Wide angle lens - which to chose?

RFebruary

RFebruary

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Name
Rita
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everybody,

I'm looking to buy a very wide angle lens for my Canon 5D, which I want to use mainly to photograph weddings and I came to 3 best options so far:

1.Sigma AF 15mm f/2.8 EX DG Fisheye Lens for Canon

2.Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 II EX DG HSM Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon
3.Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Wide Angle Zoom

The good thing in the 2nd and the third is that they are more versatile, but I think that the 1st one is the only one that gives 180 degrees angle, which fulfil my great interest in a very wide angle.Yet I don't quite understand why the 2nd one has a narrower angle if starts at 12mm. Yet I read this on it's review:

Sigma's 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM II wide-angle zoom lens is designed for use with full-frame digital cameras, and offers a dramatically ultra-wide, minimally distorted zoom lens with a field of view from 122° to 84.1°

Also, I'm concerned that the quality in the Sigmas will will be far behind that of the Canon.

Can somebody comment on this please?

Thank you very much!
 
I'm not a wedding photographer, but since they all seem to be asleep:
1. I imagine you'd find a fisheye a bit gimmicky for wedding use- and would probably use it for one shot per wedding tops?
2. I think you'll find this lens a bit slow for shooting indoors without flash.
3. I own one of these. It's a good lens and I'd think the most useful of the three, but again I think you might be wishing you had something a bit faster at a wedding.
 
I'm not a Canon user (I used to be) have you thought about the 16~35 f2.8 or a fixed 20mmf2.8 > I had one of these and loved it when I shot with an EOS10. I think Dan is right in the sense of having faster glass will be better both for focusing and shutter capability with them. I don't think personally you'd use the 15mm fish eye an awful lot and if you did it can have a great impact for certain shots but for most I just feel it will simply be way too wide? I barely go wider than 24/28mm if I shoot at weddings people just get too small in the frame or distorted at the edges and look fat(ter)
 
RFebruary said:
.......Yet I don't quite understand why the 2nd one has a narrower angle if starts at 12mm. Yet I read this on it's review:
Click to expand...
The second lens quoted is a normal (corrected rectilinear) lens whilst the first is a fisheye (un-corrected). With the fisheye your subjects would be generally distorted and curve around the axis of the lens. In simple terms, rectilinear lenses focus on a flat plan perpendicular to the axis of the lens whilst fisheyes focus on a sphere wrapped around the lens nodal point.

Bob
 
Thank you very much for your kind replies, Bob, Chivers and Coyon!
 
The same building shot from different places with different lenses.

This one was with a Sigma 8mm Fisheye which delivers a true 180° circular image but distorts a LOT!

ExCollFish by gpn63, on Flickr

And this one which was shot with a Sigma 12-24 at 12mm which delivers about 120° corner to corner (on FF) and is very well corrected for distortion. The perspective is quite extreme but that's due to the laws of physics and can be corrected in PP (but looks weird when overdone!)

ExColl12mm by gpn63, on Flickr

If I was looking for a UWA zoom for my Nikon now, I would probably go for the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 instead of the Sigma but that's not an option for you as a Canon user. I would have to think very long and hard about an upgrade now - the Nikkor would cost me about a grand more than the Sigma...
 
What about a canon 70mm to 200mm ef lens ?

brilliant for F.F i.e canon 5Dmk ii etc plus you have got that extra lenght,

however i think i disagree with TALK PHOTOGRAPHY MEMBER:COYON

i think to fit all the families in a full framed photo you will need a canon wide angle pref the mk ii fish eye,mind you saying that if your doing real close up face-shots maybe a portrait/macro lens with a higher mm like maybe 18mm to 135mm f.3.5 canon
​
 
I find the 17-40 a bit underwhelming to be honest. It's not that wide, although its built well and has L glass in it. I've no experience of the sigmas but I much preferred my old 10-22 EFS on my old crop bodied camera.
 
DG Phototraining said:
He has a full-frame camera Ross, making 17mm on his about as wide as 10mm on a crop, so 17mm really is wide enough :)

Dave
Click to expand...

Is it not more like 16mm? I hear 1mm makes all the difference! :)

10mm was definitely noticeably wider on my crop body than my 17mm on my 5D. It's not a bad lens, it's like a jacket that doesn't quite fit me. I'd really like to try the 16-35.
 
Thanks again everybody. I haven't decided yet. But once I've got my lens I will let you know!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top