November 28, 2014, 02:36:34 AM

Author Topic: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame  (Read 14681 times)

Stu_bert

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2012, 06:44:36 PM »
I own both the Mk I & Mk II versions of the Sigma 12-24 I use them on a 5d2.  I've also tested the Nikon 14-24 with  adapter on my 5D2. I also use the amazing 24 TSE MK II.  The Nikon is a terrific lens but ultimately its cost and the necessary use of adapter turned me off.  My sample of the Sigma 12-24 Mk I is pretty good in the center but not so good (e.i. bad) in the corners.  My Mk II version is also good in the center and much, much better in the corners (e.i. very usable).  The MK II does have more distortion than the Mk I but  PTLens deals with it just fine.  Both lenses are contrasty enough and both have a bit of Sigma color to them which I don't mind.  Build quality is pretty good as well.

As far as the "don't settle for anything other than the 16-35 Mk II" sentiment expressed by some, I dunno, if you want *really* wide, 12mm is *a lot* wider than 16mm.  But if you need f/2.8, well then the Sigma would be out of the running. 

Have you considered the Samyang 14 f/2.8?  That gets generally good reviews, especially for its price to performance ratio.

Cheers!
Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?
If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2012, 06:44:36 PM »

YellowJersey

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2012, 07:11:34 PM »
I've been shooting full frame with the 17-40 for about three years now and I really like it. The only reason not to get it, imho, is if you need a 2.8 lens. I shoot landscapes and nature so I almost never need a 2.8 lens, and the 17-40 has served me quite well and I have no complaints. Plus, the price is right.

RedEye

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2012, 07:23:00 PM »
I own both the Mk I & Mk II versions of the Sigma 12-24 I use them on a 5d2.  I've also tested the Nikon 14-24 with  adapter on my 5D2. I also use the amazing 24 TSE MK II.  The Nikon is a terrific lens but ultimately its cost and the necessary use of adapter turned me off.  My sample of the Sigma 12-24 Mk I is pretty good in the center but not so good (e.i. bad) in the corners.  My Mk II version is also good in the center and much, much better in the corners (e.i. very usable).  The MK II does have more distortion than the Mk I but  PTLens deals with it just fine.  Both lenses are contrasty enough and both have a bit of Sigma color to them which I don't mind.  Build quality is pretty good as well.

As far as the "don't settle for anything other than the 16-35 Mk II" sentiment expressed by some, I dunno, if you want *really* wide, 12mm is *a lot* wider than 16mm.  But if you need f/2.8, well then the Sigma would be out of the running. 

Have you considered the Samyang 14 f/2.8?  That gets generally good reviews, especially for its price to performance ratio.

Cheers!
Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?

recall that it only allows for manual focus... if that's an issue. 

BL

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
  • Great gear is good. Good technique is better.
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2012, 07:29:02 PM »
I've been shooting full frame with the 17-40 for about three years now and I really like it. The only reason not to get it, imho, is if you need a 2.8 lens.

well, and the extra 1mm at the wide end.  it may not sound like much, but the extra 1mm is more than subtle imo.  i bought both the 17-40 and 16-35 II to evaluate, and found the extra stop and 1mm on the wide end more than worth it.  granted, a lot of what i shoot with this lens is indoor architecture along with landscapes on a tripod.
M, 5Dc, 1Dx, some lenses, a few lights

akclimber

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2012, 07:58:38 PM »
Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?

Yep, it was the 1st generation 16:9 adapter.  I bought the adapter & eventually rented a 14-24 for a couple weeks with every intention of ending up buying one.  Well, first off, the 14-24 is indeed a rocking lens.  Sharp throughout its range and into its corners, contrasty, built well, etc.  Highly recommended for the right person.  For me, the fact that at that time (it may be different now, I haven't kept up with the Canon to Nikon adapter evolution), you had to pretty much guesstimate what aperture you were using (except wide open and maybe f/8 and fully stopped down) was bothersome.  I also found I unexpectedly missed the ability to AF (it was going to be an all purpose lens, not just a landscape or architecture lens and I kinda suck at fast manual AF).  In the end I decided that for the amount of times I really need or want really wide, I could make do with the Sigma 12-24 Mk I I had at the time and hope they would soon make an improved version, which they did.  Given the cost and slight inconvenience of the 14-24 plus adapter combo, I just couldn't justify the purchase.

Now, my 24 TS-E MK II on the other hand is the best lens I've ever used and I'm now saving for a 17 TSE (but that's another story)

Hope that's useful.

