# Patent: Sigma 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 Art Lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 14, 2015)

```
Sigma has filed an optical formula patent for an 11-22 f/4.5-5.6 Art series lens for full frame DSLRs.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2015-203734 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.11.16</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.4.11</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 1.88</li>
<li>Wide-angle intermediate telephoto</li>
<li>Focal length 11.33 15.33 21.30</li>
<li>F-number 4.50 5.00 5.86</li>
<li>Total angle of view 2ω 126.85 108.80 87.93</li>
<li>Image height Y 21.63 21.63 21.63</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 163.42 156.24 156.59</li>
</ul>
<p>An ultra wide angle full frame Art series lens from Sigma has been rumored for quite some time and is a logical addition to their Art series lineup.</p>
```


----------



## tiltshift (Dec 14, 2015)

despite loving my 11-24 if/when they make this I will be a little jealous as I am guessing it will be a great lens at a more affordable cost. the downside of being an early adopter...


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Dec 14, 2015)

Please make it stabilized for all these landscape shots while hiking/climbing where it's not possible to use a tripod !!!
Moreover, given the apertures we'll be able to mount filters ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 14, 2015)

I wouldn't trade my 8-15L (on crop) for this or the Canon 11-24 on full-frame.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 14, 2015)

Sounds interesting - if it is 95% as good as the Canon 11-24, it should sell well. 
Me - I am still wanting a smallish 50-60mm f/1.4 to f/2 lens of high quality for FF - IS would be nice, too.


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 14, 2015)

It will be interesting to see the price point. The variable aperture will keep the costs down, but maybe it will also allow for standard filter mounts.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Dec 14, 2015)

Not a chance in hell that this lens will take front threaded filters at all. 

It should be lighter and cheaper than the Canon though. Hopefully Sigma does better with the image quality this time around as the previous 12mm version was kind of crap. Even their 8-16 on crop does much better for image quality. 

I would rather see a 14-24 f2.8 from Sigma. Canon shooters have nothing in this range, which is arguably much more useful for landscape work than 11-24 f4. It would also be a cheaper option for Nikon shooters.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 14, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Canon shooters have nothing in this range, which is arguably much more useful for landscape work than 11-24 f4.


You mean other than the 14mm f/2.8 that Canon already sells, and the 14mm f/2.8 from Rokinon, which is likely used by most doing astro work.

I actually dont think its an area where Canon is lacking. 11-24 for people who need the widest. 14mm lenses for night work. TS lenses for architectural work. Sigma even has the 20mm f/1.4 for people who need wider than 24mm and fast aperture.

My guess is they are just updating the 12-24 with improved optics and a little more range. Probably still targeting that $949 or $999 price range as they have been with other lenses


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 14, 2015)

Wow. Just for conversation, let's presume this patent will become a real product and be the next Art lens released.

How on earth is an 11-22 lens a more desired product than an 85 Art prime or a 24-70 f/2.8 Art zoom?

(Don't get me wrong, they'll sell a bunch of this lens, given how expensive the 11-24 f/4L is.)

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 14, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Wow. Just for conversation, let's presume this patent will become a real product and be the next Art lens released.
> 
> How on earth is an 11-22 lens a more desired product than an 85 Art prime or a 24-70 f/2.8 Art zoom?
> 
> ...


It will be hard for people to complain about autofocus issues at 22mm f/5.6. 85mm f/1.4 is a totally different story though.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 14, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > How on earth is an 11-22 lens a more desired product than an 85 Art prime or a 24-70 f/2.8 Art zoom?
> ...



Agree 100%. The wider (and narrower max aperture) these lenses get, the less folks will complain about the AF. There's also going to be a much higher percentage of tripod use with such an ultrawide compared to (say) a 35 Art shooting street, or a 50 / 85 Art shooting portraiture. 

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 14, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Not a chance in hell that this lens will take front threaded filters at all.
> 
> It should be lighter and cheaper than the Canon though. Hopefully Sigma does better with the image quality this time around as the previous 12mm version was kind of crap. Even their 8-16 on crop does much better for image quality.
> 
> I would rather see a 14-24 f2.8 from Sigma. Canon shooters have nothing in this range, which is arguably much more useful for landscape work than 11-24 f4. It would also be a cheaper option for Nikon shooters.



