Wide angle lenses

P

petemc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,504
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
So I'm trying to decide between the Canon 17-40mm L or the Sigma 12-24mm. Obviously the Canon is a no brainer, fantastic lens, but the Sigma is wider. I've read a very postive review that makes me want to buy it, but I'm just not sure. Any tips? :)
 
What camera are you using Peter?
 
If what you really need is wide angle then I'd say the Sigma wins hands down, 28mm isn't really that wide angle in 35mm terms.
 
Canon user reviews http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=184&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

Sigma User reviews http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=184&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Also here's a quote from one of the sigma reviews

You can only use screw on filters with the Sigma adapter that comes with the lens. When you do this you effectively cut the lens down to 17mm. When you see how curved the front element is you will understand why its impossible to fit a filter at 12mm. The filter would have to be a bubble.
Click to expand...

Depending on what you're wanting it for that is fairly significant and would probably sway me in favour of the Canon. As far as I know you don't get a gel polariser which to me would be important as effectively you're reducing it to a 17-24.
 
dod said:
Canon user reviews http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=184&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

Sigma User reviews http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=184&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Also here's a quote from one of the sigma reviews

You can only use screw on filters with the Sigma adapter that comes with the lens. When you do this you effectively cut the lens down to 17mm. When you see how curved the front element is you will understand why its impossible to fit a filter at 12mm. The filter would have to be a bubble.
Click to expand...

Depending on what you're wanting it for that is fairly significant and would probably sway me in favour of the Canon. As far as I know you don't get a gel polariser which to me would be important as effectively you're reducing it to a 17-24.
Click to expand...

Yer I've been reading through them. It is annoying that you can't use decent filters on the Sigma. The Canon would allow me to use a polarizer, even though it does cost £60 :) I could also attempt to get an IR filter too, at £100-150 :(
 
I would say the same as Steep

If you want really wide angle then go for the Sigma lens, or the Canon isn't too bad at 28-65mm. Of course the Canon has advantage of being a constant F4.

If you think you might upgrade your camera to a 1.3x crop camera sometime in the future then go for the 17-40.
 
The other annoying thing is that I've just learnt that there are new ultra wide angle lenses coming out. A new Sigma and a new
Tamron. I could just get the Canon knowing that its a great lens and takes filters and keep my eye on these lenses to see how they do over the next few months. I would love an ultra wide Infrared capable lens.
 
SDK^ said:
If you think you might upgrade your camera to a 1.3x crop camera sometime in the future then go for the 17-40.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. Canon have already included the Digic 2 processor from the 2D mk2 in the 20D. Who's to say that the next model (30D?) wont get the 1.3X crop advantage? Wishful thinking perhaps, but it's a very competitive market out there and I can see it happening at some stage.
 
I didn't think the Sigma was designed for the 1.6x crop?
 
CT said:
SDK^ said:
If you think you might upgrade your camera to a 1.3x crop camera sometime in the future then go for the 17-40.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. Canon have already included the Digic 2 processor from the 2D mk2 in the 20D. Who's to say that the next model (30D?) wont get the 1.3X crop advantage? Wishful thinking perhaps, but it's a very competitive market out there and I can see it happening at some stage.
Click to expand...

Yeh it wouldn't suprise me if with the future generations they had XD's as full frame, XXD's as 1.3x crop and the XXXD's as 1.6x crop.
 
With the 10D you're limited of course to EF mount lenses - it won't accept Canon EF-s - so the new EF-s 10-22 isn't an option. The Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 17-40 are both good IMO. The Sigma has some limitations - it is susceptible to flare, so really you need the sun behind you. As has already been pointed out, you can't fit filters to the front, although there is a gelatin filter holder at the rear. It is also quite a large lens, being full-frame, and sharpness falls off a little at the edges, even with the crop factor.

I would consider the new Tamron 11-18 Di-II as an alternative to the Sigma. I haven't seen any review as yet, but the recent Tamron lenses have been well received.

The Di-II is an APS-C format lens, so no good on a 1.3x or full-frame camera (but it has an EF mount and therefore does fit the 10D). This is largely a guess, but unless you think you may want a full-frame DSLR sometime in the not-too-distant future, I wouldn't worry about buying APS-C lenses. It looks as if the 1.6x format is here to stay, but the 1.3x format may not be. Canon plans to merge the 1D and 1Ds into a single model at some stage - maybe the MkIII - and the 1.3x format will then disappear from their range. In a way, it falls between two stools at the moment - not large enough to take full advantage of 35mm lenses, and too large to use the new APS-C lenses.
 
