Fotodiox introduces extra large WonderPana Free Arc system for Canon EF 11-24mm wide zoom

Your mirrorless lens would look the same if it was to have the same light-gathering capability. Nothing stops you from using a slower UWA lens on your DSLR.

For someone who mostly shoots landscapes or architecture with the camera on a tripod, the size of this setup is hardly a problem.

I shoot micro four thirds and cannot get a reasonable filter for my rokinon 10mm f/2.8. This is a great option for those that have a need. I have to see if the specs of the Canon lens are similar and maybe this is my solution as well?

You do know an 11-24 would be no smaller on a mirrorless, right?

Full frame mirrorless is negligibly smaller than DSLR when you use fast lenses and zooms. Go and look up the Sony 70-200, 85, 24-70 Sony G lenses for evidence.

I enjoy my APS-C mirrorless for what it is but make no mistake if I wanted the same setup as my D810 I'd be carrying just as much weight (Sony A7R would need 4 batteries minimum) and my lenses would be just as heavy, e.g. Sigma 35 f/1.4 is only 50g or so more than Sony's 35 f/1.4.

Is there a 5.5mm lens for m4/3?

Im about to drop the Voightlander 10mm full frame bomb on these dslr fools.

Its about 1/3 the size and weight... also 1mm wider

EthanP99:
The Voigtländer is also slow (f/5.6) and not a zoom. At least in the "DLSR fool" world it's a bit of a non-news that you can make a slow prime smaller than a faster zoom. In the troll world these things can of course be conveniently forgotten.

Really ? What 11-24 f/4 FF equivalent zoom do you have for your mirroless ? Ahh..

+1

mirrorless has no size advantage when like-for-like lenses are compared. Only smaller sensors and thus smaller coverage makes for smaller lenses.

The new start-up Irix is teasing an 11mm rectilinear prime for full frame. Could be an interesting option for those who want to go really wide without the cost/weight of the 11-24.

"Only smaller sensors and thus smaller coverage makes for smaller lenses."

That's mostly true, but there's also the flange distance, determining how wide you can go without having to use a retrofocal design.

Short flanges don't help modern lenses. AF and increased optical performance across the frame makes modern lenses retro-focal anyway.

Old, small, manual focus range finder lenses need not apply. They were all designed around far lower expectations of film, and to keep the lens relatively compact to avoid obscuring the rangefinder window too dramatically. They didn't have to contend with AF or close focus either. In many ways they are among the most constrained and compromised designs.

Every full frame lens for Sony's FE is as large as a DSLR equivalent, despite having a flange distance that shorter than even Leica's M.

"Every full frame lens for Sony's FE is as large as a DSLR equivalent, despite having a flange distance that shorter than even Leica's M."

Yes, that's correct. It still should be possible, in theory, to make WA lenses a little bit more compact for a mirrorless camera. But perhaps you're right that this isn't possible considering the performance requirements of modern lenses.

My Leica M240 with Voigtlander 15mm is MUCH smaller than this for landscape work. Do I care that it's a f4.5 lens?? Nope, I stop it down to f11 for landscape work anyway. Cue the comments about how you all shoot star trails and f4.5 is too slow...(eye roll). 15mm not wide enough?? Voigtlander is releasing a 10mm.

yes, we're all aware about rangefinder manual, fixed focal lenses. they're nice, no doubt about that, but to cover let say 10-24 mm range, you need at least 3 of them, and none of them is af, nor have automatic aperture etc. and i have seen some picky testing with them and optically are not really that great, when in comes to corners, min. focus range, some have not so small barrel distortions etc. those new uw lenses from canon (and from others, too) are really nice and are great asset for professional work, where big size is not such a problem, but to be fair: yes, rangefinder lenses have their place, too.

EthanP99 what voigt are you talking about? There isn't a 5.5 voigt is there? You'd need a 5.5mm m43 lens to have same 11mm FF equiv FOV

Mr Izo - Yes, no doubt my Voigtlander 15mm is a fixed lens and doesn't cover 10-24mm. That said, optically I would put it up against the Canon any day of the week provided you shoot it on a Leica (as opposed to a Fuji/Sony?Olympus). It is the sharpest UWA I have ever owned with VERY min distortion...and I was a long time Canon shooter.

I keep a 35mm 1.4, a 50mm 1.5 and a 15mm in one small bag with my M240. Take those same focal lengths from Canon and you would be carrying a hell of a lot more, not to mention that optically the rangefinder lenses are superior to most of the Canon offerings.

Voigtlander 10mm is a full frame lens, coming in a couple months.

Making small primes a little slower at max aperture is a pretty sensible way to go, and manual focus is quite OK at the the extreme wide angle too.