I agree that it will have a bulbous front element, but I don't see how a 14-24 f2.8 is a more useful landscape lens than an 11-24 f4, how many landscapes are shot at f2.8-4?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Not a chance in hell that this lens will take front threaded filters at all.
> ...



Astro astro astro. Besides that or environmental portraiture of yetis handheld in the dark, I'm hard pressed to think of anything else.

Also, 14-24 can likely be front filtered with an outrigger (Lee SW 150, Wonderpana, etc.) with only huge filters and not _comically_ huge filters needed to get all the way to 11mm without vignetting. That's a _small_ plus in my book.

- A


----------



## rs (Dec 14, 2015)

yoms said:


> Moreover, given the apertures we'll be able to mount filters ;D ;D ;D



I can't see how filters will fit on this:







https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2015-12-14&edit-text=&act=url


----------



## infared (Dec 14, 2015)

This lens should be interesting. Yeah...it will have a bulbous front end...that is part of the design.
(Just like my new 20mm F/1.4 Art....wonder if this lens will be as sharp as the 20mm....probably not as it is a zoom, but I bet its very good).
The price will be the most interesting part. You have to give it to Sigma ...they are attacking Canon like a pit bull!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2015)

infared said:


> You have to give it to Sigma ...they are attacking Canon like a pit bull!



Yeah, like a very tiny pit bull attacking an elephant. I really don't think Canon is under any serious pressure at the high end, most people who would buy L lens won't be tempted by a cheaper 3rd party option unless it offers something beyond a lower price. The consumer zoom market is a different story, but Tamron is a bigger player there.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 14, 2015)

preppyak said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Canon shooters have nothing in this range, which is arguably much more useful for landscape work than 11-24 f4.
> ...



Agree it's an update to Sigma's existing 12-24. Interesting that they changed the range slightly to get a more direct comparison to Canon's 11-24L. Same f/4.5-5.6 as Sigma's existing 12-24.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 14, 2015)

I'd be interested in the Tokina Wide angle lens, they seem to excel at wide angles. I do not have a ultra wide zoom, because I don't have enough use to justify the high price of a good one. I do have a 17mm Tokina f/3.5 that is reasonably good.

I might be tempted to get the Sigma if its reasonably priced, but having has five Sigma lenses that were EOS compatible, but did not work on DSLR's, (and only one could be upgraded), I'm still a bit shy of Sigma. Tamron and Tokina have never has gross issues like that.


----------



## RGF (Dec 14, 2015)

tiltshift said:


> despite loving my 11-24 if/when they make this I will be a little jealous as I am guessing it will be a great lens at a more affordable cost. the downside of being an early adopter...



11-24 is F4, this is variable up to f5.6 may be a bit smaller and lighter.

I would rather have Sigma come out with something in the range 12-15 mm (prime, not zoom) F1.4 to F2.0


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 14, 2015)

RGF said:


> I would rather have Sigma come out with something in the range 12-15 mm (prime, not zoom) F1.4 to F2.0



I'm just amazed with the growth of astro why someone hasn't pumped out a Zeiss Otus like tool expressly for that purpose. Consider: *No one can deliver ultrawide + f/1.4 + coma free.* The first company to do that could ask a mint for such a lens.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I'm just amazed with the growth of astro



What growth of astro? ???


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 14, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...



Astro and environmental portraits were not the question, though anybody who has shot environmental portraits with a 14mm or 11mm lens knows dof isn't the overriding issue, controlling projection distortion is.

As for filters, anything you can do with a 14-24mm you can do with an 11-24, just accept the vignetteing when you have to use filters wider than 14, you end up with the same images from both when using filters but have the extra width with the 11mm when you don't have to use filters.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> As for filters, anything you can do with a 14-24mm you can do with an 11-24, just accept the vignetteing when you have to use filters wider than 14, you end up with the same images from both when using filters but have the extra width with the 11mm when you don't have to use filters.



Agree 100%, as would most of this forum. 

