Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame

[gragusha]

Hi,

I am an amateur hobbyist and love landscape photography. I love really wide angle shots and I liked Sigma 10-20 on my 7D. Now I am getting a 5DMIII and was looking for an ultra wide angle for full frame. The way I see my choices:

1. Canon 17-40 or 16-35 (17-40 is pretty wide but not "super wide"; 16-35 is somewhat expensive)
2. Nikon 14-24 with adapter --> expensive + no auto focus
3. Sigma 12-24 mark II (about $1000)--> Interesting - don't seem to have too much of information about it. Saw a couple of reviews but not that many people seem to have it.

So, my questions:
1. Am I missing any other option
2. What would the recommendation be

Thanks!

 

[D.Sim]

Would you want to go the fisheye direction?

Theres that....

 

[HTCahHTC]

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?

 

[Tijn]

The 16-35L II is said to be very sharp, with less distortions than the 17-40L.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[gragusha]

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 - 12 to 15 mm range at the widest. Can't switch to Nikon as invested in Canon.

 

[briansquibb]

The 16-34 on fullframe is the equivalent to the 10-22 on a crop

There is the 14mm prime which is excellent

 

[justsomedude]

(17-40 is pretty wide but not "super wide"; 16-35 is somewhat expensive)

Uhh... 17 is damn wide on full frame. It's comparable to 10mm on a crop sensor.

If you don't think that's "ultra wide", then maybe what you're really looking for is a fish-eye lens.

Here's a shot taken with a 17-40 on the 5D (not my image, found on Google)...

 

[NWPhil]

Hi,

I am an amateur hobbyist and love landscape photography. I love really wide angle shots and I liked Sigma 10-20 on my 7D. Now I am getting a 5DMIII and was looking for an ultra wide angle for full frame. The way I see my choices:

1. Canon 17-40 or 16-35 (17-40 is pretty wide but not "super wide"; 16-35 is somewhat expensive)
2. Nikon 14-24 with adapter --> expensive + no auto focus
3. Sigma 12-24 mark II (about $1000)--> Interesting - don't seem to have too much of information about it. Saw a couple of reviews but not that many people seem to have it.

So, my questions:
1. Am I missing any other option
2. What would the recommendation be

Thanks!

you hit the wall @14mm as far as rectilinear - Zeiss, canon . sigma and Samyang have it in 14-15mm versions
Canon 8-15mm if you want a zoom on the UWA side
For landscape: you might want to consider the TSE 24 II or 17, with a nodal point or panorama tripod bracket with the added shift and tlit focusing abilities, your landscape framing setup is expanded imensly

rent them first...

 

[Axilrod]

The 16-35L II is said to be very sharp, with less distortions than the 17-40L.

The 16-35mm is an excellent lens and goes from ultra-wide to wide, so it's pretty useful for landscapes and more. It's not super sharp wide open, but the sharpness increases tremendously as you stop down, f/4 is significantly sharper than f/2.8.

The 14LII is also an excellent lens, much sharper than the 16-35 or 17-40, but also much less versatile and much more expensive.

I think you would be very happy with the 16-35mm, but if cost is an issue the 17-40 will do just fine also.

 

[Random Orbits]

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 - 12 to 15 mm range at the widest. Can't switch to Nikon as invested in Canon.


There is the sigma 12-24. Never tried it tho.

 

[Spooky]

I have the sigma 12-24 mk1, and it's OK, not that sharp in the corners and the AF is a bit hit / miss, but if you accept the distortion, stop down to f8, manual focus and keep an eye out for flare... Then it's vgood for the money. The mk2 is supposed to be better, and if you like wide then you should definitely consider it. Some folks don't like the Sigma from a future proof POV, in case of lens -body comms issues. The distortion is not that extreme if you keep it level and for the odd landscape it is more than acceptable. I have the 17-40L for my quality wide shots, but agree that you can't beat the 12-15mm views once in a while!

 

[birdman]

I would like to add my $0.02. Since apparently I am neither: a) getting the 5d3, or b) switching to Nikon with the D800, I do believe I will just get a new lens.

I have the 17-40L...it's pretty good, especially for a cheap L lens. It has massive distortion, and IMHO only usable from 19mm-20mm upward. It has filter threads, and gives great colors. Sharpness in corners and sides leaves much to be desired.

I would either get the newest Tokina 17-35/F4 or their 16-28/2.8-- which is going for $699 new with rebates on Adorama. Hard to beat that price. It doesn't take filters though, and this obviously sucks for many. In time, there will be a work around.

Also, the Zeiss 18/3.5 or even better, 21/2.8 are supposed to be stellar. Who really cares about manual focus on WAs? Not I

 

[prestonpalmer]

The 16-35L II is said to be very sharp, with less distortions than the 17-40L.

If you are getting a 5DIII, don't cheapen your images by getting anything other than the 16-35L II. Of all the lenses i own, the 16-35II is used more than any other on my 5DII. Getting a Nikon, Sigma, Or even the 17-40 will probably leave you feeling a bit disappointed with your images. If you can't afford it now, save and get the right lens the first time.

 

[akclimber]

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!

 

[Stu_bert]

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?

 

[YellowJersey]

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]

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]

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.

 

[akclimber]

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.