Your ultrawide angle lens

[mikeg]

The title says it all : what kind of ultrawide angle do you use ?
I'm looking for a altrawide solution for my D60.


Thanks,

MikeG

[Jesper]

The Canon EF 17-40 f/4L on my 10D. Also works well on my film SLR (EOS 30).

[iwatkins]

I'm using the Sigma 12-24mm on my 10D and am very happy with it.

Cheers

Ian

[mikeg]

Any examples Ian ?

[EXA1a]

The title says it all : what kind of ultrawide angle do you use ?
I'm looking for a altrawide solution for my D60.


Thanks,

MikeG

What is ultrawide by definition? I think it starts at 24mm for full frame, that is 15mm on a 1.6x camera. That doesn't leave have too many choices.

I use a Sigma 15mm fisheye on my 300D, that comes close to 19mm on full frame, almost the same as a 12mm rectilinear on 1.6x camera.

--Jens--

[iwatkins]

Mike,

Yes, got a few online. See the following threads:

Church Photos using Sigma 12-24mm
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23832&highlight=

Comparison of "wide" between 12mm and 17mm
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23178&highlight=

Cheers

Ian

[mikeg]

What is ultrawide by definition? I think it starts at 24mm for full frame, that is 15mm on a 1.6x camera. That doesn't leave have too many choices.

I use a Sigma 15mm fisheye on my 300D, that comes close to 19mm on full frame, almost the same as a 12mm rectilinear on 1.6x camera.

--Jens--

Well, as you can see in my gear list, I've got a 24-70 sigma on a D60 (x1.6 FOV crop)
So what I need is something wider than 24 mm.
Sigma's 12-24 would be the ideal choice but the optical quality isn't as good as canon's 17-40 or sigma 15-30.
So I think I've to make a choice between those and this is my dilemma :roll:

[Jussuff]

I am quite happy with the Sigma 15-30 although the sharpness isn't as good as with my Canon lenses. Have a look at this:

http://www.jot-gallery.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=55&lang=eng

[Vegas Poboy]

Canon 17-40mm F/4 so far I haven't needed anything wider.

[rupertpeaches@netscape.ne]

If you are happy with a prime lens then the Canon 15mm might be a good choice. Apparently, this has a field of view equivalent to 17mm on DSLR - something to do with construction! :D

I use it with my 10D to photograph Auroras and am very happy.

[Bytes U]

I'm happy with my Sigma 15-30 EX too. Good bang for the buck.

[RbnDave]

I use a Tokina ATX Pro 17mm. It is seems very sharp to me. At f8 the Tokina is almost as sharp as my Canon 50 mm f1.8. Also it does a good job with colors. It isn't a zoom though which limits it as a walk around lens. On the up side, I only paid $350 for it.

Here are some examples

http://www.pbase.com/image/23799858
http://www.pbase.com/image/22615723
http://www.pbase.com/image/23196813
http://www.pbase.com/image/24035432
http://www.pbase.com/image/24402831

[Andy_T]

Hi RBNDave,

I like the pictures (esp. 'Reflections' and 'Sea Cave'), but they seem a bit soft to me ... which amount of sharpening did you apply?

Regards,
Andy

[RbnDave]

Thanks Andy.

I normally apply two types of sharpening. I don't know what they are called. I do one where I set the amount to 20, radius to 50, and threshold to zero. After that, I set the amount to 120, radius to .9, and threshold to 2.

Sharpening is still a bit of a mystery to me. I recently got a message on my gallery from a guy that says a lot of my photos look oversharpened. Now you say they look soft. I am a bit confused. Maybe it is just a question of taste.

Thanks for the comments

Dave

[CyberDyneSystems]

Another 17-40mm f/4 here.. no need for a wider lens... instead I am going for a "wider body" ie a 1.3 X crop in a 1D :)

[Man-Fai Wong]

I like the pictures (esp. 'Reflections' and 'Sea Cave'), but they seem a bit soft to me ... which amount of sharpening did you apply?

If you're looking at the Large versions, pbase resizing is probably the culprit.


I normally apply two types of sharpening. I don't know what they are called. I do one where I set the amount to 20, radius to 50, and threshold to zero. After that, I set the amount to 120, radius to .9, and threshold to 2.

Sharpening is still a bit of a mystery to me. I recently got a message on my gallery from a guy that says a lot of my photos look oversharpened. Now you say they look soft. I am a bit confused. Maybe it is just a question of taste.

Your 1st type is called local contrast enhancement (LCE). Good for bringing out details in shadowy/washed out areas, especially in landscapes. The 2nd type is normal sharpening. I assume sharpening was done only for the original size versions.

For normal web presentation, it's best to upload resized versions to fit w/in Large category and sharpen accordingly. Typically, something <=800 pixels wide/tall would be good.

BTW, for more info on LCE, see here:

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml

There are tons more great info/tutorials at that excellent site.

_Man_

[iwatkins]

Sorry, going off topic here.....

LCE is the most important "thing" I have learned since starting in digital photography. It can really bring pictures alive and I for one would actually like to shake the hand of the person who first mentioned/pointed out this technique to me.

Can be overused, but I tend to do it in small steps:

Amount to 5
Radius to 50
Threshold to 0

I have that on a hotkey linked to an action to do it so I can press it several times to taste.

Cheers

Ian

[RbnDave]

Man,

Thanks for the info. Pbase resizing is most likely the cause of the soft look. When I view the same photos on original size, they look fine. Also they look sharper when I view the original file in Adobe Photoshop or using my file viewer. I am using "IR Fan view" now.

Mike,

Getting back on topic... To see how sharp the Tokina 17mm lens is check out my above posted samples and click on original size. The resized (large) versions look a lot softer thanthe originals and a lot softer than the prints I have at home.

Also, when picking your wide angle, think about how it is going to fit into your lens set. Are you going to be doing a lot of wide angle work like landscapes? Or are you looking for a lens that you will be putting on your camera just every now and then when you need to go really wide? I chose to go with a prime for wide angle because I found I only needed something wide to put on my camera when my 24-70mm zoom just wasn't wide enough. I didn't get the canon 17-40 because most of its range overlapped the range of my 24-70. Why pay for two lenses that do the same thing? If you want to use your wide angle lens as a walk around, then maybe you would be better off with a zoom.

And another thought on wide angle lenses... What type of compositions are you planning on shooting with your wide angle? I mostly use mine to shoot close to the subject but also emphasize the background example: http://www.pbase.com/image/25927480 or I use my wide angle to create a scene where it feels like you could walk into the photograph example: http://www.pbase.com/image/23196757 . The important thing to notice in both those examples is the emphasis of the photo is the foreground and the foreground in both pictures was less than six feet from my camera. So what is my point? Because you are so close to the subject when using a wide angle, you can completely change the compostion by moving the camera a few feet. A zoom lens is not as important in wide angle photography as it is in more normal focal length photography. It might be more convenient to move the camera around a few feet to compose your shot than it would be to pay an extra few hundred dollars for a zoom lens. Plus, a prime lens is going to give you better image quality than a zoom.

Just some thoughts. Maybe someone will argue with me.

Dave