I think the *f/2.8 vs. f/4* is the real wildcard. If this forum had a choice of a 14-24 f/2.8 vs. an 11-24 f/4, we'd see a pretty fair split on opinion. Astro / sports / events folks would likely consider any f/4 lens as dead on arrival for their needs, whereas people shooting landscapes/architecture or hikers (concerned with weight) have no need at all for f/2.8.

- A


----------



## preppyak (Dec 14, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Astro astro astro. Besides that or environmental portraiture of yetis handheld in the dark, I'm hard pressed to think of anything else.


And of course thats already covered by Canon (at about the same price point as what this would hit) and by third parties in a few reasonably priced forms (sigma 20, rokinon 14mm). And there's always the Zeiss lenses if you need peak performance.

This just seems like an easy update for them to make. Do something that is 90% as good as Canons and you can make a profit. Their current 12-24 doesnt really do that and is from 2003. It's no good for them to have a lens out there that doesnt perform well when their reputation is on an upswing.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 14, 2015)

The f5.6 aperture makes me hopeful that this will perform well on the wide end, and be reasonably priced.

I like how the Canon 11-24 looks on crop bodies a lot but it's just completely impractical in terms of cost, if Sigma can come close with center sharpness and low distortion then I'll probably pick one up. The last few Art lenses have overlapped with the 18-35 but this focal range is mostly new.
Ironically, the focal length equivalent for this lens on crop is 18-35mm.


----------



## CanoKnight (Dec 14, 2015)

infared said:


> You have to give it to Sigma ...they are attacking Canon like a pit bull!



No wonder Canon made an offer to buy up Sigma.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 14, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Ironically, the focal length equivalent for this lens on crop is 18-35mm.



Probably more deliberate than ironic. That's how the old EF-S 10-22 was spec'd -- it's a crop version of a 16-35 FF zoom.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 14, 2015)

CanoKnight said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > You have to give it to Sigma ...they are attacking Canon like a pit bull!
> ...



If only. I'd be ecstatic if we could marry up Sigma's addiction to sharpness and innovative 'firsts' (f/1.8 crop zoom, f/2 standard zoom, 20mm f/1.4, etc.) with tried and true Canon build quality, weather sealing and first party AF routines.

Competition is always a good thing, though, so I'll happily await what Sigma rolls out next.

-A


----------



## Talley (Dec 14, 2015)

infared said:


> You have to give it to Sigma ...they are attacking Canon like a pit bull!



This is probably their slap back at Canon for Canon trying to buy them out. Sigma is throwing down the gauntlet...


----------



## nigel (Dec 14, 2015)

infared said:


> This lens should be interesting. Yeah...it will have a bulbous front end...that is part of the design.
> (Just like my new 20mm F/1.4 Art....wonder if this lens will be as sharp as the 20mm....probably not as it is a zoom, but I bet its very good).
> The price will be the most interesting part. You have to give it to Sigma ...they are attacking Canon like a pit bull!



Like a pit bull? So they're licking Canon in the face? That's a terrible analogy that only perpetuates mistreatment of wonderful dogs.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 14, 2015)

nigel said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > This lens should be interesting. Yeah...it will have a bulbous front end...that is part of the design.
> ...



+1, but we're off topic.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 14, 2015)

Talley said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > You have to give it to Sigma ...they are attacking Canon like a pit bull!
> ...



If that was an example of gauntlet throwing at me I'd piss myself laughing.

The gauntlet throwing reply to an 11-24 f4 is an 11-22 f4.5-5.6?  you guys are just too funny sometimes......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



It might be a really cheap gauntlet, though...


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Dec 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Not a chance in hell that this lens will take front threaded filters at all.
> ...



Astro landscape work. It's VERY popular these days. The Tamron 15-30 is a great example of a great do-it-all landscape lens. 

For many of us back country landscape shooters who also have to pack in many days of camping gear, it is critical to have just one or at most two zoom lenses that cover everything really well. 

F2.8 is also nice for a brighter viewfinder or LCD live view for using ND filters and working at dusk.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Dec 14, 2015)

preppyak said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Canon shooters have nothing in this range, which is arguably much more useful for landscape work than 11-24 f4.
> ...



I meant in terms of zoom lenses. 

No chance in hell I am putting any primes into my backpack when it is already sitting at 60-70+ lbs with camping gear.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Talley said:
> ...



