December 19, 2014, 01:42:27 AM

Author Topic: Which one should I get?!  (Read 3872 times)

ericson

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Which one should I get?!
« on: January 04, 2014, 12:32:13 AM »
Hello!
Long time reader first time poster!
anyway... So i'm in the market for a new wide angle/ ultrawide lens.
I shoot a lot of landscapes and astrophotography etc. with my 5d3
I currently have a 15mm fisheye (canon version) and it's great but kind of useless sometimes? also have a Tokina 20-35 which works surprisingly well despite being a lower end third party lens... but nevertheless i'm in the market for a new lens. I was thinking a 24mm 1.4 II or 16 35mm 2.8? and maybe possibly selling the fisheye if it would render useless with either of these new lens. let me know what you guys think. budget is a bit of an issue but not much..
thanks!
-ericson

canon rumors FORUM

Which one should I get?!
« on: January 04, 2014, 12:32:13 AM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4362
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2014, 02:43:07 AM »
Hello!
Long time reader first time poster!
anyway... So i'm in the market for a new wide angle/ ultrawide lens.
I shoot a lot of landscapes and astrophotography etc. with my 5d3
I currently have a 15mm fisheye (canon version) and it's great but kind of useless sometimes? also have a Tokina 20-35 which works surprisingly well despite being a lower end third party lens... but nevertheless i'm in the market for a new lens. I was thinking a 24mm 1.4 II or 16 35mm 2.8? and maybe possibly selling the fisheye if it would render useless with either of these new lens. let me know what you guys think. budget is a bit of an issue but not much..
thanks!
-ericson

16-35 II is a good lens, but not a "WOW" lens. Try canon 14mm f2.8 ;)
Bodies: 1DX -- 5D III
Zooms: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Primes: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15198
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2014, 07:23:34 AM »
No rectilinear lens can 'replace' a fisheye, unless you always de-fish the images (in which case, you probably shouldn't have been using a fisheye lens).

The real question is how wide do you need?  The 15mm fisheye actually gives a slightly wider FoV than the 14mm f/2.8L II.  So if the fisheye gives you the FoV you need/want, the 14/2.8L II is likely your best bet.

The 16-35L II is a good lens, not stellar but a very useful ultrawide.  It's a bit sharper than the 17-40L, but the 16-35's main advantage is the extra stop of light, and with a UWA you can often get the DoF you need if you're not right on top of your subject.

If you want the absolute best IQ in a wide or ultrawide, and/or if you shoot architecture/buildings, consider the TS-E 17L or TS-E 24L II.  The TS lenses are also great for landscapes, giving you a deep DoF without the need to stop down so far that diffraction softens your image.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

gigabellone

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2014, 08:31:28 AM »
If you want to try the 14mm focal length and don't mind manual focusing and mechanical aperture, the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 could be a good choice. It is sharp and with negligible optical abberrations, except a hefty distortion. It also costs a fifth of the money needed for the Canon counterpart.
6D, Sigma 35/1.4, 85/1.8, YN560III

slclick

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2014, 12:39:30 PM »
Zeiss makes excellent wide angle primes for Canon EF mount. 15, 18 & 21 to name a few. Check out reviews ....http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Lens-Reviews.aspx

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1405
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2014, 03:18:16 PM »
For astro, I'd start with the Samyangs.  They have a lot less coma than their Canon counterparts.

For landscapes, I love using the TS-Es (17 or 24).  Although I use the TS-Es more for buildings (exteriors and interiors), the additional DOFs are useful for landscapes too.

kirispupis

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2014, 09:09:09 PM »
I have the 8-15 fisheye and absolutely love it.  That being said, it is a lens best used with moderation so although it is always in my bag it is rarely the first lens I turn to.

If you want a 'wow' lens look into the TS-E 24 II.  This is a lens I often turn to first.
5D3|TS-E 24 II|TS-E 17|TS-E 90|200-400/1.4x|MP-E 65|100/2.8 IS Macro|70-200/2.8 IS II||16-35/2.8 II|EOS M

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2014, 09:09:09 PM »

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1923
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2014, 07:03:41 AM »
Beware of the coma. So stay way from 24 1.4L II and 16-35.

Better solution: Canon 14mm 2.8 L II (it has some but  less that theabove mentioned Canon lenses), Zeiss 21mm 2.8 (not much coma plus the hard stop at infinity is a plus). I do have these 2 lenses.

Many mention the Samyang 14mm 2.8 as a good solution. Tests show it has almost no coma so you may consider it as a candidate too.

Harry Muff

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2014, 10:31:41 AM »
I have a 16-35 2.8L II and love it. However, I'd LOVE to own a 14mm 2.8L II!
Some cameras… With Canon written on them. Oh, and some lenses… Also with Canon written on them. Oh, and a shiny camera with Fuji written on it too...

