August 01, 2014, 09:14:15 AM

Author Topic: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame  (Read 13952 times)

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2012, 05:49:45 AM »
If the 16-35 MKII price is a deal breaker for your budget, get the 17-40 used or the original 16-35 MKI Used.  The other options you mentioned don't seem so great by comparison.  Otherwise get a wide prime or TS-E prime lens.  You really can't go wrong with any of the above and in the right hands any of these options will yield amazing results.  I have the 16-35 MKII, it's my favorite lens, and I'd be just as happy with the MKI or the 17-40, they are all awesome tools and if I had unlimited funds I would have a 17-40 to go along with it just because I know how good the lens is and it would be fun, although a bit unnecessary, to have both varieties.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2012, 05:49:45 AM »

gragusha

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2012, 07:22:58 AM »
Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions. I am tending towards a 17-40 F/4L - it is like 11 mm on a crop body - almost same as my Sigma 10-20 on 7D. Since I am looking at it for landscapes, I don't care for extra light sensitivity - F11 is where it will get used!

The extra 5 mm of Sigma 12-24 is very intriguing and I wish I could get my hands on that one to try it out!

localblakink@me.com

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2012, 07:34:03 AM »
I like both the 16-35 and the 17-40.  Th 16 weighs quite a bit more than the 17.  I own the 17 and for shooting landscapes I personally think it is a bit sharper than the 16 which is awesome since it is half the price!  I am a bit confused on your math thinking it will be 11mm on a cropped body though?  You did the math the wrong way!  On a cropped body it would be around...22mm!  But both are great lenses!   Happy mark III day people!  Hope I get mine tomorrow, I'm feining to go and shoot ASAP !

gragusha

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2012, 07:52:55 AM »
I like both the 16-35 and the 17-40.  Th 16 weighs quite a bit more than the 17.  I own the 17 and for shooting landscapes I personally think it is a bit sharper than the 16 which is awesome since it is half the price!  I am a bit confused on your math thinking it will be 11mm on a cropped body though?  You did the math the wrong way!  On a cropped body it would be around...22mm!  But both are great lenses!   Happy mark III day people!  Hope I get mine tomorrow, I'm feining to go and shoot ASAP !

I meant 17 mm on FF is same as 11 mm on a crop...

sach100

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2012, 07:57:42 AM »
Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions. I am tending towards a 17-40 F/4L - it is like 11 mm on a crop body - almost same as my Sigma 10-20 on 7D. Since I am looking at it for landscapes, I don't care for extra light sensitivity - F11 is where it will get used!

The extra 5 mm of Sigma 12-24 is very intriguing and I wish I could get my hands on that one to try it out!

I was also considering to buy an UWA lens. After reading this thread and doing some additional research have decided to buy the 17-40.
so thanks to all who gave their input :)
5D MkIII

JustinTArthur

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Photo, Audio, and Video Hobbyist
    • View Profile
    • My Photos
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2012, 11:51:10 PM »
The extra 5 mm of Sigma 12-24 is very intriguing and I wish I could get my hands on that one to try it out!

It was intriguing to me too, but I think you made the right choice given what you said your focus was. After getting one (the first Sigma EX version) and shooting a lot of landscape/HDR with it on a 5DmkII, my favorite photos coming out of it were in the 17-24mm range by EXIF's reckoning, so it's possible those shots could have looked prettier coming from a Canon L-series. I don't regret it though, it never looked soft to me, even at the edges. I would use LR3's default sharpness level, default lens profile or no lens correction at all. The chromatic aberration on my copy seemed almost non-existent
Samps:
18 mm, F/10
12 mm [but I cropped off the boring bits], F/22
20mm, F/5.6


I will also say that while the 12mm length was almost too wide for my landscapery, it was perfect for "capturing the room" or shooting an event chopper-style (folding up tripod, setting camera timer, holding high).
12mm, F/7.1
12mm, F/5
If you'd said you mostly shot condo and apartment real estate, I'd be recommending it in a heartbeat.

Flake

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #36 on: March 26, 2012, 06:50:19 AM »
Photozone have done a review of the Sigma 12 - 24mm MkII and it's not fantastic.  Problems especially at the wide end with border & corner resolution, vignetting, chromatic aberations, and barrel distortion, which don't really become acceptable until f/11  on top of all this it's as expensive as the 17 - 40mm f/4 L, and you can't use filters on the front.  I have owned the MkI version of this lens and it was not commercially useable until well up the zoom range.