Probably more of an oven mitt.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Astro landscape work. It's VERY popular these days.



Again, I ask...based on what (besides your personal interest, I mean)?


----------



## infared (Dec 15, 2015)

Talley said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > You have to give it to Sigma ...they are attacking Canon like a pit bull!
> ...



In spite of Neuro's snobby comments..about Sigma lens quality, about Astro, etc.. I think that Sigma is offering cost-effective lenses consistently in the sweet spot of where many many photographers have an interest and where Canon has been spectacularly expensive. They offer a quality alternative at very affordable prices, comparatively. I bought the 20mm, 35mm and 50mm Arts and have been extremely happy with them after careful calibration on The Dock. I bet this new ultra wide angle zoom will be a cost effective alternative for many...I will be interesting to see what the IQ and price is.


----------



## dufflover (Dec 15, 2015)

I find it ironic that the same people who down-rate Sigma's "challenge" to Canon as laughable yet in a different discussion happily say Canon know the market and that most of their money is in the lower end of cost spectrum, exactly where Sigma is offering their alternative products. Here's to more competition!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2015)

dufflover said:


> I find it ironic that the same people who down-rate Sigma's "challenge" to Canon as laughable yet in a different discussion happily say Canon know the market and that most of their money is in the lower end of cost spectrum, exactly where Sigma is offering their alternative products. Here's to more competition!



Nothing ironic, merely a difference of understanding. Most of the Sigma lenses discussed on CR, including the 12-24mm lens similar to this patent, cost more than an xxxD kit with lens. That means most Sigma lenses are clearly *not* in the 'lower end of the cost spectrum' (despite being cheaper that similar Canon lenses). Most of Canon's sales are to people who buy an entry level kit with one or two lenses, and that's it – the body and lens sales milestones make that clear. The 'nifty-fifty' in its various incarnations is generally the most popular individual lens for Canon, and costs less than half of the cheapest Sigma lens for the Canon mount. So yes, Canon knows the market quite well, and most of their sales are in the lower end of that market. Most of Sigma's lens offerings do not fall into that category. 

If you believe that discussions on this forum in are any way representative of the majority (or even a significant minority) of the dSLR market, that qualifies as "laughable."


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 15, 2015)

With a zoom ratio of 1.88, it would be closer to 11.5-22.5mm


----------



## AJ (Dec 15, 2015)

I imagine this lens will appeal to Nikon shooters. Canon already has this range covered.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 15, 2015)

AJ said:


> I imagine this lens will appeal to Nikon shooters. Canon already has this range covered.



_...for $3,000._ This Sigma will appeal to more folks than you think.

- A


----------



## Pookie (Dec 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you believe that discussions on this forum in are any way representative of the majority (or even a significant minority) of the dSLR market, that qualifies as "laughable."



The best line I've heard on this site in years...

Loved the 10-20 from Sigma for crops for many years, sold it long ago so this would be a nice refresh. I have the 11-24 and a great lens but not my favorite. I would def be interested in seeing what they could do.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Talley said:
> ...



If it's a Sigma gauntlet...it'll be very heavy, soft around the edges and an unreliable AF system. If it's a Canon Gauntlet...it'll be bristling with cutting edge tech and be nearly perfect and very fit for purpose....but eye wateringly expensive....


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 16, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> With a zoom ratio of 1.88, it would be closer to 11.5-22.5mm



Hello....



Canon Rumors said:


> Focal length 11.33 15.33 21.30


----------



## TeT (Dec 16, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I wouldn't trade my 8-15L (on crop) for this or the Canon 11-24 on full-frame.



Of course not; The 8-15 is a totally different class of lens than the two you mentioned. (?) Apples and oranges...


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 16, 2015)

TeT said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't trade my 8-15L (on crop) for this or the Canon 11-24 on full-frame.
> ...



Not to me. I can shoot rectilinear from 8mm equivalent to 22mm equivalent, shoot in fisheye from a wide pano to 180 degree diagonal to a gentile but long fisheye. The really fun thing is adjusting the LR profile geometry slider between the two extremes of equisolid angle fisheye and rectilinear.

