Wide angle lens

jockwav

jockwav

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,085
Name
James (Retired)
Edit My Images
No
Still looking around at getting a second hand one of these,still not sure what to go for.
Obviously would love a nice sharp lens to go with my 5D,who uses what & are pleased with sharpness.:):shrug:

Want to try & get into landscape.
 
What's your budget? I can't offer any advice but I think you'd best state this before all the pro's jump in with very expensive suggestions lol. Unless that's what you want of course?!
 
I am willing to look at anything but second hand might be the answer for getting a decent lens at a reasonable price.:)
 
With FF, you're a bit limited in choices. I wanted a superwide when I still shot film as well as digital and also wanted something wider than 18mm on a Dx body, so I went for the Sigma 12-24.

Of course, it suffers from fairly extreme perspective effects like converging verticals but without a tilt/shift lens, they're inevitable. Pincushion and barrel distortions are very well controlled and my copy is as sharp as I want/need it to be (I'm sure pixel peepers and Sigma Slaggers could pick fault but with the only other option (the Nikkor 14-24 costing well in excess of £1000) is way too expensive for my needs.
 
Where.:shrug:
 
Thanks for that Nod,i am not too sure how wide i need as i have not uesd one of these lenses before,still fishing around.:):thumbs:
 
Anyone got a 17mm-40mmL on FF,maybe worth a thought.:)
 
Dunno if you're interested but I have a Canon 20-35mm USM I bought used for use on my eos 30. I've read complaints that they distort but I've never seen anything bad from mine and all in all it seems perfectly good to me.

Could a 20-35mm be worth considering?

I've read good things about 19-35mm's badged by Cosina, Tamron and others too, all the same lens I think.
 
Danny133 said:
canon 10-22? £450 used ...
Click to expand...

Its a full frame body so cant use the 10-22 (ef-s) which is unfortunate as its the best out there!
 
You may think so but I found that it suffered from vignetting and distortion and I've read reviews which say the same thing.

I much prefer the Siggy 12-24mm I have now as it doesn't suffer from either.

Canon should do better IMVHO.
 
woof woof said:
You may think so but I found that it suffered from vignetting and distortion and I've read reviews which say the same thing.

I much prefer the Siggy 12-24mm I have now as it doesn't suffer from either.

Canon should do better IMVHO.
Click to expand...

Definitely not (IMO), and the reviews state the opposite but we've had this discussion on another thread! Its one of the best lenses Canon have ever made.

(http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=273723) :)

The Siggy 12-24 is ok though. But that said - have you seen it on an FF body? A lot of vignetting and distortion at the edges at 12mm which you dont see on your 20D!
 
Last edited:
Thanks all for your input,i will just have to keep my eyes open for the right one to come along.:)
 
You mentioned and praised an APS-C lens so as I own an APS-C camera and have owned both the Canon 10-22 and Siggy 12-24mm I felt qualified to comment about their performance on APS-C...

This is pretty typical of what I use to get with the Canon, this one at 12mm... :naughty:

C1.jpg


The Siggy never displays vignetting on APS-C... shot chosen at random for 12mm example...

C2.jpg


c3.jpg


Like I said, I've actually owned both so feel able to comment. Sorry to take this off thread I just got interested.
 
Last edited:
Thinking the 17mm-40mmL might be a good lens to look out for.:)
 
why not try the sigma 10-20mm hsm not a bad lens for decent money
£408 delivered from camerabox :)
 
odd jim said:
The Siggy 12-24 is ok though. But that said - have you seen it on an FF body? A lot of vignetting and distortion at the edges at 12mm which you dont see on your 20D!
Click to expand...

And that's from personal experience or what you've read somewhere and are trotting out? I use mine on FF and have used it extensively on 35mm film as well and there is little or no visible vignetting or distortion along the edges, even at the extremes of focal length.
 