Feel free to have a wander round my flickr

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1923
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2014, 12:19:02 PM »
I have a 16-35 2.8L II and love it.
You love it but the OP mentioned astrophotography! Do you use it for astrophotography and you like the edges?

nc0b

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • 6D
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2014, 04:34:48 PM »
I had Canon non-L 20 and 24mm f/2.8 which were disappointing on FF. Also briefly the old 20-35mm L, which was even worse.  So I went for the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5.  It has a hard stop at infinity which you need for astro, and much better in the corners than the ones I got rid of.  If vignetting is an issue for astro, or anything for that matter, stop down to f/8.  The Zeiss have full EXIF data, & focus confirmation though with some hysteresis.  I usually zone focus with the 18mm. Have never used the Zeiss 15 or 21mm, as both were more money than I wanted to spend. Got my 18mm used for $999. 
6D, 60D, 5D Classic & 40D. 400 f/5.6, 300 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II & f/4 IS, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/2.5, 24-105 f/4, 15-85 f/4-5.6 & Zeiss 18mm f/3.5.

arize84

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
    • IconFoto
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2014, 05:16:18 PM »
Dollar for Dollar, nothing beats the Tokina 16-28 2.8. It's super sharp and has phenomenal distortion control. As far as I can tell it is every bit as sharp as the Canon equivalent. See first picture below, it was shot at 16mm with no distortion adjustments made in LR.



28mm


www.iconfoto.net
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 05:31:15 PM by arize84 »

ericson

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2014, 06:19:46 PM »
No rectilinear lens can 'replace' a fisheye, unless you always de-fish the images (in which case, you probably shouldn't have been using a fisheye lens).

The real question is how wide do you need?  The 15mm fisheye actually gives a slightly wider FoV than the 14mm f/2.8L II.  So if the fisheye gives you the FoV you need/want, the 14/2.8L II is likely your best bet.

The 16-35L II is a good lens, not stellar but a very useful ultrawide.  It's a bit sharper than the 17-40L, but the 16-35's main advantage is the extra stop of light, and with a UWA you can often get the DoF you need if you're not right on top of your subject.

If you want the absolute best IQ in a wide or ultrawide, and/or if you shoot architecture/buildings, consider the TS-E 17L or TS-E 24L II.  The TS lenses are also great for landscapes, giving you a deep DoF without the need to stop down so far that diffraction softens your image.

The way I use a fisheye now is more of a non-essential. It's to have it there when i need it. But i feel that I lug it around as a paper weight more often then not. that's why I ruled out the 14mm. It's just a tad bit too wide for everyday practical use as well as astrophotography and landscapes, given the large price tag.

Does anyone have any experience  with the canon 24mm? I really like a fast lens and don't mind that it's fixed focal length. When shooting stars pretty much anything at night more light is always a plus.

as for the Zeiss and the Samyang and maybe Tilt/Shift lenses, I have no experience with Manual focus for more practice uses and everyday stuff.. Is it easy to pick up?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2014, 06:19:46 PM »

Alexiumz

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2014, 07:20:41 PM »
Does anyone have any experience  with the canon 24mm? I really like a fast lens and don't mind that it's fixed focal length. When shooting stars pretty much anything at night more light is always a plus.

It's a stellar lens, no question… except in one area - coma. It's a very poor performer and if shooting wide open, is unsuitable for astrophotography. You'd need to stop down to 2.8 or more to negate or reduce it enough to get usable images with it. And at those apertures you have a wider market of lenses to choose from.

I have a 16-35 2.8L II and love it.
You love it but the OP mentioned astrophotography! Do you use it for astrophotography and you like the edges?
I use it for astrophotography and yes, it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners, both in terms of sharpness and coma. Such a useful lens otherwise though! I need to get a Samyang 14mm as an alternative lens to shoot stars with.
5DIII | 60D | EOS 3
16-35L II | 17-85 EF-S | 85 1.8 | 100L

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9371
    • View Profile
Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2014, 08:01:03 PM »


I use it for astrophotography and yes, it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners, both in terms of sharpness and coma. Such a useful lens otherwise though! I need to get a Samyang 14mm as an alternative lens to shoot stars with.
If you think that the 16-35 is weak in the corners, it dosen't compare to the 14mm Samyang I bought.  Pure Junk!!  My 15mm FE blows it away and so does my 16-35.  I see a lot of people saying to get the Samyang, but they don't post images.
 
Here is one!  The left side is horribly distorted.  You do get a wider view with the FE.
 
 

 
Exact Same View from the same spot with the Canon 15mm FE

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which one should I get?!
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2014, 08:01:03 PM »