# Would a 14-28mm f/1.8 be possible?



## aroo (Feb 10, 2013)

Canon has super lenses at the telephoto end, could they do crazy things with UWA too?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 10, 2013)

Of course its possible, but it is much more difficult and expensive to build a wide angle lens than a telephoto, who would buy a $50,000 lens like that. They will make it for you if you guarantee 250 orders.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Feb 10, 2013)

f/2.8 perhaps more-so than f/1.8 (I don't see why you'd really need that on an ultra wide anyway).

But unless you're willing to sell either your body on the streets or black market organs, I'd steer away from the thought of this lens lol

But yes it is possible.. just very costly.


----------



## brad goda (Feb 15, 2013)

Ha Ha hahah
yah why only f1.8

why not f1.0 and an image circle of 9cm!!!
or a 1DXS 50MP square image that you can crop V or H without needing to turn the camera!
yah but I dont have 100,000$ to blow...

they make only what we are willing to spend... and with so many grumbling 3K for 5DIII.,,
there will be limitations... unfortunately


----------



## John Thomas (Feb 15, 2013)

Well, I don't want "crazy" things...

I rather want an UWA with a normal zoom range (16-35 preferred but I can accept shorter zooms like, let's say 16-28, 14-24) with a fast-but-normal aperture (f/2 - preferred but if isn't possible be it f/2.2 or even f/2.8 ) but with *stellar sharpness*, *no flare* and *low distortions*.

And I know that this is possible in a good price range.


----------



## pedro (Feb 15, 2013)

John Thomas said:


> Well, I don't want "crazy" things...
> 
> I rather want an UWA with a normal zoom range (16-35 preferred but I can accept shorter zooms like, let's say 16-28, 14-24) with a fast-but-normal aperture (f/2 - preferred but if isn't possible be it f/2.2 or even f/2.8 ) but with *stellar sharpness*, *no flare* and *low distortions*.
> 
> And I know that this is possible in a good price range.



*Well, what about a 12-35 f/2.8 8)* Ironic mood off: I'll go for the 16-35 by this summer. Saving up. The wait for a rumored 14-24 and the pobable price tag helped me make my descision. So my lens set up will be "complete" again, related to my preferencies. As I am not a birder, the 16-35 will suit any need for landscapes and nightscapes/nightsky. After that, I will probaly start to save up for an overnext update of my current 5D3 (hoping for same MPs and a decent improvement beyond ISO 25k). The 5D3 is an insanely good "jack of all trades", so there might be some improvement potential: I'd be glad with 0.5 to 1 stop in RAW. 8) That would be the high ISO IQ of an 1Dx. Let's hope Canon get their sensor design done for upcoming releases.


----------



## steliosk (Feb 15, 2013)

Canon has a serious gap in UWA lenses

why not a 16-35 f/3.5 4.5 like the EF-S 10-22 ?
why not a 14-24 2.8 or f/4 ?
why not even wider such as 12mm ? its a shame Sigma has one, and neither Canon and Nikon hasn't.

The ef-14mm 2.8 is really a bad lens, it needed more aperture blades and its way too expensive..
Thats why many canon users use nikon's 14-24 with an adapter for landscape photography. Cheaper, zoom, and same sharpness or even better i've heard, or a samyang 14mm which is a VERY cheap and VERY sharp and very usable. Best value for money no doubt!


----------



## pedro (Feb 15, 2013)

@steliosk: As discussed earlier on this site, you probably won't get a rumored Canon 12/14-24 f/2.8 at the same price as the Nikon... :-\


----------



## J.R. (Feb 15, 2013)

No fixed f/1.8 zoom exists till date. There is no reason why this lens will be built. 

While nothing is impossible, it is highly unlikely because the cost of a f/1.8 fixed zoom will be extremely high. The cost will be such that one would be able to buy a complete Nikon D800, the Nikon 14-24 and a couple of other lenses in its stead. 

No business will manufacture something which has no buyers! 

IMHO, even if Canon does release the 14-24, it will be a f/4 lens.


----------



## pedro (Feb 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> No fixed f/1.8 zoom exists till date. There is no reason why this lens will be built.
> 
> While nothing is impossible, it is highly unlikely because the cost of a f/1.8 fixed zoom will be extremely high. The cost will be such that one would be able to buy a complete Nikon D800, the Nikon 14-24 and a couple of other lenses in its stead.
> 
> ...



Will an F/4 lens be a bulb shaped lens? What would the price tag be?


----------



## J.R. (Feb 15, 2013)

pedro said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > No fixed f/1.8 zoom exists till date. There is no reason why this lens will be built.
> ...



Almost all ultra-ultra wide lenses are bulbous so it is my guess that the bulbous shape is necessary for the extreme FOV that such lenses offer.

Guessing Canon's pricing is about as difficult as shooting a crisp sharp shot of a chickadee in flight with a 5d2 . 

Jokes apart, I'd guess it will be quite high, right up there in the range of 2000-2500 for starters before it settles lower. 

BTW, while I feel that it should be f/4, I'm not too sure whether any such patent exists ... maybe someone can shed some light on this.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 15, 2013)

I'll settle for the '12-24mm f/4 USM & reasonable price' kind of crazy.


----------



## pedro (Feb 15, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I'll settle for the '12-24mm f/4 USM & reasonable price' kind of crazy.



Ellen, J.R.: Even more reason for me to go for the 16-35 ;-) thanks anyway, J.R. and I hope to get a proper pic of the "chickadee" in flight and post it for ya, as I have the 5D3 ;-) As long as it is a black-capped species there is enough contrast to focus on it 8)


----------



## Passport (Feb 15, 2013)

Of course it's possible. Just don't assume a 24 by 36 sensor/film size. You can buy a used BOLEX KERN Vario switar Zoom 12.5-100mm f : 2 Lens for under $800 on Ebay today.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 15, 2013)

Yes, but it would suck or be really expensive.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 15, 2013)

With high ISO image quality constantly being improved, why a need/ want for an UWA lens with an f/1.8 aperture? I don't understand the point besides tech-spec lust.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 15, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> With high ISO image quality constantly being improved, why a need/ want for an UWA lens with an f/1.8 aperture? I don't understand the point besides tech-spec lust.



Hi-ISO won't get him the Bokehlisciousness.... !


----------



## macrodust (Feb 15, 2013)

Nor will a UWA ;D


----------



## brad goda (Feb 15, 2013)

the want for a lens with large aperture:
bright for viewing
bright for focus... manual or AF
shallow depth of field is image tool for photography.


----------



## aroo (Feb 15, 2013)

Yes, all three of these last posts. I've been thinking of photographs I'd like to make that would only become possible on an UWA with really shallow depth. 14-28mm is kind of arbitrary, but hey, I'm just wondering aloud here.

What's this jump from $2k (24mm f/1.4) to $50k or $100k for a fast zoom everyone's mentioning? The superzooms make me wonder if there's a niche for an outstanding $10k wide zoom.


----------



## brad goda (Feb 16, 2013)

I guess in "theory" prices were just humorously speculative... but mechanically a wide zoom 1.8 built right would be a massive piece of glass and very hard to hand hold... for long periods of time... or to even have around your neck... LOL
ok even on a tripod this would be a massive weight addition... without its own support...
as longer lenses have collars to balance weight and provide H&V rotation... Id think a lens of this design would need the same... not for reasons like the schnider TS super rotators 50 90 and 120...
but like that...
and then all would be grumbling "who would in their right mind want to carry this 8lb piece of glass"
lol its quite amusing to think of this... as my 24 f3.5L TSE II has gotten massive can you imagine an 85 1.0 or then back to a 1.8 zoom... wow...


----------



## funkboy (Feb 16, 2013)

Not possible enough for Canon's marketing dept. to be able to pitch such a huge heavy expensive thing. If we're talking FF then f/2.8 is the max practical aperture for an ultrawide zoom. 

But something closer would be forseeable: a ~18mm wide angle with a very large aperture. For the EOS M system.

EOS M's flange focal distance is 18mm, so anything this wide or longer doesn't need to be a retrofocus design. I would go so far as to suggest that the ~18mm distance of APS-C mirrorless systems was specifically selected _because_ they wanted the FF equiv of a 28mm wide angle without requiring retrofocus lens designs.