So you would recommend the siggy 12mm-24mm Nod?:)
 
Nod said:
And that's from personal experience or what you've read somewhere and are trotting out? I use mine on FF and have used it extensively on 35mm film as well and there is little or no visible vignetting or distortion along the edges, even at the extremes of focal length.
Click to expand...

I read it a while ago in a photog' magazine comparing wide angle lenses. The result was the same as this short Ken Rockwell piece;

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/1224.htm

I wouldn't call it "trotting out".

Jeez, why do people have to get so defensive on here?? - You are not the lens!! :| I'm sure its a great lens, I never said it wasnt - just that it wasnt immune from certain issues. But for FF there are few lenses that go wider, so as it happens I think the lens is a very good choice for the OP, but on an FF body its imperfections show more than on a crop.


Woof - that does indeed seem to be exhibiting vignetting from what you have posted. I certainly don't have that on mine and wouldn't be happy if I did (though i sometimes do like the effect of vignetting!) - did you use a filter on that one?
 
Last edited:
I'd recommend the 17-40 f/4L to you. You know you are going to get a well built lens, without focus worries, its very wide on FF and it's fairly versatile going out to 40mm.

I myself am looking to get a Sigma 12-24mm at some point, however on a 1D that is 16-31mm which is only 1mm wider. The problem with wide angle lenses is you really need something that is interesting from front to back and in my opinion, 12mm on a FF body would be too wide. The front element on the 12-24 also makes filters impossible to attach.

The 17-40 was going to be the next lens purchase for my 5D, until it met its maker. :(
 
Anyway,i think it might be between the siggy 12mm-24mm or the canon10mm-22m or the 17mm-40mmL,hopefully if i can find a second hand one at the right price it might keep the other half happy.:)

Thanks for that Martin
 
Last edited:
Canon 10-22mm won't fit on a EF only body.

So it's really a choice between the 12-24 or 17-40 - heads or tails?

:D
 
Cheers Martin,i think i might try & find a second hand 17mm-40mmL:):thumbs:
 
Quoting KR is exactly what I mean by trotting out someone else's BS!

MartyP. Yup, the front element does make it impossible to fit front mounted filters (well, they can be bodged on with blu-tack) but there's a slot behind the rear element to allow the use of gels that can be cut using the template supplied. Not ideal for pols or grads but fine for solid colours. Your calculations may be wrong as regards equivalent focal lengths. You seem to have conveniently forgotten the crop factor still applies to the 17-40.
 
Nod said:
Quoting KR is exactly what I mean by trotting out someone else's BS!QUOTE]

So what you say is by quoting you would also be trotting out someone else's BS:shrug:
Click to expand...
 
Nod said:
MartyP. Yup, the front element does make it impossible to fit front mounted filters (well, they can be bodged on with blu-tack) but there's a slot behind the rear element to allow the use of gels that can be cut using the template supplied. Not ideal for pols or grads but fine for solid colours. Your calculations may be wrong as regards equivalent focal lengths. You seem to have conveniently forgotten the crop factor still applies to the 17-40.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I knew gels can be used but like you said its not the best. Still, I'd worry about that after I got it. :D

With regards to the crop factors, I haven't simply forgetten about the crop factor on the 17-40. I was trying to say that the 12-24 on my 1D with a 1.3x crop factor it is equal to 16-31mm on a FF body which is very close to the 17-40mm f/4L. If you can follow that... :thinking:
 
I'd go for the 17-40 f4L awesome Lens!!!
 
Nod said:
Quoting KR is exactly what I mean by trotting out someone else's BS!

MartyP. Yup, the front element does make it impossible to fit front mounted filters (well, they can be bodged on with blu-tack) but there's a slot behind the rear element to allow the use of gels that can be cut using the template supplied. Not ideal for pols or grads but fine for solid colours. Your calculations may be wrong as regards equivalent focal lengths. You seem to have conveniently forgotten the crop factor still applies to the 17-40.
Click to expand...

