waiting for an ultrawide prime...

[anish]

with all the ultrawide zooms coming out these days, how come nobody

is making fixed ultrawide lenses? it seems, for example, that 24mm

primes are very popular among film shooters (it's my main lens), so

with so many photographers going digital, wouldn't they want

equivalent coverage, without having to settle for the drawbacks of

zooms (optical, bulk, weight...)? i want to go digital, but i am

holding back because the lens i want does not exist (a 15mm or 16mm,

relatively lightweight, fixed lens for about $600 or less). maybe

i'm just dreaming? does anyone know of a reason why manufacturers

have not made such a lens? I'd love to hear what people think...

 

-Anish

[peter_white2]

To be lightweight, a lens of that focal length would have to have a very small maximum aperture, unless it was designed with lots of light falloff at the corners. You wouldn't want to shoot with it.

[awindsor]

Canon have not updated their range of wideangle primes in years. My guess is that their is simply isn't the demand (Yakim needs to try harder). Canon does update their long primes but then these have a huge market in wildlife photographers and sports journalists (and you can guess which one of these is more important).

 

I photograph in some dim (I use 3200 ISO and a 50 1.8 almost wide open) jazz joints appreciate the speed of the primes. Canon's best offering here is the 20mm 2.8 which is around $400 and gives a rough equivalent of a 35mm lens.

 

I use the 17-40/4L for most of my shooting but mostly it is stopped down and sitting on a tripod.

[shambrick007]

"does anyone know of a reason why manufacturers have not made such a lens?"<p> Too small of a market.<p> I used to be a prime-lens-er (still am w/rangefinder & medium format), but got tired of changing lenses with digi/35mm, so I just got some Canon-L zooms and called it a day.

[coconutdaydream]

you just mentioned the Canon 15mm which DOES exist<br>its also under/around $600, depending where you look

[bobatkins]

I belive you are dreaming. The average consumer (which is who buys most APS-C DSLRs) may not even know what a prime lens is, let alone actually want one. Demand would be low and it probably wouldn't sell enough to make it worthwhile making one.

 

The Canon 15mm is a fisheye, so that doesn't count. However you can get Sigma ($900) or Tamron ($1000) 14mm rectilinear lenses or a Canon for $1800

 

There are a couple of 17mm primes available - Tokina has a 17/3.5 autofocus in an EOS mont for $390. That's 27mm in full frame terms. It's only 1mm longer than your 16mm request.

 

I have a Vivitar 19/3.8 in a Pentax screw mount that I use on EOS bodies. It's equivalent to a 30mm full frame.

 

Of course you may just be better off getting a 10/11/12 - 18/20/22/24 zoom for under $600.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The Canon 15 is a fisheye. You can <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/fisheye/">de-fish it digitally</a>, though that's not a perfect solution, so it may not fit what the original poster wants.</p>

 

<p>Well, you said you wanted to hear what people think, so here's my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it :-) I doubt there's much of a market for ultrawide primes for cropped-sensor consumer DSLRs.</p>

 

<p>Pros using Canon gear would typically use a 1D-family body (i.e. 1.3x or full-frame), so they're not as concerned with the cropping factor as we 1.6x shooters are. Plus, one of the major markets for wide lenses for pros (but certainly not the only market) is photojournalism, where zooms rule the roost because of the need for quick focal length changes. You also comment on bulk and weight, which are certainly valid points, but if you look at what equipment the pros carry around, it's clear that a pro will carry whatever equipment is necessary to do the job, even if it's big and heavy (and costs a lot).</p>

 

<p>I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of folks using Canon's consumer DSLRs have exactly one lens: whatever kit zoom came with the body. The same is probably true of the majority of folks using Canon's consumer 35mm SLRs, too, and if they have a second lens, it's likely to be a 75-300, not a 24/2.8. Those of us with fast primes and/or a collection of lenses are in the minority.</p>

 

<p>Now, when you throw in non-Canon DSLRs, which typically don't offer larger sensor sizes for pros and well-heeled consumers, there could be a market for ultrawide primes. If the third parties jump in, Canon users could benefit as well. But I still think the market is rather small, and might not offer enough sales to be worth it.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

I wouldn't buy one as I've never cared much for the huge field of view. It's just too difficult

to compose a graphically effective image. 35mm is my fav wide.

[dogbert]

I am not sure what advatagne a prime would have over a zoom at this focal length. The extra speed of a prime is not going to be that useful. Decent bokeh is impossible at 16 mm and handholdability of an f4 zoom lens at 16 mm nearly matches that of an f2.8 at 24 mm. Also as wide angles' main uses are often landscapes, you would want to stop it down most of the time by which time it would look much the same as a decent zoom.

 

Finally lack of economies of scale in manaufacturing would probably mean it would be as if not more expensive that a zoom of equivalent optical quality.

[mendonphoto]

"I am not sure what advatagne a prime would have over a zoom at this focal length."

 

Reduced flare. Ultrawides angles seem to attract the sun to the frame. :)

 

I'd love one, but it would have to cost a LOT less than $600. Other than cutting down flare, optics wouldn't have to be great for me since for landscapes I usually stop down to f/11 or smaller. If I could find a 12mm or 14mm f/4.0 for less than $300, I wouldn't think twice - even if it wasn't that great. As it is, though, I'm probably going to have to shell out $600 for the Tamron 11-18mm. :(

[anish]

Thank you all for the feedback. This has been very helpful. The Tokina 17mm is one I'll have to look into, but other than that, i'm not going to hold me breath for my "dream lens".

