# Would you buy this lens? Small, lightweight, 17mm/2.8



## DRR (Jan 14, 2015)

In my opinion, Canon is missing a small, UWA prime between the 14mm/2.8 and the 20mm/2.8.

I find myself wanting wider than 20mm, but the 14mm is larger, heavier, and wider than I need. (Not to mention the cost)

If Canon came out with a 17mm/2.8, similar in size/build quality to the current 24mm/IS, with IQ about on par with the 17-40 at 17mm... and it was under $500, would you buy it? It would autofocus of course.

Or am I the only one wishing for this unicorn?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 14, 2015)

It would be nice to have, but I don't think it's possible for that price. The existing 24mm f/2.8 IS is about 10 oz, and the existing 20mm f/2.8 is a bit larger and weighs about 14 oz. The existing 16-35 f/2.8 II weighs about 22 oz, so your looking a a 17 f/2.8 that would be close to 20 oz, which would be about twice the weight of the existing 24mm f/2.8 IS with its concommitant increase in size. The Canon 20mm f/2.8 is already above 500 and that is for a lens that was introduced in 1992. With a new design, I'd suspect the launch price to be closer to 1000.


----------



## Frodo (Jan 14, 2015)

Notwithstanding RO's comments about physical and financial constraints, I would be very interested in such a lens. I've had the 20mm f/2.8, but was unhappy with the IQ. I now have the Samyang 14mm f/2.8, which has great IQ, but manual focus (I can live with that most of the time), and is not very robust (my first was replaced under warranty). I would love something in between, but with better IQ than the 17-40.


----------



## slclick (Jan 14, 2015)

If it's a pancake, hell yes. Imagine that. EF-S 24, EF 40 and a 17...travel dream kit for the SL1


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 14, 2015)

The only possibility of a F2.8 17mm with similar size to 24mm Image Stabilizer, and cost under $ 500 is only EF-S. You may be able to do this with EF mount, keeping the size and price of 24mm IS if maximum aperture is F4.

I like to buy such hypothetical lens.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jan 14, 2015)

I've wanted a FF ultra-wide angle f/2.8 prime from Canon for a longggg time. From anyone relatively affordable, actually. I'm sort of surprised one doesn't exist. This is all I'd want:


16, 17, or 18mm prime
F/2.8 (or faster, lol)
Corner-to-corner sharpness
Ability to take threaded filters
Less than $700


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 14, 2015)

My answer is: "It depends..."

1) Does this lens render sharp detail in the corners of the frame at f/2.8
2) Is this lens absent of coma wide open? 

If answers to those two questions is yes and if the price is right (<$1200) then YES, otherwise NO. I'd love something wider than my 24mm f/1.4 L II USM that is faster than f/2.8 and meets my above requirements. (e.g. 16mm f/2, 17mm f/2, 18mm f/2, 20mm f/1.8)


----------



## DRR (Jan 14, 2015)

I am by no means an optical engineer, however seeing other lenses in this focal length, make me think it should at least be possible.

Tokina in fact made a 17mm/3.5 EF mount that is close to the same size, and has AF. I don't have one and can't speak to the quality, but my guess is a company with Canon's resources should be able to make it a _little bit_ faster.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/268-tokina-af-17mm-f35-at-x-pro-lab-test-report--review


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 14, 2015)

If the price was right, I'd buy it for use on my *Canon Elan 7n* Full Frame Film camera . A good compliment to the 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 i presently use.

As an *EF-S lens* it would be a good *small/light prime* (= 27mm FF) for an *xxD camera*. I'd also like to see an *EF-S 10mm prime*.


----------



## Frodo (Jan 15, 2015)

I forgot to mention that I owned the Canon FD 17mm f/4 ages ago. Loved the lens. F4 was fine - even in the days of Kodachrome 64! My how things change!
Would be less of an astro lens at f4 (my Samyang is great for that), but I could live with that.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 15, 2015)

DRR said:


> In my opinion, Canon is missing a small, UWA prime between the 14mm/2.8 and the 20mm/2.8.
> 
> I find myself wanting wider than 20mm, but the 14mm is larger, heavier, and wider than I need. (Not to mention the cost)
> 
> ...



yeah because a lightweight 17mm 2.8 has never existed.

and you want this beast to be 500 bucks ?

let me know how the weather is in candyland where you are certainly visiting the unicorns.

now if you said a 17mm f/4 .. that could be made relatively small, and inexpensive but it would still float in around 750-1000 IMO. that was basically that tokina / FD lens you are looking at - and that wasn't too light. and it really wasn't that good on full frame high pixel density - but was pretty good for the buck if you could find it.

the 17/4 FD was meh.

f3.5 to 2.8 is still 2/3's of a stop, may as well call it a full stop faster. it's going to be bigger, heavier and far more bulky to pull that off.