Just a word of warning, there have been many reports of bad quality control from Sigma recently. So if you do take the Sigma route I would highly reccomend buying from somewhere where you have easy access to return it should this be an issue for you. And before anyone jumps on me for bashing Sigma I am also aware that Canon are no angels either. :wink:
 
silkstone said:
Canon plans to merge the 1D and 1Ds into a single model at some stage - maybe the MkIII - and the 1.3x format will then disappear from their range. In a way, it falls between two stools at the moment - not large enough to take full advantage of 35mm lenses, and too large to use the new APS-C lenses.
Click to expand...

I think long, long term Canon plan to merge both 1D and 1Ds but they aren't going to be doing that for the next couple of releases as the price gap will be massive between the the xxD and the xDs (Currently £900 - £5000). Until they can produce full size 35mm sensors cheaply the 1D and 1Ds will be separate cameras

More likely Canon will release a xxxD(1.6x) at around £400, a xxD at £600 (1.6x) and a xD (1.3x) for around £1400 (All prices are estimates). They could even use 1x on the xD but have a lower pixel count

That is how I see the next 3-4 years anyway
 
You may well be right, but TBH I don't see the point of the 1.3x sensors now we have 8+MP and low noise with the 1.6x, and the option of the smaller, lighter and cheaper APS-C lenses too. What I'd like to see next is a weatherproof 1.6x body - 1D quality at 20D size. :)
 
silkstone said:
I would consider the new Tamron 11-18 Di-II as an alternative to the Sigma. I haven't seen any review as yet, but the recent Tamron lenses have been well received.

The Di-II is an APS-C format lens, so no good on a 1.3x or full-frame camera (but it has an EF mount and therefore does fit the 10D). This is largely a guess, but unless you think you may want a full-frame DSLR sometime in the not-too-distant future, I wouldn't worry about buying APS-C lenses. It looks as if the 1.6x format is here to stay, but the 1.3x format may not be. Canon plans to merge the 1D and 1Ds into a single model at some stage - maybe the MkIII - and the 1.3x format will then disappear from their range. In a way, it falls between two stools at the moment - not large enough to take full advantage of 35mm lenses, and too large to use the new APS-C lenses.
Click to expand...

The other problem is that I don't know if the Tamron will be able to do Infrared shots. I hear the 17-40L can. So far the 17-40L is my favourite, but its annoying to think that it just isn't wide enough, compared to the Sigma or the new Tamron.
 
AFAIK IR ability is a function of camera/sensor rather than lens, or am I wrong here? :?
 
Partly Silkstone, some lenses have coatings on them that adversly affect infra red causing hotspots on images. The Canon 18-55 kit lens is one of them. The only way to find out is for someone to get hold of one and try it.
 
Thanks Steep - wasn't aware of that. I've never done any IR photography, but I heard that the 20D wasn't very good at it.
 
Well the reason I said you were partly right was because cameras can have different filters in front of the sensor, some block ir more successfully thatn others. The ones used by Canon seem to be too damned good :( and make it hard to get decent images.
 
I don't know about the new 11-18mm Tamron but the slightly older and not so wide 17-35mm does have the coatings that restricts IR somewhat. If you can find out the coatings on that lens then compare it to the wider one you should be able to get a pretty accurate answer??
 
Great - I've learned something here, I never thought about the implications of doing IR photography digitally. I was never keen on colour IR but many years ago I used to love going up Long Mynd Shropshire, and the Malvern Hills and taking black and white IR shots with a deep red filter. On really good days you could see right to the curve of the Earth in your shots with dramatic black skies and white clouds.

On of the things I hate about modern lenses is we've lost a proper DOF Scale and we no longer get an IR focusing mark - not that I've seen anyway.
 
Steve said:
The Canon 17-40L lens does have an infa red focusing scale :D
Click to expand...

And so it should for that much money. :lol:

I'm still having trouble getting my head around this. With 35mm, you had to buy IR film, so how does IR work with a sensor?
 
If nobody else has answered this by tomorrow evening I will, but I need to go to bed now, sorry :shock:
 
You need an IR filter.
The filter only lets the IR light through giving you a red image.
You now need to process this image using the channel mixer in your Graphics package.
Reduce the red channel and up the blue channel.

One of my favourite IR photographers

I like the effect of mixing the IR images with normal images that Daniella uses in the above link.
 
Or when you have the IR filter on, create a custom white balance on a white piece of paper :)
 
Gregeff said:
Or when you have the IR filter on, create a custom white balance on a white piece of paper :)
Click to expand...

I've yet to try that, but I might this weekend and see what happens.
 
So - is the IR filter you would use (with digital) just a red filter (as with IR film) or does it have some other IR filtering qualities?
 
It.s an IR filter CT

SRBfilm sell the cokin one at a very reasonable price if your looking for one.
 
Thanks Matt - makes much more sense now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top