Full frame wide angle options

F

ferret1981

Suspended / Banned
Messages
110
Name
steve
Edit My Images
No
What third party options are available apart from the L glass on a 5d? I see tamron, sigma and tokina all have options but I'm confused with all their different terms. I know some will not work properly on ff but keep getting confused as to which were designed specifically for crop sensors.
 
i don't believe Tamron or Tokina produce any UWA (ultra wide angle) for full frame.

Sigma you will need DG version. Sigma has the widest rectilinear lens on a full frame the 12-24mm, there's 2 versions, both are very wide.

Canon best bet is 17-40mm f4L. i don't see any point in 16-35mm f2.8L, the weight and extra cost just for 1 extra stop, you want to step UWA down to f8 for maximum depth of field.
 
You can tell by the lens designations.

Full frame are:

Sigma: DG
Tamron: Di
Tokina: FX

Crop lenses are:

Sigma: DC
Tamron: Di II
Tokina: DX
 
PS. As you can see from Wuyan's post, you need to describe what you mean by "wide angle". I'd consider the 12-24 as ultra wide angle...
 
arad85 said:
PS. As you can see from Wuyan's post, you need to describe what you mean by "wide angle". I'd consider the 12-24 as ultra wide angle...
Click to expand...
I agree too, in the film days, anything wider than 24mm would have been considered exotic glass.
 
i thought he wanted something less than 24mm, since after all 5D came with a 24-105mm "kit" lens?

i am eyeing up the 17-40mm at the moment :D it's all about getting that 90deg field of view.
 
Hi all thanks for all the responses! I have the 5d3 and 24 -70 2.8 L so its just another lens to help me out if I am ever in a tight space and need the extra feild of view and maybe a few landscapes. Its not going to be out of the bag much so dont really want to spend L glass money but if the 17 -40 is the best option by far then I'll save my pennies or buy a manual focus k mount/pentax lens to use with an adapter for now.
 
wuyanxu said:
i don't believe Tamron or Tokina produce any UWA (ultra wide angle) for full frame.
Click to expand...


Not sure about Tamron but Tokina certainly do. There is a 16-28 that has a good reputation as well some older 19 and 20mm zooms. They also used to produce a 17mm 3.5 prime which is a lovely little lens.
 
I love my sigma 15mmits great, don't use it that often but it's great to have
You hardly need to focus it at 2.8
 
gad-westy said:
They also used to produce a 17mm 3.5 prime which is a lovely little lens.
Click to expand...

Just been looking at this one if I can get one for a decent price this seems like a good option. However the price they go for makes me think I'd be better waiting a bit longer for the 17- 40 L
 
Depending on what you want to do and how wide you want to go, my order of preference is:

17-40L
Samyang 14mm 2.8
Sigma 12-24.

I've just gone from full frame 5D2 to micro 4/3rds but very nearly kept the 12-24/24-105 and 5D2 combo (the 17-40 had already sold). The 12-24 does have some weirdness in it's sharpness, and the 17-40 is very much a better lens (although daugirdas will tell you it's rubbish and has to be shot at f11 or greater to be in any way usable). If I wanted something wide, fast and good quality, I'd go for the 14mm Samyang. Manual focus, cheap but bloomin good by all accounts.

Depends if you think you'd miss the range between 14 and 24 though....
 
gad-westy said:
Not sure about Tamron but Tokina certainly do. There is a 16-28 that has a good reputation as well some older 19 and 20mm zooms. They also used to produce a 17mm 3.5 prime which is a lovely little lens.
Click to expand...
oh wow, thank you! i was looking for a less than 18mm UWA prime. Tokina need a better PR team!

but same as Steve the OP, i read up on it and felt might as well buy the 17-40mm. the main reason i was looking for prime is to save on weight, but 17mm is only 50g lighter than the Canon. :(

correct me if i'm wrong again, is the 17-40L the lightest <18mm UWA lens?
 
Suprised the Tokina weighs so much or that the Canon weighs so little. Either way though, if we're talking about the same Tokina lens here, they come up on ebay for as little as £100, worth looking out for.
 
Last edited:
Can't believe no one knows about the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-3.5!

Had one before and it compared very well to the 17-40. I actually have another one on its way to me as I type. :)
 
gad-westy said:
Suprised the Tokina weighs so much or that the Canon weighs so little. Either way though, if we're talking about the same Tokina lens here, they're come up on ebay for as little as £100, worth looking out for.
Click to expand...
i believe you found the FD version, the EF version are ATX or ATX Pro which weights slightly more than manual focus FD version, and costs around £300.
 
Yes watch out for fd fit lenses you have to put an adapter on and as far as I can remember this means some really poor quality glass/plastic between the sensor and lens
 
wuyanxu said:
i believe you found the FD version, the EF version are ATX or ATX Pro which weights slightly more than manual focus FD version, and costs around £300.
Click to expand...

Ahhh right, I've only ever looked at these from a Nikon perspective where everything is F-mount regardless. Not a lot wrong with manual focus though for such a wide angle.
 