Now i do realize that, stopped down, many zooms nowadays can match primes in sharpness. that is all good. What bothers me is the distortion. many of the reviews i've read (and corresponding sample images i've seen) indicate that even some of the better zooms show a fair amount of distortion at the widest end, which is where most of my shooting will happen. In this regard, ultrawides such as the Canon 10-22 looks appealing, since my target area, 15mm, is right in the middle of the zoom range of this lens, and supposedly, it is fairly distortion free at that range.

Anybody know of any other zooms that are sharp and relatively distortion free at about 15mm?

Thanks again for all the feedback...

-Anish

[bobatkins]

Distortion is a non-issue as long as it's simple. You can very easily correct barrel (and/or pincushion) distortion in software.

 

If the distortion is complex (lines at the edge wavey instead of just bowed in or out) it's a little more tricky but it can still be done.

 

If you were shooting slides it would be a different matter, but if you're shooting digital files you can correct a lot of lens "sins" with a mouse click or two.

[anish]

I've heard of correcting distortion digitally. Is there special software for this, or is there a simple PS trick?

-Anish

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

CS2 has it built in, I personally like using PTLENS which is a free plug in to PS and works very well. DXO labs have a comlicated and expensive solution which apparently only works on jpgs.

[bobatkins]

It's also in Paint Shop Pro and Picture Window Pro, and probably a bunch of other image editors.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>A while back (several months, maybe a year or two), someone posted a cheap'n'easy way to fix barrel/pincushion distortion in PS. I don't recall the exact details, nor do I know how well it works, but basically, you enlarge your canvas (a lot) then use the Spherize filter to apply distortion which should (approximately) cancel out barrel or pincushion distortion.</p>

[mark_ryan2]

Are wide prime lenses ones with focal lengths of 1mm, 3mm, 5mm, 7mm, 11mm, 13mm, 17nn , and 19mm?

 

Just kidding.

 

I personally see a place for a 12 or 14mm F/2.8 in an EF-s mount. Preferably F2.0, but I don't want to break the laws of physics. Now a market may be another thing.

 

Frankly, I'm not that worried about sharpness in the corners at the wide apps, depth of field may not allow them to be in focus anyway. As long as they are sharp when you stop down to f5.6-8.

[digitmstr]

I don't have a need for a ultra-wide prime (though I have and love the Canon EF 15mm). However, the 16-35 f/2.8L zoom is a great lens and one which is more useful (IMO) since it covers more options than a prime. THe 14mm is also a great lens. I have rented it a few times for my film cameras (a while back) and all the slides looked great. I wouldn't buy it though...as I don't use that focal length very often.

[niels_de_boissezon1]

If you haven't invested in a DSLR yet the Pentax system might be the right one for you as they have a 14/2,8 DA prime and a 16-45/4 DA zoom and both are reasonably priced.

 

Of course there's always the full-frame primes such as the Canon 14 or Sigma 14.

[mark_sala1]

I have the 24mm f/2.8. It was my favourite lens on film and I love it on the 20D. I just wish Canon would make an EF-S 15mm f/2.8 (or f/2 but then I'd be asking too much). Why are wide angle buffs such a rare breed?

[anish]

i don't know, mark, but it's frustrating.

 

the pentax system looks pretty good actually, but that would mean dumping all my canon lenses. i don't know if i'm ready for a drastic move like that.

 

-Anish

[bobatkins]

The Pentax 14/2.8 DA is $800 (discount). Given you can buy a Sigma 14/2.8 Aspherical (with full frame coverage too) for $900, I don't see any huge advantge of Pentax in that regard.

 

With the Sigma you actually get a 14mm lens with full frame coverage if you are a wide angle addict and for about $150 you can add a very nice used EOS film body to your lineup. Nobody has yet made an APS-C coverage lens that wide. The best you can do is a 10-something zoom, which gives you a 16mm equaivalent for Canon (15mm for Nikon).

 

I'm still waiting for these cheap, small, light APS-C lenses everyone was so strongly pushing as the advantage of small sensors. So far they seem to be very similar in size and weight to normal 35mm lens and about twice as expensive or more. Somehow I doubt you're ever going to see the equivalent of the $70 50/1.8 lens in APS-C format (31mm f1.8 for $70). Sigma's 30/1.4 seems to be going to sell for around $400.

[mark_ryan2]

Sigma bringing out the 30/1.4 gives me hope that they might bring out a wide prime. To me the allure of a normal (50mm on 35mm film) lens was the low price (ala 50/1.8). I never have liked the perspective, not long enough, not wide enough. The 30 aint that cheap, so I'm not sure how many they'll sell.

 

Seems to me Sigma could take their current 14mm and tweak it to cover the APS-c sensor better, or they could tweak it to make a 12, maybe 10mm lens. Add HSM and charge under $500 for it.

 

I just got a 17-40 and I like it on my 20D, but LOVE it on my EOS630.

 

Just when I stopped developing film, they sucked me back in!

 

Somebody comes out with a 10mm prime for under $500, I'm in.

[tomas_telensky]

dSLR is still a baby... when the full frame sensor will be a standard, then it will be little better ;-) I will develop film at least until that...

 

Bob! "... If you were shooting slides it would be a different matter, but if you're shooting digital files you can correct a lot of lens "sins" with a mouse click or two...."

 

I find this one of the biggest digital myth.

 

This worsens the resolution a lot! Just try to get a tack sharp image and rotate it 5 degrees (e.g. for leveling the horizon). The not-good-enough (at least for me) resolution of 6-8M dSLR will be even worse!