...but its not just KR is it?! But dont worry - you are not the lens! :lol:

And anyway, as above with my last post; my point was, and still is, the 12-24 does vignette on a FF, such as the OP's 5D, and this is evident on images after a quick search;

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:0&biw=1280&bih=905

I thought that info might be useful for the OP as he is considering using it on an FF camera. Are you saying we can no longer post up information, no matter how useful, unless we have experienced it directly for ourselves (and if you dont personally agree with it its BS)? As it happens, I have seen images from the 12-24 on a full frame so you could say I have experienced it for myself, or do we actually have to pull the trigger ourselves... ?
 
Last edited:
It's more helpful to have personal experience of equipment you're trying to help with that to repeat someone else's opinion. I have a Sigma 12-24 and use it a lot on a FF body - a D700 and don't see any vignetting in the pics I get from that combination. It's possible that the steep angle of light rays hitting a Canon FF sensor causes vignetting problems in Canons but there's no such problem with the D700 (or the 35mm bodies I've also used it on).

The only limiting factor I find is the inability to use front mounted filters easily - but then again, the only filter I use is a pol and on a lens that wide, the uneven polarising effect would (IMO) be unbearable.
 
I went from crop to full frame - doing so trading in my only Ef-s lens the 10-22mm for the 17-40mm L. Its a good lens and really quite wide on FF the zoom range has a nice over lap with any 24mm starting zoom lens as yuor general walkabout...

You really wont regret it.
 
Nod said:
It's more helpful to have personal experience of equipment you're trying to help with that to repeat someone else's opinion. I have a Sigma 12-24 and use it a lot on a FF body - a D700 and don't see any vignetting in the pics I get from that combination. It's possible that the steep angle of light rays hitting a Canon FF sensor causes vignetting problems in Canons but there's no such problem with the D700 (or the 35mm bodies I've also used it on).
Click to expand...
I have a Sigma 12-24. It vignettes wide open and it is primarily a function of the lens, not the sensor. It gets better as you shoot at narrower apertures as the light cone becomes less and less restricted by the edge of the lens.
 
Thanks guys,i really appreciate all feedback on this matter.:):thumbs:
 
Hi

To chip in my 2p worth.

I shoot FF (5D), x1.3 (1D3) and x1.6 (60D) and find the Siggy 12-24 works fine with all formats. It depends very much upon your expectations and how much pp work you are willing to carry out but IMHO this lens offers some really creative possibilities in a well made package and at a reasonable price.

Definitely a lens worth looking at.

FWIW, if you can find a Siggy 14 f2.8 EX (no longer made) these are really interesting also.

All the best.

Gary
 
Thanks for that Gary,appreciate you taking the time.:):thumbs:
 
I was wondering about this lens choice several years ago, and opted for the 12-24 purely as I'd get more use out and about in the hillside side of things. I can't recommend it enough really, with the only issue being the filter issue, but that as it turns out, hasn't been an issue as I don't use any :D

Seriously though, the 12-24 is a great lens. I've never used the 17-40L though so I couldn't comment on that.
 
I use a 17-40L regularly on full-frame (old-school full frame - EOS-3 35mm :)) and it's a lovely lens, really nice build quality, weatherproof (with a filter on the front at least) and pretty damned good IQ. It also serves as a nice weatherproof walkabout for the 7D, where I leave the ultrawide end to a old 10-20 sigma (crop sensor only though - part of the DC (digital crippled) range. I was toying with getting the 12-24 sigma, but to be honest, 17mm is pretty damned wide on a full-frame camera - certainly wide enough for what I want it for :shrug:
 
I agree with above, 17-40L is a great lens for FF, plenty wide enough.
I had the sigma 12-24mm for a while but you do get distortion with it, and the big minus point for me was that you cant put filters on the front due to the bulbous shape.

If you're looking at getting into landscape then go for 17-40L and then get a filter kit (Lee if you can afford it).
 
Thanks guys,i need to talk the wife round now & also look for a 17mm-40mmL second hand at a reasonable price.:):thumbs:
 
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top