17-40 is half decent is the cheapest option. If you want a proper one get Zeiss 21 or 18, one of Canon TSEs, or failing that 16-35 II.
17-40 seriously lacks resoltion towards the edges, so you will shoot f/11+. All tamron and sigma offerings are plain horrible though. with that forget star trails or moonscapes or aurora
 
daugirdas said:
17-40 is half decent is the cheapest option. If you want a proper one get Zeiss 21 or 18, one of Canon TSEs, or failing that 16-35 II.
17-40 seriously lacks resoltion towards the edges, so you will shoot f/11+. All tamron and sigma offerings are plain horrible though. with that forget star trails or moonscapes or aurora
Click to expand...

See: I told you (although he has toned down the wording since the last time he posted it and I really should have added he'll say get a Zeiss...) ;) :D

arad85 said:
and the 17-40 is very much a better lens (although daugirdas will tell you it's rubbish and has to be shot at f11 or greater to be in any way usable).
Click to expand...
 
daugirdas said:
All tamron and sigma offerings are plain horrible though. with that forget star trails or moonscapes or aurora
Click to expand...

You better let this guy know before he wastes any more time ****ing around with his horrible Sigma ;)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/reidsphotography/4470808094/in/set-72157622227986071

Seriously though, I don't know much/anything about Tamron's offering but Sigma's 12-24 is a decent lens. I believe there are bad copies out there but a good one is pretty decent.
 
daugirdas said:
All tamron and sigma offerings are plain horrible though. with that forget star trails or moonscapes or aurora
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish. Third party lenses are regularly compared to Canon L lenses and my own comparison of Tamrons 17-35 against the 17-40, showed the Canon was very slightly better in the corners.
 
drb5 said:
Absolute rubbish. Third party lenses are regularly compared to Canon L lenses and my own comparison of Tamrons 17-35 against the 17-40, showed the Canon was very slightly better in the corners.
Click to expand...

yeah, and 17-40 is utter rubbish in the corners so your point is?
 
arad85 said:
See: I told you (although he has toned down the wording since the last time he posted it and I really should have added he'll say get a Zeiss...) ;) :D
Click to expand...

So I am not allowed to say the obvious and we should follow the proclaimed gospel that 17-40 is god sent. And I thought that having 20/20 vision was somehow good :shrug:

Believe me the day Canon releases a new model (I hope its soon :naughty:) they will themselves say how much improvement they've made.
 
I've come to the conclusion that if you want high quality UWA images, you really need to be looking at a prime lens. Canon do a 14mm f/2.8 L, but at a list price of £2.8k it ain't cheap :eek: Quality zoom lenses at UWA focal lengths are difficult to make, and will always involve some sort of compromise.

The 17-40mm L is an affordable way of getting rectilinear UWA images, as long as you accept its limitations. No, the corners aren't stellar, and in any case you'd only want to use it for landscapes and architectural shots to exaggerate perspective, as anything near the edges gets horribly stretched and distorted - so no using it for large group shots at weddings :nono: I also find the 40mm end of the 17-40 is very soft towards the edges at any aperture, so I tend to steer clear and use it only when I need the wide-angle end.

My 17-40mm gets used very rarely now - for most situations I can get much higher quality images from my 24-70mm L, and 24mm is usually as wide as I need to go.

A.
 
Has any one ever had a person really come up and say, oh the corners are a bit soft on that?
 
What is the preoccupation that lenses must be sharp from corner-to-corner?

Anyway, OP, on FF 17mm really is massively wide so the 17-40mm is a really good option, or something with a similar wide end. I couldn't fault my 17-40mm when I shot crop bodies and a workmate who shoots on a 5D2, loves his 17-40mm because it's such a good lens. He uses his primarily for shooting on fishing boats, where space is at a premium. Sigma and the other 3rd-party manufacturers do some nice, good value glass too. Yes, there will be a difference in optical quality between them and Zeiss but they're a fraction of the price.

One lens that has cropped up in conversation on here is the Canon 20-35mm USM. Seems to have a good rep and suits moderns FF DSLRs and it'll probably be quite cheap, although you may have to scout around to find one on the used market.

There's also the discontinued 17-35mmf/2.8.
 
Last edited:
Anorakus said:
NO :lol: As usual, high-resolution sensors and pixel-peeping are to blame! An example of a problem that never used to exist in the days of film :)

A.
Click to expand...

sharp A3-A2 print is ALL I want

film used to be pretty bad, and any serious landscape photographer would have used at least medium of large format (many still do). 35mm used to be lifestyle and documentary format. 17-40 is fine for web size, newspaper stories etc, exagerrating perspective, 'telling the story', etc.
 
daugirdas said:
....film used to be pretty bad, and any serious landscape photographer would have used at least medium of large format (many still do). 35mm used to be lifestyle and documentary format. 17-40 is fine for web size, newspaper stories etc, exagerrating perspective, 'telling the story', etc.
Click to expand...

