wider than 17-40 ?

[mikeg]

Hi guys,

I need something wider than the 17-40 L. What would you recommend in the 500-700$ range ? I wanna get a good pic quality.

Thanks,


MikeG

[Alexandre Gabriel]

Based on BH prices:

Primes
Sigma 8mm f/4 - 589
Sigma 15mm f/2.8 - 449
Canon 15mm f/2.8 - 549

Zoom
Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 - 669

[Murph7355]

Sigma also do a 12-24 zoom. Works out about 700USD I think, based on very quick searches and exchange rate calcs!

[RikWriter]

I have the Sigma 12-24 and it's an excellent lens. I highly reccommend it.

[mikeg]

I made a comparison between canon's 17-40 L and sigma 12-24. Canon beats sigma hands down.
I used to have a 17-40L. This lens was great (talking about the image quality) but not as wide as I would.

[RikWriter]

I made a comparison between canon's 17-40 L and sigma 12-24. Canon beats sigma hands down.


I made the exact same comparison...took weeks to make the decision. And the Sigma won out.

[Volatile]

Don't forget the Russian 8mm for a mere $150. No AF though...

RikWriter - Where did you get that avatar?

[justruss]

It's important to mention that the sigma prime (15mm 2.8) is a fisheye lense and needs heavy correction if you want a "normal" looking image. I am torn between the canon 17-40, and sigma 12-24 or 15-30. They're all in the same price range, but with different focal ranges. The wider the better if you're dealing with a 1.6 crop factor. But I don't know if it's worth going to the 12-24 for the difference in image quality between it and the 17-40.

R

[chris maddock]

I made a comparison between canon's 17-40 L and sigma 12-24. Canon beats sigma hands down.

Really?
How does the Canon compare in the 12-16mm range then?

;-)
Chris

[mikeg]

I made a comparison between canon's 17-40 L and sigma 12-24. Canon beats sigma hands down.

Really?
How does the Canon compare in the 12-16mm range then?

;-)
Chris


I'm just talking about image quality ...

[chris maddock]

I made a comparison between canon's 17-40 L and sigma 12-24. Canon beats sigma hands down.

Really?
How does the Canon compare in the 12-16mm range then?

;-)
Chris

I'm just talking about image quality ...

You ask about something wider than the 17-40, and then compare a suggestion against the 17-40 - which isn't wide enough for what you want?
Hmm.

I can assure you that the image quality of the 12-24 in the 12-16mm range is considerably better than that of the 17-40 over the same range.

If you must make comparisons, at least compare like for like.

;-)
Chris

[RikWriter]

Don't forget the Russian 8mm for a mere $150. No AF though...

RikWriter - Where did you get that avatar?

In the avatar library for this site.

[spaceman]

Don't forget the Russian 8mm for a mere $150. No AF though...

RikWriter - Where did you get that avatar?

Where can one purchase the Russian 8mm?

[Belmondo]

Where can one purchase the Russian 8mm?

This is one source I've seen listed in the past.

http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/lenses.htm

[spaceman]

Where can one purchase the Russian 8mm?

This is one source I've seen listed in the past.


http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/lenses.htm

Great, thanks for the link. Do you know if there are any issues regarding compatibility with Canon EOS Digital cameras, 330D, 10D?

[unners]

i felt like i needed something wider than my 17-40 on my 10d but i looked at it from a different angle. i found a used eos 1N for around US$350 and now my 17mm is exactly that :)

[Volatile]

Don't forget the Russian 8mm for a mere $150. No AF though...

RikWriter - Where did you get that avatar?

In the avatar library for this site.

I get it now. I was asking because that's an F-14A, and I think the last ones in the fleet are gone. All F-14B these days. The A was a popular plane on the flight deck because it used afterburner on takeoff, and the light show (esp at night) was a real crowd pleaser.

My avatar is a pic of me back when I worked on the good ship TR.

