Buying third party lenses, and which wide angle do you recommend?

[Axilrod]

Tokina 11-16mm for sure, it's super wide and a lot of fun to use. But the Mark II is coming out next month, so you may want to wait and see where prices on the original go.

 

[Cali_PH]

What makes you say that? Is this just as in "ff is always preferable due to larger sensor size"? Afaik, one of the few advantages of aps-c is that it's easier to build uwa lenses, meaning that at the same price a ef-s lens will tend to have a higher iq than an ef lens. Thus, I cannot see how a uwa lens on a ff 5d1 will be preferable to one on a 7d

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that, but I'm relatively new to photography. I use a T2i and 60D with a Canon 10-22mm...are you saying it's possible the IQ will be near, or perhaps better, than a 5Dmk2 and say, 17-40mmL? I guess I may need to moderate my expectations if/when I move up to a FF camera.

 

[Marsu42]

Tokina 11-16mm for sure, it's super wide and a lot of fun to use. But the Mark II is coming out next month

... but only for Nikon mount, for Canon it's July. And at first, prices will be high, and then tend to drop for 3rd party manufacturers. I know because I'm waiting for it.

What makes you say that? Is this just as in "ff is always preferable due to larger sensor size"?

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that, but I'm relatively new to photography. I use a T2i and 60D with a Canon 10-22mm...are you saying it's possible the IQ will be near, or perhaps better, than a 5Dmk2 and say, 17-40mmL? I guess I may need to moderate my expectations if/when I move up to a FF camera.

I was talking about the 5d *mark1* which is ff but has lower mp than the current aps-c generation.

What I wanted to say is: It's easier to build an ultra wide lens for aps-c since due to smaller mirror size, the lens is nearer to the sensor than on full frame. This is only valid for ultrawide, on longer lenses it doesn't matter. So a full frame uwa lens needs more glass than the aps-c equivalent with the same coverage.

Result: Given a certain amount of money, an aps-c uwa lens built for that money will be better than a ff lens, since less good glass is better then more weaker glass. Mass production of the ff lens might reverse that of course, but it's a tendency why you'll see excellent reviews of uwa lenses on aps-c while reviews of uwa lenses on ff tend to be critic about (corner) sharpness.

 

[Cali_PH]

I was talking about the 5d *mark1* which is ff but has lower mp than the current aps-c generation.

What I wanted to say is: It's easier to build an ultra wide lens for aps-c since due to smaller mirror size, the lens is nearer to the sensor than on full frame. This is only valid for ultrawide, on longer lenses it doesn't matter. So a full frame uwa lens needs more glass than the aps-c equivalent with the same coverage.

Result: Given a certain amount of money, an aps-c uwa lens built for that money will be better than a ff lens, since less good glass is better then more weaker glass. Mass production of the ff lens might reverse that of course, but it's a tendency why you'll see excellent reviews of uwa lenses on aps-c while reviews of uwa lenses on ff tend to be critic about (corner) sharpness.

Ah, I see, thanks for taking the time to explain it. Guess I got my first smite just for asking, haha. ;D

 

[ew20]

What makes you say that? Is this just as in "ff is always preferable due to larger sensor size"? Afaik, one of the few advantages of aps-c is that it's easier to build uwa lenses, meaning that at the same price a ef-s lens will tend to have a higher iq than an ef lens. Thus, I cannot see how a uwa lens on a ff 5d1 will be preferable to one on a 7d.

The reason I say that is the best wide angle lenses out there are only wide on a FF camera. The 10-22 is a solid lens, but it's quality is nowhere near that of a wide L prime. Going with a FF 17-40L vs. a 10-22 crop will yield similar results, I would say the 10-22 crop is better actually because of less distortion. But FF opens a lot of high quality options for future upgrades whereas a crop does not.

 

[Marsu42]

+1 for Sigma 8-16. I have it a while ago and love it

The reason I'm hesitant to get the Sigma is that since it does not take filters, I am afraid to damage the lens glass when being outdoors. I am not in the habit of handling lenses like a raw egg, that's why I finally got an metal L lens for my tele shots :-o

Do you feel that the Sigma lens front could be easily damaged, since the hood on uwa lenses is rather small, too?

 

[kadadj]

So I read trough the new responses and now I'm confused about what lens to get again. The Sigma 8-16 is tempting, though, I'm not sure if that will be too wide. A 2.8 aperture is also tempting. Ugh, I hate having a lot of choices without the ability to at least test out the lenses.

 

[Marsu42]

So I read trough the new responses and now I'm confused about what lens to get again.

I sympathize with your problem, because it's mine, too :-o ... Maybe this comparison review might help a little, but the gist is that there's not a clear choice and all lenses I'm thinking about (Canon, Tokina II, Sigma) have a crappy build quality and different issues (Canon: iq and crappy build quality, Tolkina: little max. magnification and zoom range is actually 12-15, Sigma: unprotected front and no filters)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx