Yet another question re ultrawide lenses

[sdsr]

I would like a lens, preferably for FF, that goes wider than my 17-40 L and with less mushy corners. I've rented Sigma 12-24 II and Tokina 16-28 and both of those - the copies I rented, anyway - were much better on the edges and in corners. I've also owned and/or rented on APS-C Sigma 8-16 (quite good) and Tamron 10-24 (bad), but with no overlap to compare with 17-40 on FF. (Faster apertures would be preferable as I tend to use such lenses for interiors rather than landscapes, and in buildings where tripods are usually verboten.)

I'm fairly familiar with the various recommendations for lenses that fit on Canon and Nikon bodies, am aware that for many the ne plus ultra zoom is the Nikon 14-24, and have also seen comments here to the effect that some crop lenses for Canon yield better results on crop bodies than FF lenses on FF bodies (though I don't think these have ever been backed up by examples).

My question is cross-format and cross-brand. What are the best ultrawide lenses, period, regardless of brand or sensor size? Are there any sites where one can find comparisons showing the same scene shot by, say, Nikon 14-24 on FF vs Panasonic 7-14 (14-28 equiv.) on M43 vs Canon 10-22 on APS-C? Anyone here have any personal experience of such a comparison? I've not run across anything along those lines (perhaps it's an unreasonable request), but maybe my searches haven't been thorough enough....

TIA

 

[Random Orbits]

Sensor size (and to a lesser extent sensor generation) affects IQ a lot, so I'm not sure if your quest to determine the best lenses independent of the body makes sense. In general, the larger format will deliver better results. I liked the 10-22 for the crop camera, but full frame primes are something else. Canon lacks something to match the Nikon 14-24 but the primes for the Canon system are generally better: 14L II (weakest of the lot), Zeiss 15, TS-E 17, Ziess 21, TS-E 24. Unfortunately, the are all expensive.

 

[sdsr]

Sensor size (and to a lesser extent sensor generation) affects IQ a lot, so I'm not sure if your quest to determine the best lenses independent of the body makes sense. In general, the larger format will deliver better results. I liked the 10-22 for the crop camera, but full frame primes are something else. Canon lacks something to match the Nikon 14-24 but the primes for the Canon system are generally better: 14L II (weakest of the lot), Zeiss 15, TS-E 17, Ziess 21, TS-E 24. Unfortunately, the are all expensive.

A couple of things prompted my inquiry. First, comments on this forum to the effect that certain EF-S lenses yield better results than their FF equivalents do on FF (made in particular vis a vis the 17-40); I was skeptical on reading this, and examples weren't provided, but I was in no position to dispute it. Second, on the one time I did an informal comparison, the Olympus 45mm 1.8 on my OM-D created better (sharper, more contrasty etc.) images than the Canon 85mm 1.8 on my 6D, and I've seen demonstrations (by Steve Huff?) to the effect that the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 on the OM-D creates better images than a Nikon 50mm 1.8 on a Nikon FF (I forget which) (I should note that in both cases the degree by which they're better is rather small and might not be noticeable if you weren't looking for it, but noticeable all the same).

The closest I've come is a comparison of the Panasonic 7-14 to the Nikon 12-24 on a crop body, which is largely useless because the person seems merely have been set on showing how much more fun photos are when taken at 7mm with the Panasonic than at 12mm on the Nikon; there are no direct comparisons of anything else!

http://cyleow.blogspot.com/2011/03/nikon-12-24-f4-v-panasonic-7-14-f4_12.html

 

[insanitybeard]

Comparing for example the 17-40 used on a full frame body to an EF-S 10-22 used on a crop body, the EF-S/crop combo will have (at the widest end) less barrel distortion and less vignetting than the full frame/17-40 combo. At 10mm, the EF-S lens has less resolution drop off at wider apertures towards the corners than the 17-40 at 17mm- a more even resolution across the frame. Despite this, the full frame/17-40 combo is able to provide more total resolution due to the physically larger sensor and greater lw/ph (line widths/picture height), even though it performs worse in the corners.

Apologies if this is not relevant to your question or if this is already obvious to you!