----------



## vscd (Jan 16, 2015)

I would buy one, really, but it has to be a pancake or something really small for trips. I rather would accept a f5.6 lense if it's no too big...


----------



## DRR (Jan 16, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, Canon is missing a small, UWA prime between the 14mm/2.8 and the 20mm/2.8.
> ...



I'm no optical engineer, so I'm just guestimating at what is possible. Also when I say "small lightweight" I mean, smaller and lighter than a zoom in that range. I did not think 17/2.8 is so outrageous, but again, I am no engineer.

Canon has a 20mm/2.8, and my "unicorn" is only 3mm wider. And that 20mm design is well over 20 years old! An extra 3mm over 20 years of technological innovation doesn't seem so unrealistic to me.

FWIW my definition of "small and lightweight" fits the current 20mm. At or under 400g, coat-pocketable.


----------



## Xyclopx (Jan 19, 2015)

DRR said:


> In my opinion, Canon is missing a small, UWA prime between the 14mm/2.8 and the 20mm/2.8.
> 
> I find myself wanting wider than 20mm, but the 14mm is larger, heavier, and wider than I need. (Not to mention the cost)
> 
> ...


i wouldn't buy it. none of the non-telephoto lenses are too big. i would never sacrifice iq/functionality for size or weight. just go to the gym more.

btw, not sure if you're talking crop or full-frame, but if crop the 17-55 2.8 is pretty nice and covers the focal length you're talking about at that aperture. on my crop camera, that's the one stuck on 90% of the time.


----------



## slclick (Jan 19, 2015)

Enjoying the size and discretion of a pancake lens has nothing to do with strength of the shooter. Making those types of comments are simply sophomoric and close-minded. Your way is only one way.


----------



## Xyclopx (Jan 19, 2015)

slclick said:


> Enjoying the size and discretion of a pancake lens has nothing to do with strength of the shooter. Making those types of comments are simply sophomoric and close-minded. Your way is only one way.


it's just an opinion. chill. is this a discussion forum for differing views?--or are you the collective voice of all those who are mature and open-minded? hmmm.... "your way is only one way..."


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 19, 2015)

I am interested in something like 17mm, compact, not too expensive.

I think [email protected] for full frame is not possible to produce for 500$ but f4.0 might be possible - I just think about the FD 4.0 17 I own: A little bit soft, roughly 700 german mark 20 years ago might transform into a 500 EUR high quality lens with plastic housing but (more or less) current lens technology (like e.g. 10-22 EF-S). 

I like high quality in the corners so I wouldn't be satisfied with the IQ of the 17-40mm - but with f4.0 a better correction is possible IMO.


----------



## slclick (Jan 19, 2015)

Xyclopx said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Enjoying the size and discretion of a pancake lens has nothing to do with strength of the shooter. Making those types of comments are simply sophomoric and close-minded. Your way is only one way.
> ...



Chill? I think your gym comment was far more antagonistic than my comments about you being possibly more open minded to others needs. Reading comprehension is truly a gift.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 19, 2015)

If Canon can make a TS-E 17mm f/4, and made an FD 17mm f/4 over 25 years ago, I'm sure it could make an EF 17mm f/2.8 USM today.

With the old sub par EF 20mm f/2.8 priced at a wee over $500, I have to agree with previous posters that Canon isn't likely to release a newer & wider prime in that price bracket.

Actually, with 20mm on FF having equivalent angle of view to 35mm on FF, I wonder how is it Canon didn't upgrade the EF 20mm f/2.8 along with the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm trio.


----------



## Xyclopx (Jan 19, 2015)

slclick said:


> Xyclopx said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...


alright man.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jan 19, 2015)

I voted yes, however this lens i would love a TSE but a flat out prime at 2.8 is fine, the 40 pancake is very wide for me a light 17mm priced around 400 sounds more like it, Red rings with weather seal and quality will add weight regardless with this regard the 14mm is just fine. haha


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 23, 2015)

DRR said:


> FWIW my definition of "small and lightweight" fits the current 20mm. At or under 400g, coat-pocketable.



I have a trench-coat which can pocket my 16-35mm f/2.8-II. I admit that with the lens hood on it's a bit of a squeeze, but I still get it in there.


----------

