Reading mode: Light Dark

Half each day is in the dark, so...

Go to last post
F

fyngyrz

Senior Member
Messages
1,606
Solutions
1
Reaction score
160
Location
Glasgow, AK, US
...why doesn't Canon give us faster wide lenses?

I have the f/1.2 50mm and 85mm. Those are pretty nice. I also have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Has some CA issues and isn't all that fast, but again, pretty nice. You can really shoot some dark stuff with these lenses.

I don't have the Canon 24/f.14... for the price, it just isn't fast enough. The Sigma's price/performance is better.

I know that as lenses get longer, you get into weight problems, but what's stopping Canon from making, for instance, a 24mm f1.2?

There's a 50mm f/1.0 that shows up on EBay from time to time, too. Manual, unfortunately, and not very wide, but still, f/1.0! I'd buy a 24mm f/1.0 lens even if it cost twice as much as the 24 f/1.4.

It's so frustrating to see the continuing stream of slow, long lenses and distortion designs like tilt-shift, while only the very rare lens designed for the darker regimes ever shows up... and they usually feel like a half-effort, Canon's f/1.2 50mm and 85mm excepted.

Some of my "shots in the dark":















--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
 
If you are using the 30/1.4 I will assume you are using a 1.6 crop. I would think if they can make an EF24/1.4 then an EFs15/1.4 wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.

I vote for two EFS lenses: 15/2.0 USM and a 20/1.4 USM. Problem is Canon is not listening. They think people are going to spend $800+ on slow stabilized lenses at 24mm and 28mm.
 
fyngyrz said:
...why doesn't Canon give us faster wide lenses?

I have the f/1.2 50mm and 85mm. Those are pretty nice. I also have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Has some CA issues and isn't all that fast, but again, pretty nice. You can really shoot some dark stuff with these lenses.

I don't have the Canon 24/f.14... for the price, it just isn't fast enough. The Sigma's price/performance is better.

I know that as lenses get longer, you get into weight problems, but what's stopping Canon from making, for instance, a 24mm f1.2?
Click to expand...
Retrofocus design makes it more difficult. Because of the flange distance, things above about 45mm are easier.

Even at 50mm, look at the the size and weight change from 50mm f1.4 to f1.2. And the f1.2 is bad wide open at the edge. So, a 24mm f1.2 might be more than 1kg...

However, with the EOS-M your wish may come true, since the flange distance is only 18mm.
fyngyrz said:
There's a 50mm f/1.0 that shows up on EBay from time to time, too. Manual, unfortunately, and not very wide, but still, f/1.0! I'd buy a 24mm f/1.0 lens even if it cost twice as much as the 24 f/1.4.

It's so frustrating to see the continuing stream of slow, long lenses and distortion designs like tilt-shift, while only the very rare lens designed for the darker regimes ever shows up... and they usually feel like a half-effort, Canon's f/1.2 50mm and 85mm excepted.
Click to expand...
longer lenses are easier.... see above.

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©
 
Your star shots are all stopped way down, why bother with fast lens?

And, nobody makes a 24 f1.0 because it will cost not twice, but ten times as much?
 
BozillaNZ said:
Your star shots are all stopped way down, why bother with fast lens?
Click to expand...
No, they aren't. I shoot quite a bunch of them at ISO 12800 and as fast as the lens will go. The reason to "bother" with a fast lens is because it will reduce stacking, or possibly even eliminate it.
BozillaNZ said:
And, nobody makes a 24 f1.0 because it will cost not twice, but ten times as much?
Click to expand...
So? Look at the prices on the long lenses Canon makes. Doesn't seem to have stopped Canon, has it?

--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
 
jitteringjr said:
If you are using the 30/1.4 I will assume you are using a 1.6 crop.
Click to expand...
Yes, a 50D, modified --- the internal IR filter has been replaced. I plan to move to a 5DmkIII for the lower noise, but I'd sure like better lens choice first.
jitteringjr said:
I would think if they can make an EF24/1.4 then an EFs15/1.4 wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...
Ugh 1.4... How about a 30mm, 1.2? We already have some 1.4 lenses. I'd like to encourage Canon to step up their game a bit.
jitteringjr said:
I vote for two EFS lenses: 15/2.0 USM and a 20/1.4 USM. Problem is Canon is not listening. They think people are going to spend $800+ on slow stabilized lenses at 24mm and 28mm.
Click to expand...
Does seem that way. For years now, I've seen lens after lens produced that I am simply not interested in, though. So maybe they'll give it a shot.