This is why Fuji's XF 35mm f/1.4 is small & light & costs 500 bucks, and their 18mm f/2 is a pancake. They've got a stabilized 18-55 f/2.8-4 standard zoom the size of the EF-S 18-55 kit zoom as well.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 16, 2013)

aroo said:


> Canon has super lenses at the telephoto end, could they do crazy things with UWA too?




This lens would have a 152mm diameter and cost over $7,000 at launch assuming the same optical design as Nikon's was used and Canon's standard mark-up on the cost of ultra large lens elements was used.

In short, there is no way this would ever make it to market.

Canon could sell 10 times as many f/2.8 UWA lenses as they could f/1.8 ones.

In fact to make up the smaller market for the lens Canon would have to charge close to $17,000 for this lens, if not more.


----------



## aroo (Feb 17, 2013)

Whoa 152mm? That explains a lot


----------



## brad goda (Feb 17, 2013)

Uh wait a...

8-15 fish zoom
17mm TSE and 24 TSE with massive image circle and very low distortion...

whats not crazy UWA about these canon lenses... that exist...!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 17, 2013)

brad goda said:


> the want for a lens with large aperture:
> bright for viewing
> bright for focus... manual or AF
> shallow depth of field is image tool for photography.



Wide aperture is useful, but

A & B. How wide does it really have to be (f/1.8? f/1.4? f/1.0? f/0.7?) and at what point it would become too expensive and/or heavy?

C. I don't see the benefit of shallow DOF for ultrawide. Could you enlighten me?


----------



## aroo (Feb 17, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> C. I don't see the benefit of shallow DOF for ultrawide. Could you enlighten me?




Shallow DOF helps isolate the subject, no matter the focal length. I notice a big difference between f1.8 and f2.8 @ 50mm. I imagine such a difference would exist also at 15mm.


----------



## brad goda (Feb 17, 2013)

Aroo
yes at 1.8 on any lens you would see that effect...
8-15 @f4 you do see that effect... @f1.8 it would be stellar... but again at what cost...

canon and all makers have come a long way reducing size and weight through design and materials..
has anyone ever seen how big Nikon's 6mm f2.8 fish eye lens was??? 

https://www.google.com/search?q=nikon+6mm+f2.8+fisheye&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Vpq&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=aDIhUZLFNsGriAKfqoDYAQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1427&bih=940#imgrc=Q9us_E3HiRoq-M%3A%3BJKn3ue5gxvH6gM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2012%252F04%252FFisheye-6mm-28-001.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cultofmac.com%252F162652%252Fhuge-11-pound-nikon-6mm-%2525C6%2525922-8-fisheye-lens-goes-on-sale%252F%3B640%3B477


----------



## aroo (Feb 17, 2013)

brad goda said:


> Uh wait a...
> 
> 8-15 fish zoom
> 17mm TSE and 24 TSE with massive image circle and very low distortion...
> ...



I haven't had the chance to try any TS-E lenses, the 17mm might take my mind off thoughts of a fast aperture!


----------



## aroo (Feb 17, 2013)

brad goda said:


> has anyone ever seen how big Nikon's 6mm f2.8 fish eye lens was???
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=nikon+6mm+f2.8+fisheye&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Vpq&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=aDIhUZLFNsGriAKfqoDYAQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1427&bih=940#imgrc=Q9us_E3HiRoq-M%3A%3BJKn3ue5gxvH6gM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2012%252F04%252FFisheye-6mm-28-001.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cultofmac.com%252F162652%252Fhuge-11-pound-nikon-6mm-%2525C6%2525922-8-fisheye-lens-goes-on-sale%252F%3B640%3B477



LOL


----------



## willis (Feb 17, 2013)

Everything is possible like 800mm F/0.95, if you got extra $2.000.000 go ahead.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Feb 17, 2013)

It is technically 'possible' - taking into consideration elements diameter and overall massiveness of the lens..
The reason you do not see it is because it is not 'necessary'.

The sensor/film is being provided more light by a wide angle lens to begin with, so it is not necessary from an exposure stand point.

