Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Dec 2008 (Wednesday) 03:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why isnt there an UWA prime for crops?

 
fr0natz
Member
216 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Oklahoma the 918
     
Dec 24, 2008 03:48 |  #1

Anyone else thought of that? they have the 14 f2.8 L for full frames. What about some sort of 10mm prime for a crop body? Id gladly buy one being in the 3-400 budget range.

What about you guys?


40D, XT
Promaster (tamron) 17-50F2.8
Canon 70-200F4 L, 50 f1.8 nifty
430ex

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PaulB
Goldmember
1,543 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Leeds, Yorkshire
     
Dec 24, 2008 03:57 |  #2

Would cost much more than you seem prepared to pay and Canon have covered that lens with the 10-22mm - OK it's a zoom but that is the market sector it's aimed at.
The majority of crop users wouldn't pay for the lens you wish for, you are in a minority and it's not economic for Canon to cater for you.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fr0natz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
216 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Oklahoma the 918
     
Dec 24, 2008 04:05 |  #3

I dont agree. What about the 50 f1.4, 85 1.8, the "normal" primes and all?
Unless Im missing something that an ultra wide costs significantly more to manufactur then i think it wouldnt be a problem.

Id much rather pay for a dedicated prime being cheaper and probably equally as sharp as their 10-22. Who pays for a wide angle to use it on the long end anyway? If that were the case I would think the 11-16 wouldnt be quite as popular as it is.


40D, XT
Promaster (tamron) 17-50F2.8
Canon 70-200F4 L, 50 f1.8 nifty
430ex

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrfourcows
Goldmember
Avatar
2,108 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: london
     
Dec 24, 2008 04:07 as a reply to  @ PaulB's post |  #4

why get a prime when there are so many aps-c designed ultrawide zooms in the market - canon 10-22, sigma 10-20, tamron 10-24, tokina 12-24, tokina 11-16, tokina 10-17 fisheye.


gear | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrfourcows
Goldmember
Avatar
2,108 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: london
     
Dec 24, 2008 04:08 as a reply to  @ mrfourcows's post |  #5

oh yeah, then there are the sigma 4.5mm and 10mm fisheyes.


gear | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Dec 24, 2008 06:35 |  #6

fr0natz wrote in post #6937465 (external link)
Anyone else thought of that? they have the 14 f2.8 L for full frames. What about some sort of 10mm prime for a crop body? Id gladly buy one being in the 3-400 budget range.

What about you guys?

Why would you want it as a prime?

For one thing the AOV of the 14L on a 1.6X body would need a 9mm lens, not 10mm for 1.6X, and IMO this difference (14mm vs. 16mm) on FF is about the only reason to get the 14L.

The EF-S 10-22 is an excellent lens, and I'm skeptical that a 10mm prime would do much for the average 1.6X shooter beyond taking away the 11 to 22 mm range. An 8 or 9mm prime with low distortion might be nice, but I think your price range is not likely to deliver a lens that is going to make people happy. Note the $800 plus pricing of the Sigma DC only UWA primes. Canon branded ones would cost more than Sigma as a rule.

The 14L is a niche lens for the well heeled. It seems to me (and Canon apparently) that the few people that really need this range can just pick up a 5D and a 14L.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TaDa
...as cool as Perry
Avatar
6,742 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: New York
     
Dec 24, 2008 06:40 |  #7

Get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It's like 6 primes in one lens.


Name is Peter and here is my gear:
Canon 5D II, Canon 7D, Canon 40D
Glass - Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 40 f/2.8 STM, Canon 24-70 f/2.8
L, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 500 f/4L IS
Speedlite 580ex II, 430ex - Gitzo GT-3541XLS w/ Arca B1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Webber
Goldmember
3,186 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Corralejo, Fuerteventura....Canary Islands Spain
     
Dec 24, 2008 06:40 |  #8

JeffreyG wrote in post #6937791 (external link)
Why would you want it as a prime?

For one thing the AOV of the 14L on a 1.6X body would need a 9mm lens, not 10mm for 1.6X, and IMO this difference (14mm vs. 16mm) on FF is about the only reason to get the 14L.

The EF-S 10-22 is an excellent lens, and I'm skeptical that a 10mm prime would do much for the average 1.6X shooter beyond taking away the 11 to 22 mm range. An 8 or 9mm prime with low distortion might be nice, but I think your price range is not likely to deliver a lens that is going to make people happy. Note the $800 plus pricing of the Sigma DC only UWA primes. Canon branded ones would cost more than Sigma as a rule.

The 14L is a niche lens for the well heeled. It seems to me (and Canon apparently) that the few people that really need this range can just pick up a 5D and a 14L.