--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
 
photonius said:
Retrofocus design makes it more difficult. Because of the flange distance, things above about 45mm are easier.
Click to expand...
Well, but does it make it wholly impractical?
photonius said:
Even at 50mm, look at the the size and weight change from 50mm f1.4 to f1.2.
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly ok with that.
photonius said:
And the f1.2 is bad wide open at the edge.
Click to expand...
Not that bad. Both lenses take beautiful aurora images. You only really get in trouble with high contrast -- stars for example.
photonius said:
So, a 24mm f1.2 might be more than 1kg...
Click to expand...
Again, not a problem at all. Canon makes lots of lenses in that kind of weight class. At least it wouldn't stick out like some lenses do.
photonius said:
However, with the EOS-M your wish may come true, since the flange distance is only 18mm.
Click to expand...
Not in the market for EOS-M. EF/EF-S right now, headed for EF-only. It'll be FF, full DSLR for me.

--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
 
fyngyrz said:
BozillaNZ said:
Your star shots are all stopped way down, why bother with fast lens?
Click to expand...
No, they aren't. I shoot quite a bunch of them at ISO 12800 and as fast as the lens will go. The reason to "bother" with a fast lens is because it will reduce stacking, or possibly even eliminate it.
fyngyrz said:
And, nobody makes a 24 f1.0 because it will cost not twice, but ten times as much?
Click to expand...
So? Look at the prices on the long lenses Canon makes. Doesn't seem to have stopped Canon, has it?
Click to expand...
So you say the 24 1.4 is too expensive for you, but 10 times that is not???
 
Because after a certain point your sensor isn't capable of taking full advantage of extremely bright lenses anyways and you are just stuck with soft out of focus shots instead.

If you are willing to spend money to get f1.0 lenses, I'm pretty sure you can also afford the 1DX or Nikon alternatives for low-light monster sensors. This lets you buy many reasonably fast lenses and you can kick up the ISO a little (or use what ISO you use now but with extra stop or two of performance).
 
fyngyrz said:
photonius said:
Retrofocus design makes it more difficult. Because of the flange distance, things above about 45mm are easier.
Click to expand...
Well, but does it make it wholly impractical?
fyngyrz said:
Even at 50mm, look at the the size and weight change from 50mm f1.4 to f1.2.
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly ok with that.
fyngyrz said:
And the f1.2 is bad wide open at the edge.
Click to expand...
Not that bad. Both lenses take beautiful aurora images. You only really get in trouble with high contrast -- stars for example.
fyngyrz said:
So, a 24mm f1.2 might be more than 1kg...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How big is the market of the 50mm f1.2 over the 50mm f1.4?

Now a 24mm lens is supposed to be portable, if it's over 1 kg, it sure is less portable. So, apart from big price, you would find few people buying it.
fyngyrz said:
Again, not a problem at all. Canon makes lots of lenses in that kind of weight class. At least it wouldn't stick out like some lenses do.
Click to expand...
Yes, but for long lenses you have no other choice, so you put up with it.
fyngyrz said:
fyngyrz said:
However, with the EOS-M your wish may come true, since the flange distance is only 18mm.
Click to expand...
Not in the market for EOS-M. EF/EF-S right now, headed for EF-only. It'll be FF, full DSLR for me.
Click to expand...
EOS-M is the same as APS-C and takes all EF lenses, just shorter flange distance to fulfill your dream :-)
fyngyrz said:
--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
Click to expand...
--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©
 
photonius said:
How big is the market of the 50mm f1.2 over the 50mm f1.4?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I do know I'm happily part of the market, though. The 85mm f/1.2 as well. That is a super lens.

And how big is the market for the f/2.0L 200mm over the f/2.8L 200mm?

Who knows? I mean, other than Canon? The one lens is better than the other for some uses, and there's a price difference that serves as a gateway for those needs. So?
photonius said:
Now a 24mm lens is supposed to be portable,
Click to expand...
Wait, what? Where is THAT written? lol. A 24 mm lens is supposed to be 24mm, and I think other than that, there's no rule.
photonius said:
if it's over 1 kg, it sure is less portable. So, apart from big price, you would find few people buying it.
Click to expand...
I find that logic less than compelling, sorry.
photonius said:
Yes, but for long lenses you have no other choice, so you put up with it.
Click to expand...
Long lenses are long? lol

Perhaps what you meant to say is that for high magnification lenses, you have no other choice, though even so, you're wrong. There are zooms that collapse (like the 400mm) and there are catadioptrics as well -- I keep the Sigma 600mm cat in my camera bag for just that reason -- light and short. Sometimes that's just the ticket. And sometimes it isn't -- and that's why the 400mm is in there with the 2x.
photonius said:
EOS-M is the same as APS-C and takes all EF lenses, just shorter flange distance to fulfill your dream :-)
Click to expand...
EOS-M is mirrorless, so it's power hungry with the only accurate preview being electronic. In addition, for night shooting, an electronic preview (at least as Canon has implemented it on the 50D) is essentially useless. You can't AF on a star using the 50D's EV worth a darn, but it's easily done TTL; consequently, I am most fond of TTL.

