Wide angle lens advice for crop sensor

T

taxboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,985
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm probably suffering from a bit of GAS but would like input from the collective wisdom on here. I'm currently using a Canon 7d ii and have a Canon 10-22 and Tamron 17-50. I'm using these for landscape and garden photography. In addition the Tamron is my walk around lens. My longer lenses are both L (70-200 & 400) and I like the contrast and sharpness both of these produce.

So what I would like are wide angles with better IQ than my existing pair of lenses. I would also add that I would like to do a bit of automotive shooting in the near future.

Any ideas please of possible replacements or should I stick with what I have
 
Look into the 10-18mm EF-S lens. Any review or comparison I've seen says it's much better than the 10-22. It's APSC specific but that's fine for your 7DII
 
The 16-35 F4 L IS works extremely well in my 7D2 - but it is not that wide. I would investigate the EFs 10-18, cheap and cheerful but getting great feedback. I am looking out for one at the moment.........
 
I had the Canon 10-22mm and I was never happy with it. I eventually sold it and got a Sigma 12-24mm which I liked much better. You lose 2mm at the wide end and 2mm at the wide end is noticeable but I think it's a much better lens and FF compatible too.

Personally I wouldn't even consider the Canon 17-40mm as I'd consider it to be a mediocre lens on APS-C with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 being superior in every single way. Ditto the 16-35mm as I don't consider the 1mm extra width over the excellent Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 to be significant.

So, I'd ditch the 10-22mm and replace it with a Sigma 12-24mm.
 
Slightly radical suggestion, but maybe a FF camera would suit you better
The 7Dii isn't small so size and weight difference would be roughly comparable.
Better choice of quality wide lenses without the multiplying factor and your longer ones can still be used
 
Last edited:
Not a bad shout but my longer lenses are used for my primary interests of wildlife and aviation where the crop is beneficial. Like everything there's always a compromise [emoji3]
tijuana taxi said:
Slightly radical suggestion, but maybe a FF camera would suit you better
The 7Dii isn't small so size and weight difference would be roughly comparable.
Better choice of quality wide lenses without the multiplying factor and your longer ones can still be used
Click to expand...
 
(y)for the 10-18 had the Canon 10-22 The 10-18 is a cracking lens for no money. £199 new or MPB have one for £149. I ran my 10-18 through the Focal lens calibration software needed very little adjustment a mighty lens for not much money
 
I've previously owned a Canon 10-22 but now own a 10-18.
Comparing my photos taken with both lenses I would say there is very little in it but the 10-18 has the edge.
 
taxboy said:
Not a bad shout but my longer lenses are used for my primary interests of wildlife and aviation where the crop is beneficial. Like everything there's always a compromise [emoji3]
Click to expand...

Is the "crop" beneficial? My most used (Primary) lens is my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - so yes I want to get up close and personal with my subjects! My two digital bodies are a 7D2 and a 1DX. Guess which has taken 10 + times as many shots as the other.................... Yup the full frame 1DX.

Certainly, under ideal conditions a crop sensor has advantages - but how often do you shoot under ideal conditions? The other 90% of the time I prefer an FF camera.
 
johnf3f said:
Is the "crop" beneficial? My most used (Primary) lens is my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - so yes I want to get up close and personal with my subjects! My two digital bodies are a 7D2 and a 1DX. Guess which has taken 10 + times as many shots as the other.................... Yup the full frame 1DX.

Certainly, under ideal conditions a crop sensor has advantages - but how often do you shoot under ideal conditions? The other 90% of the time I prefer an FF camera.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'under ideal conditions?

If I use the same lens (say your 800 f5.6) on a Full frame and crop sensor camera, what conditions are going to make it less usable on the crop sensor? There may be differences in AF performance of the camera body. And camera shake may be more of an issue. But, a high quality crop camera like the Nikon D500 produces superb photos under all conditions. The Nikon D850 full frame also does a great job. There are debates about which is prefered but the issues seem to come down to subject framing, pixel density 'on subject, etc. Sorry for bringing Nikon into the thread but that's what I know best :(

I assume that I am missing some problem that you are referring too.

Anyway, this is pulling away from the OP's original question about wide angle. If you can afford a full frame that would open up options for wide angle. If you stick with the crop body camera, what about some of the third-party wide angle lenses: Tokina 11-20, Venus Optical 12mm, Irix 11mm or 15mm ?
 
Last edited:
johnf3f said:
Is the "crop" beneficial? My most used (Primary) lens is my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - so yes I want to get up close and personal with my subjects! My two digital bodies are a 7D2 and a 1DX. Guess which has taken 10 + times as many shots as the other.................... Yup the full frame 1DX.

Certainly, under ideal conditions a crop sensor has advantages - but how often do you shoot under ideal conditions? The other 90% of the time I prefer an FF camera.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that but my longest lens is a 400 5.6 so any 'extra reach' is appreciated. I could add a converter but that will lose at least a stop in light, which brings its own issues.

Like most things compromise will have to be made
 
taxboy said:
Thanks for that but my longest lens is a 400 5.6 so any 'extra reach' is appreciated. I could add a converter but that will lose at least a stop in light, which brings its own issues.

Like most things compromise will have to be made
Click to expand...

Don't know if you heard about it but there was a Green Heron in Pembrokshire a little while ago in an MP's garden. Anyway there was an Asian guy there who had travelled a long way to get some shots, I already had hundreds so I said that he should put his camera on my 800mm and have a play - he was totally taken aback but I insisted (let's just say he was a bit happy!). Not having body or lens caps handy I stuck his 400 F5.6 L on my 1DX to keep any dust out. I couldn't resist taking some shots with it and was rather pleasantly surprised at the quality it gave - even compared to my Canon 800mm! Perhaps his 400 was made just after a pay rise for the workers, but it was a fine lens by any standards. No it is not comparable to my 800 but at about 1/11th the cost it is a fine piece of kit and MUCH lighter too.

Don't get fooled into thinking that longer lenses/crop factors equate to greater range/reach. Occasionally they can do but getting closer to your subject will always give better results. Much of the time I use extension tubes on my Canon 800 as the minimum focus is 6 meters and I want to get closer!

Just my thoughts..............
 
ruckers said:
What do you mean by 'under ideal conditions?

If I use the same lens (say your 800 f5.6) on a Full frame and crop sensor camera, what conditions are going to make it less usable on the crop sensor? There may be differences in AF performance of the camera body. And camera shake may be more of an issue. But, a high quality crop camera like the Nikon D500 produces superb photos under all conditions. The Nikon D850 full frame also does a great job. There are debates about which is prefered but the issues seem to come down to subject framing, pixel density 'on subject, etc. Sorry for bringing Nikon into the thread but that's what I know best :(

I assume that I am missing some problem that you are referring too.

Anyway, this is pulling away from the OP's original question about wide angle. If you can afford a full frame that would open up options for wide angle. If you stick with the crop body camera, what about some of the third-party wide angle lenses: Tokina 11-20, Venus Optical 12mm, Irix 11mm or 15mm ?
Click to expand...

I can't comment on the D500 as I have yet to use one, though I hear it is a great camera. As to FF vs crop on long lenses? I live in South Wales - the light is not always ideal though when it is good it is really good, but it often isn't.
I have simply found that the FF cameras that I own/have owned are more versatile as far as lighting is concerned (as well as better DOF control) and give up little in reach with long lenses under anything but ideal light.

Just what I have found. Feel free to agree/disagree - I am more than happy to demonstrate my findings. Pop down and we can have a coffee and get some nice Kingfisher shots - if the weather gods co-operate!
 
johnf3f said:
I can't comment on the D500 as I have yet to use one, though I hear it is a great camera. As to FF vs crop on long lenses? I live in South Wales - the light is not always ideal though when it is good it is really good, but it often isn't.
I have simply found that the FF cameras that I own/have owned are more versatile as far as lighting is concerned (as well as better DOF control) and give up little in reach with long lenses under anything but ideal light.

Just what I have found. Feel free to agree/disagree - I am more than happy to demonstrate my findings. Pop down and we can have a coffee and get some nice Kingfisher shots - if the weather gods co-operate!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. And, sorry if my question came over the wrong way. I didn't mean to disagree with what you were saying. Rather, I am really interested to understand the issues that you were having. I am currently debating whether to move to a full frame. Input like this is helpful in that decision.

As for popping over, I'd love to do that. Unfortunately, I live in Canada so it would be a 'long pop' :)
 
ruckers said:
Thanks for the information. And, sorry if my question came over the wrong way. I didn't mean to disagree with what you were saying. Rather, I am really interested to understand the issues that you were having. I am currently debating whether to move to a full frame. Input like this is helpful in that decision.

As for popping over, I'd love to do that. Unfortunately, I live in Canada so it would be a 'long pop' :)
Click to expand...

As to disagreeing with me - please feel free! Some of my views/opinions are contentious - but I will only post what I have found to be true for me, though it may not be true for you.

What part of Canada do you live in? I have nieces (+their families) in Toronto and Calgary and my eldest sister lives in Victoria BC. I am sure I will be getting out there some time.

P.S. Wonderful country!
 
johnf3f said:
What part of Canada do you live in? I have nieces (+their families) in Toronto and Calgary and my eldest sister lives in Victoria BC. I am sure I will be getting out there some time.

P.S. Wonderful country!
Click to expand...

I live in Ottawa. Lots of great landscape options out west (in the Rocky mountain area) and in the maritimes (Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland is amazing), And, if you can get up to the Artic, the scenary is great with a chance of polar bears :-) But, I've been taking holidays in the UK for the past few years: Cornwall, Dorset, Yorkshire and (hopefully soon) Scotland.
 
johnf3f said:
Don't know if you heard about it but there was a Green Heron in Pembrokshire a little while ago in an MP's garden. Anyway there was an Asian guy there who had travelled a long way to get some shots, I already had hundreds so I said that he should put his camera on my 800mm and have a play - he was totally taken aback but I insisted (let's just say he was a bit happy!). Not having body or lens caps handy I stuck his 400 F5.6 L on my 1DX to keep any dust out. I couldn't resist taking some shots with it and was rather pleasantly surprised at the quality it gave - even compared to my Canon 800mm! Perhaps his 400 was made just after a pay rise for the workers, but it was a fine lens by any standards. No it is not comparable to my 800 but at about 1/11th the cost it is a fine piece of kit and MUCH lighter too.

Don't get fooled into thinking that longer lenses/crop factors equate to greater range/reach. Occasionally they can do but getting closer to your subject will always give better results. Much of the time I use extension tubes on my Canon 800 as the minimum focus is 6 meters and I want to get closer!

Just my thoughts..............
Click to expand...


I decided to keep 400 5.6 and not 600 f4. That says a lot. They are good, but sadly no is. Sometimes it's not long enough but so was 600... On the other hand 600 was sometimes too long and impossible to carry anywhere
 
By the way 5d4 will destroy 7d2 and will retain just as much detail after moderate crop. 16-35 4 is hard to beat on full frame. I would not even consider dodgy film era 17-40
 
LongLensPhotography said:
By the way 5d4 will destroy 7d2 and will retain just as much detail after moderate crop. 16-35 4 is hard to beat on full frame. I would not even consider dodgy film era 17-40
Click to expand...
Thanks for that but going FF creates a bit too much gas for my wallet [emoji3]
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I decided to keep 400 5.6 and not 600 f4. That says a lot. They are good, but sadly no is. Sometimes it's not long enough but so was 600... On the other hand 600 was sometimes too long and impossible to carry anywhere
Click to expand...

Well the lack of IS is hardly a consideration - I cannot find a use for IS in wildlife photography except for making my images blurred. In about three months time it will be 6 years since I have used IS (except on my 100-400 Mk2) and enjoying the benefits.

I agree about the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS it is an excellent lens for the price and gets close my 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 for IQ - the best "Bang for Buck" lens that Canon make IMO. Having said that I would not discount the old 17-40. Certainly it was not the sharpest tool in the box, but it was adequate. Avoid the short end (less so on a crop sensor) and it will deliver good images. But the colour rendition is simply superb! My 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 comes close but not quite though it is a much better lens in all other respects.
 
taxboy said:
Thanks for that but going FF creates a bit too much gas for my wallet [emoji3]
Click to expand...

Going FF is probably not going to be cheap - and only you can decide if it is worth it. I think it is but I don't have your mortgage, only you can decide.
 
johnf3f said:
Well the lack of IS is hardly a consideration - I cannot find a use for IS in wildlife photography except for making my images blurred. In about three months time it will be 6 years since I have used IS (except on my 100-400 Mk2) and enjoying the benefits.

I agree about the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS it is an excellent lens for the price and gets close my 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 for IQ - the best "Bang for Buck" lens that Canon make IMO. Having said that I would not discount the old 17-40. Certainly it was not the sharpest tool in the box, but it was adequate. Avoid the short end (less so on a crop sensor) and it will deliver good images. But the colour rendition is simply superb! My 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 comes close but not quite though it is a much better lens in all other respects.
Click to expand...

I don't shoot wildlife, and if I did it is pretty still and in quite dimly lit conditions that don't allow 1/800s at reasonable ISO. So it typically goes on tripod... for mainly landscapes that I do with it.

The 17-40, or ideal copy of it which are extremely hard to find will be OK from 24mm onwards, at which point you might as well use all round better 24-XX lens. Many of them are soft one one side due to manufacturing defects, just like the old versions of 16-35. I find that most older Canon zooms were hit and miss at best, the only exception being 70-200s.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I don't shoot wildlife, and if I did it is pretty still and in quite dimly lit conditions that don't allow 1/800s at reasonable ISO. So it typically goes on tripod... for mainly landscapes that I do with it.

The 17-40, or ideal copy of it which are extremely hard to find will be OK from 24mm onwards, at which point you might as well use all round better 24-XX lens. Many of them are soft one one side due to manufacturing defects, just like the old versions of 16-35. I find that most older Canon zooms were hit and miss at best, the only exception being 70-200s.
Click to expand...

Do the dimly lit conditions allow 1/250 sec? I ask because that is what I often use on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS (IS off) hand held. No I am not a Super Hero!

Back to the 17-40 F4 L, the short end does definitely introduce some Fun (?) distortions, but the OP is using a 7D2 so they are much less important. I was happy with 20/21 mm up on my 17-40 with an APSC camera, FF is a different story!
 
johnf3f said:
Do the dimly lit conditions allow 1/250 sec? I ask because that is what I often use on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS (IS off) hand held. No I am not a Super Hero!

Back to the 17-40 F4 L, the short end does definitely introduce some Fun (?) distortions, but the OP is using a 7D2 so they are much less important. I was happy with 20/21 mm up on my 17-40 with an APSC camera, FF is a different story!
Click to expand...

:) I tried handholding 600mm (I found monopod incredibly restrictive). My left wrist pain stopped about 2 months after I sold it. I will leave it at that. I can't get anything usable with 400mm at that speed, well until 1/500s at the very least unless I'm panning which I don't do often at all. Even on tripod (low speed) it is a bit of a difficulty to get pin sharp results due to wind or even shutter movement (I use lockup but 2s is not nearly enough to settle it down). The IS or IBIS would be very welcome for this one.

17-40 should be OK on APS-C but I fail to see how it is any better than say Tamron that OP has. It can go to 50mm and it has f/2.8 constant aperture. Colour might not be on the same level, but it's nothing that a couple % points of saturation and contrast adjustment in post can't do. There might be newer and fancier equivalents from Canon and 3rd party manufacturers too.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
:) I tried handholding 600mm (I found monopod incredibly restrictive). My left wrist pain stopped about 2 months after I sold it. I will leave it at that. I can't get anything usable with 400mm at that speed, well until 1/500s at the very least unless I'm panning which I don't do often at all. Even on tripod (low speed) it is a bit of a difficulty to get pin sharp results due to wind or even shutter movement (I use lockup but 2s is not nearly enough to settle it down). The IS or IBIS would be very welcome for this one.

17-40 should be OK on APS-C but I fail to see how it is any better than say Tamron that OP has. It can go to 50mm and it has f/2.8 constant aperture. Colour might not be on the same level, but it's nothing that a couple % points of saturation and contrast adjustment in post can't do. There might be newer and fancier equivalents from Canon and 3rd party manufacturers too.
Click to expand...

I used to have the Canon 600 F4 L IS and hand holding it, whilst possible, was a bit comedic! That is why I moved to the slimmer and lighter 800 F5.6 L IS - we won't go into my placing a silly low bid on E Bay after a few dinkies............but nobody else bid = happy me! The 800 is actually a much more manageable lens on a tripod or hand held than the 600 IS Mk1.

Not sure why you cannot get sharp images below 1/500 sec with long lenses, I find them sharper without stabilisers unless we get down to silly low speeds. A couple of years ago I was chatting with a Canon Rep who was extolling the virtues of the latest IS on the (then Mk2 SuperTeles) with the 5D4. Unfortunately I didn't have my 800 with me so I made do with his 500 F4 L IS Mk2. Yup he was getting sharper shots on slow passing cars (hand held) at 1/160 sec with the IS off rather than on - he doesn't like me anymore.

Back to the 17-40. What I love about this lens is the way it renders colours, only my 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 gets close. In all other respects there are better lenses available today - it just shouldn't be ignored/tried out, even if not actually bought.
All the best.
 
johnf3f said:
Not sure why you cannot get sharp images below 1/500 sec with long lenses,
Click to expand...

Maybe I am not a super man. I found the 1/focal length rule works pretty reliably and just in case add little bit more. My expectation of sharpness is basically pin sharp, without any needed in post.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Maybe I am not a super man. I found the 1/focal length rule works pretty reliably and just in case add little bit more. My expectation of sharpness is basically pin sharp, without any needed in post.
Click to expand...

The sheer mass of the big/heavy lenses damps down the small vibrations that IS is designed to counter - which is why I find IS pretty useless on these lenses + IS often mucks AF acquisition and tracking = I don't like it and don't want it on the big or small lenses.

However I have to admit that there is one exception in my experience. Namely my 100-400 L IS Mk2, yes it is a great lens but it is so unstable/badly balanced in my hands that, occasionally, I have to resort to IS! I had no issues with the Mk1 but the MK2 has defeated me regarding hand holding. I think it may be something to the rearward balance at longer focal lengths? I can easily hand hold my 800mm at less than half the shutter speed than I can get with the 100-400 Mk2 (IS off on both) and if I turn the IS on I start missing shots - perhaps I should just strap a lump of lead on the front of it?

All the best.
 
johnf3f said:
The sheer mass of the big/heavy lenses damps down the small vibrations that IS is designed to counter - which is why I find IS pretty useless on these lenses + IS often mucks AF acquisition and tracking = I don't like it and don't want it on the big or small lenses.

However I have to admit that there is one exception in my experience. Namely my 100-400 L IS Mk2, yes it is a great lens but it is so unstable/badly balanced in my hands that, occasionally, I have to resort to IS! I had no issues with the Mk1 but the MK2 has defeated me regarding hand holding. I think it may be something to the rearward balance at longer focal lengths? I can easily hand hold my 800mm at less than half the shutter speed than I can get with the 100-400 Mk2 (IS off on both) and if I turn the IS on I start missing shots - perhaps I should just strap a lump of lead on the front of it?

All the best.
Click to expand...

I think you may find you are one of the few who prefer to have no IS. With the 600mm RPG the IS made a bit postive differece, but really the problem was it just weighed too much to hold steadily. The 400mm f/5.6 like you say is too light for its length. In fact even mild side wind can massively destabilise it even on tripod (mounted on the centre).

On 100mm macro and 70-200 f/4 IS makes incredibly big difference, just not what Canon literature claims.
 
Back on topic.
@taxboy
I have used the canon 10-20mm / 11-18mm on the 7d2 and to be honest they simply cannot complete with the Tokina 11-20mm 2.8 - You wont find a great deal of info about this lens other than its was the successor to the Tokina 11-16mm but from real world use its a no brainer for Crop sensors from my experience. Built like a tank. Constant 2.8 and great image quality. Still have mine on the shelf, cant use it now im Pentax but its kept as a hall of famer :) for all the good times we shared lol
 
Geoff Moore said:
Back on topic.
@taxboy
I have used the canon 10-20mm / 11-18mm on the 7d2 and to be honest they simply cannot complete with the Tokina 11-20mm 2.8 - You wont find a great deal of info about this lens other than its was the successor to the Tokina 11-16mm but from real world use its a no brainer for Crop sensors from my experience. Built like a tank. Constant 2.8 and great image quality. Still have mine on the shelf, cant use it now im Pentax but its kept as a hall of famer :) for all the good times we shared lol
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. My initial internet trawl suggests it's very good. It's not a lens I had come across before, perhaps Tokina's marketing budget isn't up there with Sigma and Tamron. Certainly seems worth a look
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I think you may find you are one of the few who prefer to have no IS. With the 600mm RPG the IS made a bit postive differece, but really the problem was it just weighed too much to hold steadily. The 400mm f/5.6 like you say is too light for its length. In fact even mild side wind can massively destabilise it even on tripod (mounted on the centre).

On 100mm macro and 70-200 f/4 IS makes incredibly big difference, just not what Canon literature claims.
Click to expand...

I said the 100-400 Mk2 was too badly balanced so it could benefit from IS - not the 400 F5.6 L as it is front heavy and handles VERY nicely. Not sure what the "600mm RPG" is but on my (ex) Canon 600 F4 L IS the IS was pretty useless to me. I used to own a Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS - couldn't find a use for the IS and I have owned a Canon 100 F2.8 Macro for more than 14 years - it doses not have IS = that's why I haven't bought the "L".

"I think you may find you are one of the few who prefer to have no IS" - good point! I used to think I was the only one, but over the years others have given my heretical ideas a go and the majority agree that the IS OFF position is the best under most circumstances. I think in all circumstances - but let's not split hairs. After all it took me less than 2 minutes to prove the disadvantages of IS to a Canon Rep (who was bigging up the IS on the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2). Yes the IS worked (very well actually) but at 1/160 sec with the 500mm on a 5D4 (din't have a really long lens handy) hand held he was getting sharper shots, faster AF acquisition and better tracking with IS off - so why turn it on?

Just my experiences.

P.S. Apologies to the OP - went a bit Off Topic - sorry.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top