But much of that was down to the detail being captured via the larger neg/tranny format, not necessarily because those formats had infinitely better lenses, although there were some truly stunning optics on MF and 5x4 but invariably they cost the earth. Good 35mm film was still good - Velvia being one - but larger formats gave you more to work with.

35mm for lifestyle (etc) was down to portability, cost, ease of use. It was still a fine format to use though.

I don't understand your last sentence, seems a bit random....
 
daugirdas said:
sharp A3-A2 print is ALL I want
Click to expand...
I have a sharp 18 x 12 print here from a Sigma 12-24 at f8 and that's totally smoked by the 17-40...

You are unrealistic in your expectations.

Sure you can get sharp wide angle optics, but they are fixed focal lengths and are expensive (even the famed Nikon 14-24 has issues). Do you really think lens manufacturers have high prices because they're making obscene profits? No, it's because they are difficult lenses to design and manufacture....
 
Nikon have a very Compact little 20mm prime, doesn't canon do something similar? Or is it not wide enough? The Samyoang 14mm is meant to be very sharp and only £250. It's manual focus but this isn't the end of the world for landscapes.
 
Siilver said:
Has any one ever had a person really come up and say, oh the corners are a bit soft on that?
Click to expand...

No. Not once. Not even with shots taken with my Siggy 12-24mm. What I have had is "WoW! You took that? You printed that?" This has then lead on to people wanting to know what the camera, lens and printer were.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments everyone. The 14mm samyang is an option I already have the 8mm fisheye which is suited to crop bodies. I keep reading bad reviews about the 14mm though which is putting me off a bit
 
arad85 said:
I have a sharp 18 x 12 print here from a Sigma 12-24 at f8 and that's totally smoked by the 17-40...

You are unrealistic in your expectations.

Sure you can get sharp wide angle optics, but they are fixed focal lengths and are expensive (even the famed Nikon 14-24 has issues). Do you really think lens manufacturers have high prices because they're making obscene profits? No, it's because they are difficult lenses to design and manufacture....
Click to expand...

Nikon 14-24 issues are pretty minor; flare mostly due to bulbous design and no easy way to use filters. This can be significant to some, but many canon shooters have adapted one in despair

Canon sadly now focuses more on video rather than their core wide still lenses.
TSEs are great if you are willing to accept MF and no filters on 17 as well as the price. This is a seriously interesting option

20mm f/2.8 badly out of date and very poor. 17-40 performs better (!) and so does 20+ year old nikon prime. Shame!

17-40 - I've said it all already. It was fine in 2003, now it's almost 2013 and sensor technology has moved on. It doesn't compare against the ones like 70-200 II or even the old 24-70mm at 24-40 range.

24mm 1.4 II - not that wide, and arguably 24-70 is good enough anyway, but it's OK for a change.

16-35 II - supposedly better than 17-40 but nothing stunning for sure. Nikon 16-35 f/4 outperforms it at same apertures at lower cost. :thumbsdown:

now let's take tokina 12-24mm for example. It will work on FF fine from 18mm and is pretty sharp even in the edges. The only complaint is lower contrast, flare and there is some very mild vignetting all over the frame (same on crop). Price - £250 used - not a bad for sharp 18-24mm f/4 zoom. 17-40mm just doesn't compare against this one in terms of sharpness wide open.

so how are my expectations too high?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
No. Not once. Not even with shots taken with my Siggy 12-24mm. What I have had is "WoW! You took that? You printed that?" This has then lead on to people wanting to know what the camera, lens and printer were.
Click to expand...


So that's three people including me have never had a person say this to us.

But pixels at 300% never look good
 
daugirdas said:
so how are my expectations too high?
Click to expand...
Because you want £1000+ performance in a <£600 lens and you say it's rubbish accordingly. If you want a sharp wide angle, get a Samyang 14mm. F2.8, £250 and beats the zooms hands down. Manual focus and aperture, but who cares at these sorts of focal lengths.
 
Siilver said:
So that's three people including me have never had a person say this to us.
Click to expand...
I have...


He lives in my brain... ;)

The problem with the 12-24 is it isn't as good as the other lenses at the focal length where they overlap. Far better where it's wider though.
 
arad85 said:
Because you want £1000+ performance in a <£600 lens and you say it's rubbish accordingly. If you want a sharp wide angle, get a Samyang 14mm. F2.8, £250 and beats the zooms hands down. Manual focus and aperture, but who cares at these sorts of focal lengths.
Click to expand...

Firstly I don't need 14 (TOO WIDE), but rather around 16-21mm. Then I need filters and 7 or 9 bladed aperture, and distortion that is at least easy to correct.
I suppose 14 is good for aurora if it is a good copy (there are shocking ones around), but that is that.

so where is my sharp and affordable 18mm or 20mm f/3.5 prime? they are cheaper to make than zooms aren't they? Oh, Canon would rather you bought their most expensive zooms and then spent the money again on TSE...
Sigma, well isn't even cheap anymore and I really don't like any of theirs.
Tokina is good with APS-C but has lost the plot with their FF glass. Oh well there is Zeiss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top