 

[Stig]

Hi, I don't have the cross format/brand answer but I was looking to get an UWA as well, so I thought I'll just share a short (but inevitable - if not me, sooner or later somebody would ) suggestion of the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/Pro Optic... 14mm f/2.8 that wasn't mentioned so far... if you can live with a manual lens, I heard its rather sharp... and its on sale for $299 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/698923-REG/Bower_SLY14MMF28C_14mm_f_2_8_Ultra_Wide.html

 

[qwerty]

Just wanted to second Random Orbits and Stig.

The SamBowRok 14mm 2.8 is a great lens, especially for the price. Manually focusing is pretty easy with an UWA lens, and you can buy focus confirmation chips pretty easily off of eBay if you like. (You can also just focus in live view, since buildings don't move around too fast).

With regard to the sensor size, there is no replacement for displacement. Mosey on over to TDP and play with their comparison tool.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
Mouse over on the image and see the difference that a FF sensor makes (10mm at f/3.5 is roughly equivalent to 17mm at f/5.6, meaning they have the same AOV, DOF, and photon shot noise for a given illumination and exposure time).

If you look at the result of having both lenses mounted on the same camera, you can see that the lenses have a similar resolution (i.e. lp/mm), and perhaps even giving the 10-22 a slight edge, but going to full frame gives a higher resolution on the final image
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

That said, the best UWA lens regardless of format is probably going to be some 8x10 format lens. I am not sure how wide they make them (you might have a very limited or no selection wider than 17mm equivalent), but a mediocre 8x10 lens will blow away an awesome full frame lens in terms of image resolution. However, if you mounted this hypothetical large format lens on a FF or APS-C body, you would be underwhelmed by the result, as you would loose the advantage of the larger format.

 

[dgatwood]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the 16-35 II yet. It's slightly wider than the 17-40, and is considerably sharper in the corners.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The Zeiss 15mm is the best of the best. The Samyang 14mm is the worst, but its a cheap throw away lens and you get what you pay for.

All lenses have weaknesses, and its difficult to design a FF ultra wide that is affordable.

Rent the Zeiss, and you'll be wanting to mortgage your house to buy one.

 

[sdsr]

The Zeiss 15mm is the best of the best. The Samyang 14mm is the worst, but its a cheap throw away lens and you get what you pay for.

All lenses have weaknesses, and its difficult to design a FF ultra wide that is affordable.

Rent the Zeiss, and you'll be wanting to mortgage your house to buy one.

So I think I probably shouldn't rent one! Anyway, thanks to you and others for responding. What I had hoped there might be out there somewhere was the sort of thing Rockwell sometimes does - a comparison with 100% crop examples of umpteen Canon and Nikon cameras at high ISOs, or all Nikon lenses that cover a certain range, only covering more brands, or like lensrentals once did re the sharpest 50mm lens. Or maybe someone might have chimed in with something I hadn't heard of - "the best I've ever seen is the Minolta XX, which you can use on Sony FF" or some such. Yes, I know about the digital picture comparison tool, but he only covers Nikon and Canon mounts....

 

[Etienne]

I like the 16-35 2.8 II .... stop it down for good sharpness or open it up for light. It is very flare resistant as well, which is important in an ultra-wide lens.

For crop I think the best is the Tokina 11-16 2.8 . I have one, works great and well-built. Check photozone.de for a review

 

[shutterwideshut]

My question is cross-format and cross-brand. What are the best ultrawide lenses, period, regardless of brand or sensor size? Are there any sites where one can find comparisons showing the same scene shot by...

I'm not exactly sure if this is the site that you are looking for but may be I could share this:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=42

and this,

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=34

 

[oscaroo]

Gday.

I think i'll just throw a bit of option in here.
The sigma 8-16 works on FF down to 13mm or so, or more if you don't mind doing some cropping later.
If you hack the hood off, you'll get even more coverage, but no hood.

nB: I haven't hacked my lens' hood off yet, tempted.

 

[hovland]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the 16-35 II yet. It's slightly wider than the 17-40, and is considerably sharper in the corners.

+1
I like the 16-35, and it was worth the exta money compared to the 17-40.