The Nikon 14 - 24mm f/2.8 is perhaps the best UWA zoom available so it's a good choice if image quality is important to you.  It's manual focus, but that's not really an issue with the depth of field available from short focal lengths.

The 17 - 40mm f/4 L is cheap enough for an L lens, but it's not good wide open at the wide end, and could really do with being updated, again you will have to use this lens stopped down heavily if you want decent image quality.  You can use filters with it though.

The 16 - 35mm f/2.8 L is double the price of the 17 - 40mm but doesn't give double the performance!  Is a 2.8 aperture important to you?  You aren't going to be able to get depth of field effects with a lens this short so it's only going to be of use in low light situations.

Of course there are other options but the cost!  the 14mm prime has been mentioned but it is mega expensive, then there are the tilt shift lenses the 17 & 24mm again pricey but not as bad as the 14mm!  they do serve a purpose, and suffer less from vignetting & resolution fall off than normal lenses, the only downside is the cost.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #36 on: March 26, 2012, 06:50:19 AM »

drjlo

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2012, 07:17:52 PM »

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.

I just got the TS-E II, and words cannot describe what a monumental feat of engineering and manufacturing this lens represents.  I will bide my time and hope the rumored Canon 14-24 incorporates the wide angle excellence Canon has learned since introducing 16-35 II. 

Ellen Schmidtee

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 441
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2012, 09:05:15 AM »
Photozone have done a review of the Sigma 12 - 24mm MkII and it's not fantastic.  Problems especially at the wide end with border & corner resolution, vignetting, chromatic aberations, and barrel distortion, which don't really become acceptable until f/11  on top of all this it's as expensive as the 17 - 40mm f/4 L, and you can't use filters on the front.  I have owned the MkI version of this lens and it was not commercially useable until well up the zoom range.

<snip>

The 17 - 40mm f/4 L is cheap enough for an L lens, but it's not good wide open at the wide end, and could really do with being updated, again you will have to use this lens stopped down heavily if you want decent image quality.  You can use filters with it though.

According to photozone (a) at 17mm, the Sigma 12-24mm is sharper than the Canon 17-40, and (b) there's no other FF lens wider than 14mm. Going a bit longer, other lenses offering 14mm & 16mm are significantly more expensive.

I'm not saying it's an excellent lens. Personally, I'd rather buy a lens as wide & as good optically as the Nikkor 14-24mm, but I don't have the cash required to buy a Nikon D700 + Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8.

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1968
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2012, 11:51:09 AM »
Dont have the full size tiff on hand to post, but this was shot with the 5d2 and 17-40...  Yes there's room for improvement but the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 2.8 first gen and can hold it's own on most applications. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

RedEye

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2012, 12:01:29 PM »
I'm getting a Sigma 12-24 II for the 5D3 in a UPS shipment in about 2 hours, so I'll try to post my first impressions tonight.  I also have the 10-20 3.5 for crop so that will be a nice compare. 

Red

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2703
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2012, 12:09:37 PM »
You've left primes off your list.  There's the 14mm f/2.8 (Canon L, or Samyang manual which is a bargain), several Zeiss primes including the new 15mm, and also the TS-E 17mm f/4L, which is excellent for landscapes.

Yes, I've borrowed a 19mm Zeiss prime and it blows the 17-40 away. Picking up one of those babies is always on the back of my mind but if I do that, I'll probably want to compliment it with a 20-something too. The TS-E 17mm f/4 is just a bit too delicate for my style/hiking/liking ;)

Spooky

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2012, 12:10:00 PM »
I'm happy with my Sigma 12-24 mk1, but I'm sure the Canon 10-22 is one of their better lenses so wouldn't be surprised to see it being the winner! The flip side is that you won't get a FF zoom lens in that range at such a price point...
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 12:11:31 PM by Spooky »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2012, 12:10:00 PM »

RedEye

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2012, 01:44:57 PM »
I'm getting a Sigma 12-24 II for the 5D3 in a UPS shipment in about 2 hours, so I'll try to post my first impressions tonight.  I also have the 10-20 3.5 for crop so that will be a nice compare. 

Red

Lens arrived, so far VERY impressed.  Build qualty is very good, beautiful.  I normally use a 135L on the 5d3 and this is a whole new real of fun.  Hopefully will have some photos to post soon.

RedEye

  • Guest
Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2012, 04:31:35 PM »
Here are a few walk about photos from today.  Rather low contrast day outside.  I rotated the bench slightly and cleaned it up a bit, otherwise they are right from the camera as jpegs, 5D3. 
I think the lens will be a great complement to a 24-70 or some other daily use lens.

Red

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2012, 04:31:35 PM »