DJL329

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2012, 08:06:25 PM »
Would you want to go the fisheye direction?

Theres that....
I was looking for rectilinear.

Isn't 17-40 on FF ultra-wide? 24 is wide and 17 is ultra wide. I don understand why you wan to cross over from Nikon lens, might as well get the D800 which is more suited for landscape photography?
I realize 17 mm is ultra wide - I was looking for wider  :P - 12 to 15 mm range at the widest.  Can't switch to Nikon as invested in Canon.

On Full Frame, 14mm is as wide as you can go for rectilinear, beyond that is fisheye.  Since you state you're doing landscapes, I'd say the 16-35mm is your best bet, as a lot of the ultra-wides (Samyang 14mm, Sigma 12-24mm, the Canon 14mm L or 17mm TS-E) do not take screw-in filters.  If you have a rich uncle, then the new Zeiss 15mm looks nice.   ;)

Oh, and if 16mm isn't wide enough, take a step back...   :P

Good luck!
Canon EOS 5D Mark III | EF 14mm f/2.8L | EF 28mm f/1.8 | EF 50mm f/1.4 | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | EF 300mm f/4L IS

Arkarch

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
    • Karl Buiter Photography
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2012, 08:22:31 PM »

Oh, and if 16mm isn't wide enough, take a step back...   :P


In my area, that could be {{{splash}}}  or <<<<ahhhhhhhhh>>>>thud

:)

But yeah, you could do that in most cases.

Landscape ( http://www.buiterphotography.com )
Motorsports ( http://www.buitermotorsports.com )
5DIII, 7D, EF 300/2.8 II IS USM, ZE 21/2.8, ZE 50/2 ZE 100/2, TS-E 24/3.5, EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II, EF 24-105 IS f/4, TC 1.4 III, TC 2.0 III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2012, 08:22:31 PM »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2012, 08:33:27 PM »
I have been eyeing the Tokina 16-28mm lens.  The photozone tests show it is very good against the Canon 16-35mm L.
 
There have been reports of poor quality control, I expect that they are very difficult to assemble properly.
 
They are worth looking at.  Good deal price wise.
 
The Tokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro SD FX is a high-performance ultra-wide zoom lens that gives the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L II a run for the money - but it's not a lens without flaws. Its primary weakness is corner softness at f/2.8 but that's not unheard of in this class anyway. However, the center quality is great and the borders are generally sharp as well. The corners start to catch up at f/4 and they're very good from f/5.6 onward. Vignetting is, of course, visible at f/2.8, specifically at 16mm but the issue is better controlled than average. Lateral CAs, an old Tokina disease actually, are modest and not overly field-relevant when stopped down a little bit. Typical for such lens it shows some barrel distortions but they're, again, comparatively moderate even at the very wide end of the range.
 
Technically the Tokina is superior to the current Canon EF zoom lenses in basically all the analysed image aspects!
 
 
Unfortunately there may be a hair spoiling the (optical) soup here - quality control. As mentioned we purchased three lens samples for testing, two in Nikon and one in Canon mount, and all three showed some centering issues. The initial Nikon variant was so poor that we had to cancel the testing procedure. We'd like to urge the manufacturers to take lens centering (alignment) more seriously - just a good or possibly even great base-design is simply not enough without proper manufacturing. We are pretty sure that consumers, especially in the mid-to-high end market, would be happily willing to pay a little more for better quality control. Especially ultra-wide and standard lenses show more outliers than desirable - not only among Tokinas but across the manufacturers (e.g. recently we tested 3 (three!) Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 in Nikon mount without success). We are probably seeing negative outliers in excess of 25%(!) in this segment which is, frankly, embarrassing and unacceptable!     That all said we'd like to end this review with some more positive aspects. The (outer) build quality of the Tokina is on a very high level. The lens body is only based on tightly assembled, high quality plastics rather than the "duraluminium" finish used in previous AT-X lenses. However, the quality is still up to pro standards with the exception of the missing weather sealing. Tokina has improved the AF quite a bit - it doesn't really operate "silently" as promised but it's both fast and accurate in phase-detection AF mode. Some users may not like the huge, bulb-like front element which prohibits the use of front filters. However, it seems as if only this design approach solves the performance issues that are usually associated with ultra-wide angle lenses. So setting aside potential sample variations the Tokina is definitely worth a deeper look!

Stu_bert

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2012, 08:57:45 PM »
Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?