Switching to FF will help me out too, as the 50mm f/1.2 will take images with about the same FOV as the 30mm does on my APS-C camera. I'd just like wider if I could get it. So far, other than the flange depth (which I'm unclear on as to whether it is a hard barrier or one that can be overcome), I see no reason thus far why Canon couldn't offer a wide, fast lens.

--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
 
Timbukto said:
Because after a certain point your sensor isn't capable of taking full advantage of extremely bright lenses anyways
Click to expand...
I don't know where you picked up this bit of misinformation, but no. Lenses aren't "extremely bright", they are extremely good at collecting light . So if you use a fast lens in the dark, the sensor isn't likely to be overwhelmed. Instead, you get to see things that are dimly illuminated, which is the entire point.
Timbukto said:
and you are just stuck with soft out of focus shots instead.
Click to expand...
Again, no. Fast lenses can be sharp. The 85mm f/1.2 and the 50mm f/1.2 serve as concrete evidence of this. Also, where DOF can be thin, such as in night sky shots, the entire FOV can be in focus, no problem, even when the lens is wide open.
Timbukto said:
If you are willing to spend money to get f1.0 lenses, I'm pretty sure you can also afford the 1DX or Nikon alternatives for low-light monster sensors.
Click to expand...
I'm only interested in Canon -- I have a significant collection of high end lenses. That serves as a very effective brand "anchor", as it were. And the 5DmkIII seems to be "right in there" for low light performance.

--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
 
fyngyrz said:
photonius said:
How big is the market of the 50mm f1.2 over the 50mm f1.4?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I do know I'm happily part of the market, though. The 85mm f/1.2 as well. That is a super lens.

And how big is the market for the f/2.0L 200mm over the f/2.8L 200mm?

Who knows? I mean, other than Canon? The one lens is better than the other for some uses, and there's a price difference that serves as a gateway for those needs. So?
fyngyrz said:
Now a 24mm lens is supposed to be portable,
Click to expand...
Wait, what? Where is THAT written? lol. A 24 mm lens is supposed to be 24mm, and I think other than that, there's no rule.
fyngyrz said:
if it's over 1 kg, it sure is less portable. So, apart from big price, you would find few people buying it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well, either you use it for street - people photography, and you don't care that it's soft at the edges, but if you have a choice between an 24mm f1.4 with 650 and a 24mm f1.2 at 1.2 kg to carry around few would choose the f1.2

The other common use for 24 mm is landscape - architecture. For that people want sharp lenses, usually stop down, so even if they do use a tripod, the f1.4 would probably be their preferred choice, or even a slower lens.

The market for f1.2 aurora on tripods is I am sure more limited.
fyngyrz said:
I find that logic less than compelling, sorry.
fyngyrz said:
Yes, but for long lenses you have no other choice, so you put up with it.
Click to expand...
Long lenses are long? lol

Perhaps what you meant to say is that for high magnification lenses, you have no other choice, though even so, you're wrong. There are zooms that collapse (like the 400mm) and there are catadioptrics as well -- I keep the Sigma 600mm cat in my camera bag for just that reason -- light and short. Sometimes that's just the ticket. And sometimes it isn't -- and that's why the 400mm is in there with the 2x.
fyngyrz said:
EOS-M is the same as APS-C and takes all EF lenses, just shorter flange distance to fulfill your dream :-)
Click to expand...
EOS-M is mirrorless, so it's power hungry with the only accurate preview being electronic. In addition, for night shooting, an electronic preview (at least as Canon has implemented it on the 50D) is essentially useless. You can't AF on a star using the 50D's EV worth a darn, but it's easily done TTL; consequently, I am most fond of TTL.

Switching to FF will help me out too, as the 50mm f/1.2 will take images with about the same FOV as the 30mm does on my APS-C camera. I'd just like wider if I could get it. So far, other than the flange depth (which I'm unclear on as to whether it is a hard barrier or one that can be overcome), I see no reason thus far why Canon couldn't offer a wide, fast lens.