Wide angle lenses have a greatly distorted depth of field by the laws of physics, this would not be changed by a wide aperture. You would simply end up with little more than a small 'area' of the image in focus with the remainder falling out of focus so rapidly that every image would look like impaired vision - it is one of the primary reasons t/s lenses were invented.

From a creative stand point, you can achieve the same thin dof 'effect' with a wide angle lens by simply getting as close as you can to your subject. The effect would be the same on the background elements of the image whether at f/1.8 or f/2.8, the difference being essentially imperceptible.

I think the misconception in desiring such a lens is the expectation that one would get the same flatness of the focal plane at 14mm as seen in 35mm or 50mm - there is a big difference in the curvature of perspective between 35mm and 14mm. The focal plane would wrap around the sides to the extent that nothing would appear in focus except the single point that you were actually looking at - similar to your own eye.


----------



## aroo (Feb 18, 2013)

SiliconVoid said:


> The focal plane would wrap around the sides to the extent that nothing would appear in focus except the single point that you were actually looking at - similar to your own eye.



That actually is what I have in mind -- though seeing it spelled out like this makes it obvious there are simpler ways of making those images happen than waiting for a lens to be manufactured.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Feb 18, 2013)

As for an actual lens solution for what I believe you are describing, the effect at least (regardless of aperture range), I would suggest checking out Lensbaby : http://lensbaby.com/lenses

;=)


----------



## aroo (Feb 18, 2013)

Thanks for the link. But hmm... Lensbaby examples seem to add blurring to whole continuous areas of the image circle, not based on 3D space facing the lens.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Feb 18, 2013)

Give me a description of the type shot you are looking to create.

Literally: subject, ideal texture/color/pattern for the foreground/background etc...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 18, 2013)

aroo said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > C. I don't see the benefit of shallow DOF for ultrawide. Could you enlighten me?
> ...



If the background is OOF, what does it matter how much of it did you get? You could get pretty much the same thing with a 24mm f/1.4.


----------



## brad goda (Feb 18, 2013)

yes 24 1.4

BUT...the thread was started about 14-28 Zoom f1.8


----------



## preppyak (Feb 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Yes, but it would suck or be really expensive.


TO back this up, the only f/1.8 lens I am aware of at wider than 24mm is the 20mm f/1.8 that Sigma has, and the reviews lean towards the "suck" side of things. And that's not a zoom and not going to 14mm. Seeing how insanely large the element is at 14mm f/2.8 on the Nikon zoom, I'd shutter to think what it'd be at f/1.8



aroo said:


> Shallow DOF helps isolate the subject, no matter the focal length. I notice a big difference between f1.8 and f2.8 @ 50mm. I imagine such a difference would exist also at 15mm.


Except at 50mm, your focus plane is maybe a foot wide at f/1.8, so, you can isolate an object fairly easily. At 15mm, your plane is now 10ft in length, so trying to isolate that same object would fail. The background would have to be 10x as far away to get a similar effect.

I'm guessing you haven't shot ultra-wide; the reality is that even at f/2.8 on anything wide than 20mm, you can pretty much set focus about 1/3 to 1/2 way into a scene and get everything in focus. Not much isolation to be had in the ultra-wide realm without T/S


----------



## jvirta (Feb 18, 2013)

aroo said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > C. I don't see the benefit of shallow DOF for ultrawide. Could you enlighten me?
> ...



Yes, but only in very close focus distances.

On 14mm f/1.8 you would have to focus closer than 3.68 meters because on and after that focus distance the focus extends to infinity. In other way, on that focus distance, anything from 1.84 meters to infinity would be in focus.

The closest focus distance for 14mm f/2.8 that focuses to infinity is 2.33 meters and anything from 1.16 meters to infinity would be in focus.

If you focus really close, say at one meter with 14mm, the depth of field for f/1.8 is about half (0.58 meters) of the f/2.8 depth of field (1.04 meters) so you would get a shallower DOF, but you would be limited to shoot subjects closer than 1.16 meters to get the shallow DOF.

these calculations are based on 5D Mark II/III using the DOF calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


----------