[jgbeam]

A friend who has the 16-35 is very envious of my 12-24. If you don't need the 12-16 range, the 17-40 will do nicely, but if you do.... :wink:

Jim

[mikeg]

A friend who has the 16-35 is very envious of my 12-24. If you don't need the 12-16 range, the 17-40 will do nicely, but if you do.... :wink:

Jim


It will be mainly used for landscape photography and some indoors pics (despite its slowness :cry: )
So the wider the better...

[ron chappel]

I was asking because that's an F-14A, and I think the last ones in the fleet are gone. All F-14B these days. The A was a popular plane on the flight deck because it used afterburner on takeoff, and the light show (esp at night) was a real crowd pleaser.

My avatar is a pic of me back when I worked on the good ship TR.

Really?
You mean they don't have afterburners on the B model or are they designed differently so that they don't show..?








By the way-
Canon will very likely come out with a lens in the 12-20 kind of range soon.It will likely be dearer than the sigma though

[Murph7355]

After much debate I just bought one of these lenses.

The width is staggering at 12mm (which works out to 15.6mm on a 1DmkII or 19.2mm on a 10D/300D).

I haven't had much chance to play with it properly, but it's likely to need a tripod if the lighting indoors is poor.

I'm going to be taking the lens out properly on Saturday (buildings, landscapes and cars hopefully, as this is what I'll use it for mostly) as I have a week to try it out (which expires on Sunday) - if I don't like the images I'll be taking it back and getting either the 16-35L or 17-40L (which are still very wide lenses when you see the images you get! - you should at least have a look at these, though they do cost a good chunk more)

I've tried the lens on both a 10D and a 1DmkII. Obviously noticeably more width on the 1DmkII (15.6mm v 19.2mm). The lighting was poor enough whilst testing indoors that both cameras showed noise at ISO800, which I was surprised at (showed on 2 other lenses too, so not the lens :) ).

I can try and upload my first pictures to the web if you like, but compressing them won't necessarily give you the right impression, and they're >5Mb JPEGs!

On the lens itself, the build isn't as good as the L range from Canon, the zoom works in the opposite direction to Canon's which is a pain (clockwise makes it longer), the HSM isn't as quiet or fast as USM and I'm a little concerned about not being able to use a UV filter (guess I'll just have to be very careful)...but if you really need the extra width, it looks like the only choice.

More later...

[mikeg]

By the way-
Canon will very likely come out with a lens in the 12-20 kind of range soon.It will likely be dearer than the sigma though

mmm...sounds like I should wait a little bit to see what canon is gonna unveil at photokina... :roll:

[DocFrankenstein]

IMO I'd get the Sigma 12-24 I don't really see the point of getting 16-35 if the kit lens is 18-55 :?

And then supplement it with 24-70 L and I have the 70-200 f/2.8 :D

But then I may change my mind a few times during the way. :roll:

[mikeg]

IMO I'd get the Sigma 12-24 I don't really see the point of getting 16-35 if the kit lens is 18-55

I've got a 10D so no 18-55 kit lens :wink:

[sGu]

or sell all your 10D kit plus your extra 700USD, upgrade to 1D, with 1.3x you get wider view with 17-40mm, make sense?

[Arnie]

My alternate wide angle lens is the sigma 12-24....but my ideal aperture is 11 and smaller...

[Murph7355]

Arnie - what the hell are you photographing? The Queen Mary from 5yds :)

[yallcome]

I made a comparison between canon's 17-40 L and sigma 12-24. Canon beats sigma hands down.
I used to have a 17-40L. This lens was great (talking about the image quality) but not as wide as I would.

He said he needed something "wider" than the 17-40, not a "choice or comparison" between the 17-40 and the 12-24.

[Tom W]

I made a comparison between canon's 17-40 L and sigma 12-24. Canon beats sigma hands down.
I used to have a 17-40L. This lens was great (talking about the image quality) but not as wide as I would.

He said he needed something "wider" than the 17-40, not a "choice or comparison" between the 17-40 and the 12-24.

