I am curious, more precisely, why Canon does not produce wide angle lens f/2.8 L lens for small sensor camera. I am a newbie, but after getting my first L lens, a zoom 70-200, I wish there was one like that but wide-angle [U]
Anyone can explain why Canon does not make such lens?
The 17-55 2.8 is essentially an L series.
Oh true that!
It surpassed some L glass I have. That is one spec-ta-cu-lar lens in terms of quality. I still miss it.
I think the reason is that Canon thinks they can make more money with other lenses. They do a lot of market research, so they're probably right. I would love nothing more than an EF-S 15mm f/1.8 L for $1200, but I think I'm in the minority. Furthermore, there is a bit of disadvantage for 1.6X optical designs when it comes to wide angle or fast lenses, because the back focus distance was not scaled with the size of the sensor (sensor shrunk by 1.6X, back focus only shrunk 1.1X).
But now that Nikon released the 30mm f/1.8, I hope that will be an impetus for Canon to at least match it, and (if I dare to dream!) maybe go even wider... say EF-S 22mm f/1.8?
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
I'm a little confused. You own a full frame body, right Daniel? What's wrong with a 35mm f/1.4?
Or are you daring to dream for the greater good, rather than your own personal optical desires?
Yes. The 35mm f/1.4 is great on full frame, and an EF-S 22mm f/1.8 would be similar to a 35mm f/2.8 on full frame, but that's about as far as I dare.
I think I will always keep a 1.6X body, at least until full frame cameras get to have the same pixel size, same dimensions, and same weight. Until then, it would be nice to have similar lenses available for them, and if that also happens to benefit the greater good, so be it.
Thank you for response. I just wish there was a nice wide lens, L QUALITY, for small frame cameras. FF is great, but for now it is just too heavy for "weekend user". I just cannot justify it. I may stop complaining and just buy 10-22mm....[]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote