Wide angle lens for Canon FF

cuthbert

cuthbert

Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew Me Dibble and Grubb
Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,918
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

after many years of having an Android phone I decided to upgrade to the iPhone 11 - mainly because jumping between the iPad and Android keeps confusing my muscle memory in my old age, and I suppose finally just getting how Apple works and finding it a bit more intuitive.

anyway, since having the iPhone I’ve been having a lot of fun with the wide angle lens, I really like the dramatic feel it gives to some scenes so I’m wondering if you have any recommendations for a lens with a similar FOV for full frame which won’t break the bank?

seen the Sigma 20 1.4 which seems fairly reasonably priced - would this give me the look I’m after or is not wide enough?
 
I have the Sigma and like it for astro (although I have to stop it down to cure coma)

I'd be looking for a second hand 16-35 F4 me

then you can play with distortion and access more moderate focal lengths as the fancy takes you

Dave
 
If it's a Canon EF (full frame DSLR) lens you want then why not think about the 16-35 f/4L USM IS lens? It's well regarded and will give you a lot more flexibility and wider angle than a 20mm. If the price new is a bit steep then perhaps have a think about a good used one from a reputable dealer with at least 6 months warranty?
 
Last edited:
Have a look at the old sigma 12-24 ( not the ART version its too expensive ) the Samyang range -MPB have some for not a lot, or go for broke and get a fisheye but take care not to get your feet in the shot
 
troutfisher said:
Have a look at the old sigma 12-24 ( not the ART version its too expensive ) the Samyang range -MPB have some for not a lot, or go for broke and get a fisheye but take care not to get your feet in the shot
Click to expand...

Yup. I had the old Sigma 12-24mm and used it on my Canon 20D and 5D and on FF it gives a lovely range and at the wide end every mm does make a difference.

Another option could be an old film era wide prime, 17 or 19mm maybe? Maybe in Olympus Zuiko mount or something else that could be easily fitted to a DSLR via an adapter. Something like that could possibly cost under £100 or another cheap option could be a wide angle adapter which screws to the front of an existing lens. These wont be as good as a wide prime but may be ok for not hyper critical whole picture viewing. I had a couple of these a few years ago and although one was best described as a bit funky the other was rather good. These can cost under £50 but care will need to be taken to ensure that they will fit an existing lens either directly or via a stepping ring.
 
woof woof said:
Another option could be an old film era wide prime, 17 or 19mm maybe?
Click to expand...
I use the 17mm Tamron SP which does everything I want. An example or two...

Canon 5D_two 8GB 12 IMG_0063.JPG

Canon Eos 5_two 8GB 12 IMG_0120.jpg
 
As you may remember I have a couple of film era wide primes.

I just thought I'd mention them and the wide angle adapters as the OP mentioned options which wouldn't break the bank as both of those options are probably going to be cheaper than a even a used modern AF lens.

Actually I forgot a lens which cropped up on this forum recently, the Vivitar / Cosina / Tokina / many other labelled 19-35mm. This is by many accounts a decent lens and crops up at well under £100. AFAIK there are AF and manual versions and some with aperture rings which could be adapted onto many cameras and used manually.
 
Mr Badger said:
If it's a Canon EF (full frame DSLR) lens you want then why not think about the 16-35 f/4L USM IS lens? It's well regarded and will give you a lot more flexibility and wider angle than a 20mm. If the price new is a bit steep then perhaps have a think about a good used one from a reputable dealer with at least 6 months warranty?
Click to expand...
Its a a very good lens, and does indeed give a very dramatic shot. Wish i used mine more than i do (which is never lol). Ill be putting it up for sale soon, just need to get a feel for what they go for second-hand.
 
The ultrawide iphone camera is 120 degrees which is equivalent to a 12-13mm FF lens. A 20mm lens isn't close to wide enough. (95 degrees FOV) Heck even a 14mm lens is only 114 degrees FOV.

The Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 is similarly priced to the sigma 20mm and canon 16-35 f4 on the used dealers like MPB & WEX and has a very good reputation. It's a bit on the large side with a bulbous front element and no screw on filter support but it gets closer to your desired FOV. There's an Irix 11mm that has a good reputation but it is manual focus.

Alternatively, you could try a fisheye. Both the canon or Sigma 15mm f2.8 fisheye lenses are very good performers and you get 180 degree FOV.
 
I think once you're into fisheye or ultra-wide (sub 15mm) territory then you're into the realms of novelty photography, unless you are taking photos for a niche market/reason. Ask yourself how much will it cost to enter that theatre, and how often (and be brutally honest here) you are actually likely to use a 'one trick pony' once the novelty has worn off? Then, how much will you pay for that, and could your money be better spent (or not spent at all!)?

Years ago they used to make fisheye converters for camera lenses that screwed onto the filter thread and converted a standard 50mm or 35mm lens. Perhaps think about looking for one of those on eBay (or new, if they still make them and they're not too expensive) and see how you go with that? You probably can't expect to get wonderful optical quality from a converter, but then again, who looks at the edges of a fisheye shot and says "That's a bit soft"?

If you want something more versatile (and therefore more likely to be used - AKA value for money) then perhaps see how a 16-35 or a 17-40 L lens will look, Of the two, the 16-35 L is the better lens, particularly below around f/8... but it's about 3 times the price new and used. If you don't mind softer corners below f/11 and quite soft corners at f/4 (perhaps depending on the individual copy), then a good used 17 40 L gives fairly good value for money, especially if you'll only use it half a dozen or fewer times a year.

As usual, the more you spend (within reason) the better quality you can expect, but I'd certainly suggest having a good think about how often you might use an ultra-wide lens when weighing up how much to spend... unless, of course, money isn't too much of an object. (y)

PS Who else has bought an ultra-wide angle lens and hasn't honestly used it quite as much as you thought you would?
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
PS Who else has bought an ultra-wide angle lens and hasn't honestly used it quite as much as you thought you would?
Click to expand...

For a while the Sigma 12-24mm was my most used lens. The reason I don't have it now is that I went mirrorless when the A7 came out.
 
Mr Badger said:
I think once you're into fisheye or ultra-wide (sub 15mm) territory then you're into the realms of novelty photography, unless you are taking photos for a niche market/reason.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with that in general but the 17mm is the default lens on my full frame dSLR and largely the reason why I have a FF. Everyone is different and most people go through different phases as well so hard rules are seldom valid in something like photography. I use a 7.5mm fisheye on M43 when I have to get into very tight spaces and it works for me, as shown here...

P1230400 Helicopter Interior fisheye.jpg
 
I did the same search a couple of years ago and came to the conclusion that:
1) vintage wide angle primes are hard to find and hard to justify their "rare" price
2) the Cosina/Vivitar/Tokina 19-35 is cheap and auto-focus but it's not going to be very sharp particularly when at 19mm and if I was going to avoid going that wide, I might as well just use the wide end of the 24-105.
3) I wanted to put filters on the front so that discounts anything with a bulbous front element.
4) if I wanted to do astrophotography f2.8 is really useful
5) very few other modern-ish options for EF mount under £400

I waited and eventually found a Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L (Mk1) for a reasonable price (they can be found for under £350/400) and pounced on it. I love it for what it is, but it doesn't often get used. It is a speciality lens and I find myself shooting mostly with the 24-105 and the 16-35 subsequently gets left at home.
Despite liking the images from it, I can't justify keeping my 16-35 at the moment and it'll be for sale soon.
 
ABTog said:
I did the same search a couple of years ago and came to the conclusion that:
1) vintage wide angle primes are hard to find and hard to justify their "rare" price
2) the Cosina/Vivitar/Tokina 19-35 is cheap and auto-focus but it's not going to be very sharp particularly when at 19mm and if I was going to avoid going that wide, I might as well just use the wide end of the 24-105.
3) I wanted to put filters on the front so that discounts anything with a bulbous front element.
4) if I wanted to do astrophotography f2.8 is really useful
5) very few other modern-ish options for EF mount under £400

I waited and eventually found a Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L (Mk1) for a reasonable price (they can be found for under £350/400) and pounced on it. I love it for what it is, but it doesn't often get used. It is a speciality lens and I find myself shooting mostly with the 24-105 and the 16-35 subsequently gets left at home.
Despite liking the images from it, I can't justify keeping my 16-35 at the moment and it'll be for sale soon.
Click to expand...

It's a while since I looked at example pictures taken with the 19-35mm but although I'd suspect it's not razor sharp I'm pretty sure it'll be ok for whole pictures viewed normally. At the longer end a few mm aren't that crucial and at the even longer end even tens of mm may not matter but at the wide end a couple of mm are noticeable if only when looking at the pictures side by side.

And back to Badgers comments, below 15mm is definitely not novelty but can be difficult to use well. I've never been a real fan of fisheye though. I've never bought a fish eye lens but did buy an adapter and playing with it was enough to tell me I was right not to spend more on a fisheye lens as it just wasn't something I'd want to use even rarely.
 
IMHO the best 'bang for buck' WA zoom for Canon FF is the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4, less than £200 s/h and optically pretty good.
 
Phil V said:
IMHO the best 'bang for buck' WA zoom for Canon FF is the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4, less than £200 s/h and optically pretty good.
Click to expand...
I'd forgotten about that one.
There are two versions though, the older SP which can be had for less than £200 and the new version which is more like £400. Both of these are 150-200g lighter than the Canon 16-35mm options.
 
Irix 11/4 or 15/2.4 are both good lens and both are a reasonable price, they both come with a different coat but optically they are both the same.
There is the Blackstone which are more pricey but looks awesome and then there`s the Firefly, a bit more plastic but still a great lens.
I have the Firefly 15/2.4 and the Blackstone 11/4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top