rather it be 10mm f/2 or 15mm f/1.4. I suspect it would come with an L price tag too without the L quality.

I think that would be the sad reality.

11mm APS-C = 17mm FF, so it is wide, but there are wider lenses out there... it would be a great wide prime for crop like the 14mm L for FF.

This would be the perfect lens for astrolandscapes on a crop body.

You'd be able to get the type of shots you need a full frame body for right now.

Id buy it without a doubt, would go nicely with a 24L and 85 1.4

KenjiS wrote in post #12160619
Look at Nikon's 35mm f/1.8, which is a runaway hit, with a lot of Nikon shooters picking the thing up since its ONLY a $200 lens...

I see your point, but i also think its a little market segment Canon needs a presence in

The reason why that lens is such a hit in the Nikon system (I owned one) is because it's the ONLY lens that will autofocus on their low level bodies. The older full-frame Nikkor 35mm f/2D uses the screwdriver AF system that isn't compatible with those. And their new 35/1.4G is like $1800.

I don't think Canon will come out with a lens like this because yes, they already have a whole lot of other good options. TBH, 35mm is just a tad too long for a "normal" lens on a Canon APS-C. 28mm is closer to a true normal. Sigma has their 30/1.4 so there's no sense in coming out with a lens that would compete right on top of that one, and they already have two 28mm lenses which I'm guessing work perfectly fine. The 28/2.8 is pretty cheap, and also a whole lot smaller and lighter than a 2.8 zoom.

Back to this 11mm f/2 APS-C lens. Personally I think it'd be a KILLER lens for the format. One of the things you just can't do with APS-C ultra-wide angle thin depth of field photography because the lenses (like this one) just don't exist for it. It's far easier to do on full frame with a 28/1.8 or a fast (f/2) 20mm lens, but pretty much impossible on APS-C. You just can't get the same photos. It's not just the wideness and the speed, but also the typically better close focus capabilities of primes vs most zooms. If it could focus down to 20cm as well like the Nikon and Canon 14mm f/2.8 full-frame primes, it'd be awesome. I owned the Nikon 14/2.8 and you could get photos with that lens that you couldn't get with any of the zooms simply because the minimum focus was so much closer. Allows you to get some really unique photos. Lost a bit of its magic on a crop body, but that's what one of these puppies would be for.

As I recall, Nikon had a patent out a few years ago for something similar. I think it was a 9mm f/2.8 DX (APS-C) lens. I doubt that one or this EF-S 11mm f/2 would ever be built though. Would be a very special purpose and low volume lens, probably pretty expensive per unit, and most APS-C shooters would probably be confused and not really understand the point of it. I think they'd be better off building that aforementioned EF-S 35/1.8 to match Nikon. Those that did understand the point of something like this would probably be willing to spend the money on a full-frame camera and buying one of the 20 or 28mm lenses that are already out that can do basically the same thing.

^- I dont get that, Canon doesnt make the Sigma, so they make no money from sales of it, Canon has every reason to look at how popular it is and go "Thats a lot of money we could be making instead of them" if Canon had a 30mm f/1.8 USM for $400 i bet you a lot of people would buy it over the Sigma or trade their Sigma off for it because its a Canon

I mean I'm just saying, the Sigma also has a bad rep in the community for being a little schizo focusing