Yep, it was the 1st generation 16:9 adapter.  I bought the adapter & eventually rented a 14-24 for a couple weeks with every intention of ending up buying one.  Well, first off, the 14-24 is indeed a rocking lens.  Sharp throughout its range and into its corners, contrasty, built well, etc.  Highly recommended for the right person.  For me, the fact that at that time (it may be different now, I haven't kept up with the Canon to Nikon adapter evolution), you had to pretty much guesstimate what aperture you were using (except wide open and maybe f/8 and fully stopped down) was bothersome.  I also found I unexpectedly missed the ability to AF (it was going to be an all purpose lens, not just a landscape or architecture lens and I kinda suck at fast manual AF).  In the end I decided that for the amount of times I really need or want really wide, I could make do with the Sigma 12-24 Mk I I had at the time and hope they would soon make an improved version, which they did.  Given the cost and slight inconvenience of the 14-24 plus adapter combo, I just couldn't justify the purchase.

Now, my 24 TS-E MK II on the other hand is the best lens I've ever used and I'm now saving for a 17 TSE (but that's another story)

Hope that's useful.
Certainly was, many thanks for taking the time. I have the 17-40 and MK I TSE 24mm and always use MF + Liveview when doing landscapes so no worries there. Cumbersome aperture selection might niggle me, but I presume you could test out the apertures and notch in your most use (mine would be f/13 or f/14)? Adapter is MK III but no idea on what has improved, certainly not aperture selection by the looks.

I'll wait the year till I see if Canon can respond with a UWA of comparable form. TSE-17mm would be interesting acquisition  :D

Thanks again.
If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future :)

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3017
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2012, 09:09:04 PM »
I was sold on the Tokina 16-28 until I saw the horrible rainbow flare so that was out for me.  I went with the Sigma 12-24 II for my 5DmkII and trust me 12mm rectilinear is WIDE!!!  The lens is good but not great from 17-24 and has a very dark viewfinder image (for people like me with the super precision matte screen), but at f/11 from 12-17mm it's very good and ACR, DxO, and PTLens do a great job with the distortion.  I'm borrowing a 14mm 2.8 from Canon Professional Services in early April to see how they match up.  I have talked to a lot of people and there doesn't seem to be any ideal options (even the Nikon 14-24 flares), so pick the best lens for your budget and live with the limitations as best you can.

Bosman

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
    • View Profile
    • Bosman Photography
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2012, 11:32:27 PM »
Def 16-35L II. That is a lust worthy lens. Never buy F4 anything. :D
Bosman Photography www.bosmanphotography.com, Fast Photo Pro www.fastphotopro.com
Follow Bosman Photography on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Bosman.Photography
Sports Photography  Follow Fast Photo Pro on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Fast.Photo.Pr

RedEye

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2012, 12:47:57 AM »

Oh, and if 16mm isn't wide enough, take a step back...   :P


In my area, that could be {{{splash}}}  or <<<<ahhhhhhhhh>>>>thud

:)

But yeah, you could do that in most cases.

Working at a dive competition?  Hover Dam? 

slowhandpdx

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2012, 01:27:25 AM »
Definitely the 16-35 f2.8 if you could afford it. It has much less barrel distortion at the edges compared to the 17-40 f4. I compared my 16-35 with my dad's 17-40, and the difference is obvious.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2012, 01:27:25 AM »

D.Sim

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2012, 01:57:53 AM »

Oh, and if 16mm isn't wide enough, take a step back...   :P


In my area, that could be {{{splash}}}  or <<<<ahhhhhhhhh>>>>thud

:)

But yeah, you could do that in most cases.

Thanks for making me smile... =)

A very interesting thought ;)

akclimber

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2012, 03:02:40 AM »

Certainly was, many thanks for taking the time. I have the 17-40 and MK I TSE 24mm and always use MF + Liveview when doing landscapes so no worries there. Cumbersome aperture selection might niggle me, but I presume you could test out the apertures and notch in your most use (mine would be f/13 or f/14)? Adapter is MK III but no idea on what has improved, certainly not aperture selection by the looks.

I'll wait the year till I see if Canon can respond with a UWA of comparable form. TSE-17mm would be interesting acquisition  :D

Thanks again.

Have you tried a 24 TSE Mk II vs your Mk I?  The MK II is worlds better (I owned a Mk I).  Frankly, now, for architecture and landscapes, I can't imagine going back to a non-TSE lens.  I'd seriously consider a 24 or 17 TSE + 1.4 adapter over the Nikon if you're considering the Nikon, especially if you're used to using TSE lenses and live view.  But yeah, for over all usability, a Canon 14-24-ish f/2.8 equivalent would be very, very cool.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2012, 03:02:40 AM »