I find wider than 14mm equivalent almost always looks pretty screwy in full rectilinear. If I shoot wider than that I almost always put it in another projection than rectilinear.


----------



## TeT (Dec 16, 2015)

AJ said:


> I imagine this lens will appeal to Nikon shooters. Canon already has this range covered.



Lets see what they put together... It could appeal to Canon shooters as well; for it to be a winner (in regards to Canon shooters) it will have to compete with the 11 24 L Optically and be much much cheaper...

I imagine that Sigma lenses are much better received by the Nikon crowd (no AF issues {?})...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Talley said:
> ...


Ah, the critical specification: Price


----------



## MrToes (Dec 16, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Being a Sigma I'm sure it will be half if not less! With the same great performance Sigma is know for now days!


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 17, 2015)

I’ll add a quick post here.

I’m quite excited by what Sigma are doing lately, generally… and if this patent bears fruit with a good quality 11-22mm for FF (35mm), well done to them.

For several years, Sigma’s 12-24mm (both original and v2) held the crown as the king of ultra-wide FF zooms in terms of wideness. Centre sharpness was great (though image quality in the corners was not so great wide open). However stopped down, and using careful technique, great results were (are) achievable.

Canon’s 11-24mm L may have trumped in the FF ‘wide zoom’ department, but at a significant price premium. That’s price premium is not going to be within everybody’s budget.

Somewhat similarly, in APS-C land, Sigma produced two 10-20mm “EX” (quality) zooms, and the high quality 8-16mm. All these lenses have great build quality and HSM focusing (not quite as accurate as e.g. Canon’s 10-22mm USM – but focusing is far less critical for UWAs).

The Sigma 8-16mm is almost the ideal UWA (imho) for my Canon 7D. It’s very sharp, right into the corners (I’ve not seen any FF lens that can equal it). The biggest improvements would be a 4 stop IS. Less important to me, is to perhaps make the lens aperture slightly faster (but I don’t want a huge / heavy / expensive lens).

Let’s see what Sigma pull off here… an ‘Art’ 11-22mm for FF could make for a significant number of happy FF landscape and/or architecture photographers.

Paul 8)


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 17, 2015)

TeT said:


> I imagine that Sigma lenses are much better received by the Nikon crowd (no AF issues {?})...



Unfortunately it seems like things just get more complicated.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2157462715/sigma-issues-advisory-on-lens-compatibility-with-nikon-d5300

Remember that Nikon still has mechanical links in some lenses and bodies, and often a mechanical aperture.
Yes, they still sell lenses with mechanical AF in 2015.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66987-USA/Nikon_1987_AF_Micro_Nikkor_60mm_f_2_8D.html/mode/gsa

Of course people complained at the time but when Canon abandoned everything but the EF mount they created an incredibly stable ecosystem.
Nikon should retire or update all their old lenses and unify their products, it's just bizarre that they sell lenses that are incompatible with their own cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Nikon should retire or update all their old lenses and unify their products, it's just bizarre that they sell lenses that are incompatible with their own cameras.



Canon sells a lot of current lenses that are incompatible with their own bodies – EF-S lenses don't mount on FF bodies. That's not the case for Nikon, where you can mount DX lenses on FX bodies and they give you a cropped image but otherwise work fine. I'm not sure one is less bizzare than the other.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon should retire or update all their old lenses and unify their products, it's just bizarre that they sell lenses that are incompatible with their own cameras.
> ...



No Nikon have way more issues than that, although the F mount has stayed consistent the electronics and mechanicals have not. For instance you can't use some ff lenses on some ff bodies, and there are all kinds of caveats and limitations for AF, metering and aperture control. It is a mess.

http://www.nikonians.org/reviews/nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility


----------



## TeT (Dec 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon should retire or update all their old lenses and unify their products, it's just bizarre that they sell lenses that are incompatible with their own cameras.
> ...



But the EF S is a high image quality cheap lens for the crop entry crowd (yes I know; not only the entry crowd uses them)

All of Canons lenses work with the bodies thet they are designed to fit on and there is not much confusion. Nikon can be a quagmire to the uninformed...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2015)

TeT said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



The point is that most of that quagmire is with legacy lenses. In the last decade, Nikon has released *one* lens that's not compatible with all their digital bodies (and that was in 2007). Canon has released _many_ lenses incompatible with their full lineup of dSLRs. 

