Why doesn't anyone make an ultra wide angle, prime lens for a cropped camera?

Spaceman Spiff 23 · Jul 6, 2009

I would love to get a 10 or 11mm lens, but all the available ones are zooms. Since I would probably only use this at its widest, it would be great to get a fixed lens with maybe a lower f#, higher quality glass, or a lower price. I don't think I'm alone in my thinking, and I feel like they would sell really well.

JerryPH · Jul 6, 2009

Spaceman Spiff 23 said:
I would love to get a 10 or 11mm lens, but all the available ones are zooms. Since I would probably only use this at its widest, it would be great to get a fixed lens with maybe a lower f#, higher quality glass, or a lower price.

Well, primes are always more expensive than it's cousin zoom lens, so that tosses out the lower price "advantage".

Quality... well in today's technology, zooms and primes are getting closer, and this again lowers the need for a zoom of that focal length.

Faster glass? 90% of the time, one uses UWA lenses to get landscapes and large areas with deep DOF needed... so though faster glass may help shutter speeds in lower light situations, closed down apertures will result in better quality shots anyway if you are over F/4, making an F/2.8 lens pretty much un-needed.

You are basically asking for something that IMHO is really not all *that* great a need.

- I can get great quality shots with zooms.
- I can get great quality shots at higher apertures
- I can get great quality shots with commercially available lenses that are affordable.

Sigma 10-20mm at 18mm and F/5.6.

I am all for getting the best lens on the market for any need I feel is for me... but beyond a fisheye effect, there is no real advantage to getting a 10 to 15 mm UWA prime over what is available out there now with zooms like the Tokina 11-16 or the Sigma 10-20.

Garbz · Jul 6, 2009

Because the type of people who would go for this kind of thing would be the same type of people who would look at upgrading to FX anyway?

I don't see much point in wide angle primes. No matter what the image is distorted, a large aperture still gives next to nothing depth of field adding only to the weight of the lens, and the ultra wide angle zooms are outstanding performers.

But then I'm the type who doesn't get any primes which don't have massive apertures for wonderful depth of field, or primes which fit the "we can't make useful zooms in this length" category.

Sachphotography · Jul 6, 2009

There are a few short zooms available that offer good quality. For what you are looking for I would say check this lens out. I love it.

Tokina | 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus | ATX116PRODXN

Iron Flatline · Jul 6, 2009

To give you an idea, Leica makes a 21mm f/1.4 that costs about $5,000.

THAT'S WHY companies don't make super-fast UWA lenses. You are talking about a Ferrari that can go 200 MPH, has seating like a minivan, and can tow a two-horse trailer. Somewhere there's someone who could actually use that... but that doesn't mean there's an actual market for it. And it wouldn't be cheap, that's certain.

usayit · Jul 6, 2009

As Iron Flatline mentioned, I think it has a lot to do with the cost to design and manufacture coupled with the limited market. Short focal length add problems (distortion) and require designed optics to correct. Fast apertures also add issues that must be corrected in optics. Add them together, you have a fairly difficult undertaking.

With that said, I don't really see the need for fast apertures on wide angle lenses. At those focal lengths, the depth of field is VERY VERY deep. A faster aperture will do little to change that.