Stick with the 10-22, and you most likely will use it up to the end of the zoom...22mm


Canon 7D, 40D,100-400 IS L, EFS 15-85 IS, EFS 10-22-With Faulty USM, 055XPROB+488RC2, 430 & 580 II Flash, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8-:cool:
Photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PaulB
Goldmember
1,543 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Leeds, Yorkshire
     
Dec 24, 2008 14:31 |  #9

fr0natz wrote in post #6937495 (external link)
I dont agree. What about the 50 f1.4, 85 1.8, the "normal" primes and all?
Unless Im missing something that an ultra wide costs significantly more to manufactur then i think it wouldnt be a problem.

Id much rather pay for a dedicated prime being cheaper and probably equally as sharp as their 10-22. Who pays for a wide angle to use it on the long end anyway? If that were the case I would think the 11-16 wouldnt be quite as popular as it is.

The simple fact is that it would not be cheaper to manufacture; you'd expect a wider aperture than the zoom, cost goes up, an EF-S lens means it can't be used on a 1.3x or FF body, so there goes another slice of the market.
As I said it's not economic. Look at all the other posts which seem to agree.............buy the 10-22mm and just use it at 10mm.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
psykon99
Senior Member
258 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland, IL
     
Dec 24, 2008 14:43 |  #10

I'd actually like to have a 14mm consumer prime as opposed to the L (too much $$$$). That would make it a 22.4mm on APS-C. Close to the 24mm primes on full frame. Heck, I'd gladly walk around the woods and outdoors with just that lens.


Main Gear - Cameras: 40D, 450D, G10 Lenses: Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, Canon 70-200L f/4 IS USM, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8
FOR SALE:XTi, grip, spare battery, kit lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sgamuk
Senior Member
Avatar
410 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
Dec 24, 2008 17:08 |  #11

Or buy a FF and the 14L...


5D mk1 + Grip | 24-105L | 85L II | 135L | 70-200L mk2 | Kenko 1.4X TC | 580EX II

"Imagination is more important than knowledge..."--Albert Einstein

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Markitos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,615 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Durham, NC
     
Dec 24, 2008 17:12 |  #12

fr0natz wrote in post #6937495 (external link)
I dont agree. What about the 50 f1.4, 85 1.8, the "normal" primes and all?
Unless Im missing something that an ultra wide costs significantly more to manufactur then i think it wouldnt be a problem.

Id much rather pay for a dedicated prime being cheaper and probably equally as sharp as their 10-22. Who pays for a wide angle to use it on the long end anyway? If that were the case I would think the 11-16 wouldnt be quite as popular as it is.

All of the normal primes you mention are EF lenses, which work on FF cameras... generally the wider you get, the more expensive the lens. the 14L that others have mentioned is Canon's widest prime, and it's close to $2k... and it's only f/2.8, not nearly as fast as other wide primes. Don't know where you got the idea that it would be cheaper....


|Fuji X-E2|Fuji X-E1|Fuji 18 f/2|Fuji 35 f/1.4|Fuji 60 f/2.4 macro|Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4|Fuji 55-200 f/3.5-4.8

http://www.newschoolof​photography.com/forum/ (external link)Where I Hone My Skillz (external link)
Where My "Serious" Stuff Is (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Dec 24, 2008 18:56 |  #13

I see a market for such a lens, say an EF-S 8mm/2.8, and I don't accept that it need be horribly expensive. The image circle only needs to cover the APS-C sensor so the huge cost of making the field flat across the FF size is not there. It needn't be USM since DoF is so deep at that focal length that a fast/accurate AF is hardly a necessity. It could even be f/4 as it would mostly be used by landscape shooters, and so probably be tripod mounted and stopped down anyway. Give it a plastic mount like the 18-55 IS or 55-250 IS too. I can see it weighing in at under $400 easily.

I wouldn't buy one though, but WA isn't my thing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
p32shooter
Senior Member
713 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2007
     
Dec 24, 2008 19:00 |  #14

peleng 8mm - manual but is 12.8mm on crop canon


wants for Ls :D , now have 400do;500f4is,600f4 :cool::cool: off to birding and airshows:):):)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Dec 24, 2008 19:02 |  #15

fr0natz wrote in post #6937465 (external link)
Anyone else thought of that? they have the 14 f2.8 L for full frames. What about some sort of 10mm prime for a crop body? Id gladly buy one being in the 3-400 budget range.

What about you guys?

Well, a bit outside of the $400 range, but here it is.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,726 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why isnt there an UWA prime for crops?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Vicious Cicle
1026 guests, 303 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.