--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
Click to expand...
--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©
 
fyngyrz said:
biza43 said:
So you say the 24 1.4 is too expensive for you, but 10 times that is not???
Click to expand...
No. I say it isn't fast enough for me. The problem is price/performance, not price. I'm not going to pay a lot of money for a lens that doesn't do what I want. I will pay a lot of money for a lens that does.
Click to expand...
All right, point taken. But I doubt it that Canon, or other maker, will ever make a 24 1.2 or 24 1.0 lens... Really, these days, why don't you just use a 5DMKIII, 1DX (or any other camera with very good high ISO), with a existing fast wide angle prime? From 1.4 to 1.2 0r 1.0 we are talking maximum 1 f stop, which can easily be accommodated by current equipment.

And if this is really such an impairment to your photography, sorry, but you need to compromise, and use the very good stacking programmes available, if that is the case.
 
The fastest lens I know is a Zeiss made 50mm f/0.7. NASA used them to take images of the dark side of the moon and Kubrik shoot candle lit scenes in "Barry Lyndon" (1975).

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

There are just 10 of these monster, so probably no money can buy them, but Zeiss could make another one for you.

The disturbing thing is, f/0.7 is just 2 stops faster than f/1.4! Kubrik shoot filmstock with ISO100, pushed 1 stop, so ISO200. Today he could use a 5DIII at f/1.4 and ISO 800. Cameras got very good the last 40 years, lenses not so much.
fyngyrz said:
biza43 said:
So you say the 24 1.4 is too expensive for you, but 10 times that is not???
Click to expand...
No. I say it isn't fast enough for me. The problem is price/performance, not price. I'm not going to pay a lot of money for a lens that doesn't do what I want. I will pay a lot of money for a lens that does.

--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
Click to expand...
 
photonius said:
Well, either you use it for street - people photography, and you don't care that it's soft at the edges, but if you have a choice between an 24mm f1.4 with 650 and a 24mm f1.2 at 1.2 kg to carry around few would choose the f1.2
Click to expand...
photonius said:
The other common use for 24 mm is landscape - architecture. For that people want sharp lenses, usually stop down, so even if they do use a tripod, the f1.4 would probably be their preferred choice, or even a slower lens.
Click to expand...
photonius said:
The market for f1.2 aurora on tripods is I am sure more limited.
Click to expand...
Aurora... sure. Night sky though, that's quite a common use. So are night landscapes, and night street use, which all add up to my original point here: half of every day -- on average -- is spent in the dark.

The faster your lenses are, the more shooting you can do in dark regimes. Night shots can be very dramatic, and low-light shots tend to be interesting because they "open our eyes" to things we don't normally see. If your lenses are slow, then motion blurs or disappears, and that is a rather severe constraint.

Hey - I'm not saying you want to do night shooting, but I sure do.

--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
 
biza43 said:
Really, these days, why don't you just use a 5DMKIII,
Click to expand...
Oh, I plan to. I've just been waiting a little while the early adopters make sure the thing works as advertised.
biza43 said:
with a existing fast wide angle prime? From 1.4 to 1.2 0r 1.0 we are talking maximum 1 f stop, which can easily be accommodated by current equipment.
Click to expand...
The subject matter I shoot can take advantage of every bit of light that can be acquired. I already own the 50mm f/1.2, and that's the lens I plan to use with the 5DmkIII. It'll give me the same FOV as the 30mm f/1.4 I use as my APS-C "daily driver" right now, and between the two, I'll pick up a lot of light. I would just like to have a wider fast lens, that's all.
biza43 said:
And if this is really such an impairment to your photography, sorry, but you need to compromise, and use the very good stacking programmes available, if that is the case.
Click to expand...
Stacking doesn't help when significant motion is involved, as is the case with auroras. Believe me, I know -- I write stacking software. When motion is involved, nothing can replace light-gathering capability.

--
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/
Blog, tee-shirts: http://fyngyrz.com/
 
fyngyrz said:
There's a 50mm f/1.0 that shows up on EBay from time to time, too. Manual, unfortunately, and not very wide, but still, f/1.0! I'd buy a 24mm f/1.0 lens even if it cost twice as much as the 24 f/1.4.
Click to expand...
You must have slept through science classes in high school: if you did not, you'd realize that a decent(the 50 one-point-oh is a rather average lens in terms of IQ and aberrations) 1.0 24 mm lens covering full frame (24x36 mm, even though the size of the image circle itself is not that critical here) wouild cost in excess $10,000 and weight a few pounds... And wide open it would have DOF of a few milimeters at standard shooting distances. That's the nature of the beast!

And for slower lenses one word: tripod, use a tripod Luke!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top