Your point about Canon EF-S and Nikon DX lenses being good quality lenses for the 'crop entry crowd' is quite relevant – of those in that crowd who eventually step up to FF, users of the latter have a collection of lenses which they can continue to use at the FoVs to which they're accustomed, while users of the former have a collection of...paperweights and doorstops. 

Consider that the EF-S 55-250mm STM lens delivers really good IQ in a small, light, relatively inexpensive package. As a consumer, it would be great to have the option of a small/light/cheap lens delivering good IQ with an FoV 88-400mm for my FF camera. It would be even better given that I may already own the lens for my entry crop body. Of course, it's better for Canon that I have to buy a 100-400L, paying them twice for the same focal range...thus, it makes perfect sense that EF-S lenses aren't compatible with FF bodies (yes, I know that 10-xx lenses protrude into the mirror box, but that's clearly not a design requirement).


----------



## TeT (Dec 18, 2015)

I get what your saying... on a side: Do you find that DX lenses are made better than EF S lenses? Not IQ but construction from a durability standpoint. (just the lower end ones)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2015)

TeT said:


> I get what your saying... on a side: Do you find that DX lenses are made better than EF S lenses? Not IQ but construction from a durability standpoint. (just the lower end ones)



Overall I agree that the Canon system is less confusing...but I think it's also more limiting for more people (the converse of which might mean more profit for Canon). 

The DX lenses I've handled have been a mixed bag. The Nikon versions generally have generally felt a bit lighter, but that's a subjective impression and if true doesn't necessarily mean lower build quality. To be honest, I haven't really used and have not owned any 'low end' dSLR lenses – when buying my first dSLR (a T1i/500D), I skipped the kit lens and instead bought the 17-55/2.8 and 85/1.8 as my starter lenses. The only kit lenses I've owned are the M22/2 and M18-55, and those have a build/finish that's a step up from the EF-S kit lenses.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 18, 2015)

Maybe it'll make more sense re-phrased a little.

Every EF mount lens that Canon sells is fully compatible with every EF mount body.
EF-S bodies just happen to also be fully compatible with EF lenses.
I probably just want Nikon to change the way they name lenses as much as anything.

Sometimes I do think it would be better to get rid of EF-S entirely though. That mount was created for the start of the Digital era, now that larger sensors aren't prehibitively expensive the reasoning behind it may not hold up as well.
Yes, smaller sensors will always come with proportionally lower cost, but at this point a larger sensor can be marketed in entry level bodies.
APS-H in a Rebel would make People think long and hard about choosing any other entry level body, and it would be great to see some pressure on the market to ship more full frame sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Maybe it'll make more sense re-phrased a little.
> 
> Every EF mount lens that Canon sells is fully compatible with every EF mount body.
> EF-S bodies just happen to also be fully compatible with EF lenses.



Maybe it'll make more sense re-phrased a little. 

Canon announced earlier this year that they've produced 110 million EF lenses. The fact that the majority of those happen to be of the EF-S subtype means that every 'EF mount body' (as you phrase it) is fully incompatible with the majority of EF lenses Canon has produced (an Canon counts them). 

Nope, I guess that doesn't make more sense. 

Both systems have their quirks in nomenclature and in compatibility. Nikon is clearly worse in terms of nomenclature and compatibility in terms of complexity, but Canon is worse in terms of numbers of users who need to abandon lenses because of incompatibility.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it'll make more sense re-phrased a little.
> ...



They're fully compatible with every camera you can mount them to 

I agree that complaining about Nikon's lens compatibility may be nitpicking, but it's much more confusing at a glance.


----------



## johnstraka (Mar 30, 2016)

I wonder if we'll be seeing this sometime this year.


----------



## TeT (Mar 30, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> I wouldn't trade my 8-15L (on crop) for this or the Canon 11-24 on full-frame.



No; those are good lenses BUT if the biggest downside is 5.6 and its sub $1000, there will be plenty of excited buyers... I could trade my 14L for that lens... AFTER I see how much / little distortion


----------