Well, MikeG is "he". :)

I take it that he wants something wider than the 17-40, but with better image quality than the 12-24 Sigma that he tried (which may or may not have been a dud). So I guess it needs to be something wider than the 17-40, but not the 12-24.

[Murph7355]

Well then the only choice open, as Mike's no doubt aware, is the 16-35L. And that's hardly significantly wider.

12-24 looks OK in my initial tests.

Or wait until Photokina where I suspect Canon will do something.

Or buy a full frame camera.

[mikeg]

Yes Tom W, you're right . :wink:

-------------------------------------------
If you're only talking about angle of view, the sigma would better suit my needs than my previous 17-40L.
But when you come to image quality, it really s@#ks :cry:
------------------------------------------
Murph7355 : is 16-35 really wider than 17-40 ? I doubt :roll: For me it's just faster.

The replacement of my 10D isn't really a good alternative because I also need some reach (e.g. race tracks) So the 1,6 factor is a good thing.

A 2nd full frame body might be an alternative but much more expensive as I wanna stay in the digital world..


And as Ron Chappel stated above,
I think I'm gonna wait till next photokina to see what canon is gonna unveil...

[yallcome]

I guess in my last post I neglected to connect MikeG with the original poster. My bad. Oh well, I like the 12-24 so far. You might take a look on pbase.com in the camera museum to see shots taken with the 12-24 -- and loads of other lenses. It helps.

[Volatile]

I was asking because that's an F-14A, and I think the last ones in the fleet are gone. All F-14B these days. The A was a popular plane on the flight deck because it used afterburner on takeoff, and the light show (esp at night) was a real crowd pleaser.

My avatar is a pic of me back when I worked on the good ship TR.

Really?
You mean they don't have afterburners on the B model or are they designed differently so that they don't show..?


F-14B's have a newer engine which is powerful enough for launch without the assistance of the gas-guzzling afterburner.

Apologize for being OT...

[Olegis]

You all are forgetting the Sigma 15-30 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37783), which is very nice wide-angle lens. It's not the sharpest lens ever, but it's very good performer, especially with smaller apertures.
Example shot at 15mm, f/10 and 1/400s :

http://www.pbase.com/image/30603720.jpg

More examples can be found in this gallery - http://www.pbase.com/olegis/gay_parade__tel_aviv_2004&page=all .

[Kenski]

I have the digital rebel and I picked up the Canon 15mm fisheye and I can't be happier. I was afraid to touch it because of the distortion of fisheyes but I am REALLY happy with this lens. It is a great wide angle lens and has little to no distortion depending on how you shoot AND if you want to take the distortion out completely just go get the PTLENS software for the low, low price of FREE, yes, I said FREE and it will make it completely distortion free.. If you haven't seen the PTLENS software, you should go check it out.. It works good... If you have a camera and lens combo that has been calibrated already for the software at least..

http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/

[mikeg]

You all are forgetting the Sigma 15-30 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37783), which is very nice wide-angle lens. It's not the sharpest lens ever, but it's very good performer, especially with smaller apertures.


That could be a good alternative and a little bit faster than the 12-24

[mikeg]

I have the digital rebel and I picked up the Canon 15mm fisheye and I can't be happier. I was afraid to touch it because of the distortion of fisheyes but I am REALLY happy with this lens. It is a great wide angle lens and has little to no distortion depending on how you shoot AND if you want to take the distortion out completely just go get the PTLENS software for the low, low price of FREE, yes, I said FREE and it will make it completely distortion free.. If you haven't seen the PTLENS software, you should go check it out.. It works good... If you have a camera and lens combo that has been calibrated already for the software at least..

http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/


BTW, PTLens looks very good :wink:

[Murph7355]

Murph7355 : is 16-35 really wider than 17-40 ? I doubt :roll: For me it's just faster.


More or less, but bear in mind it's 6% wider...1mm can make all the difference. Or maybe not.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Both Canon and Sigma make 14mm primes.

So the 16-35mm is not the only choice. The One milimeter will make very little difference.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You all are forgetting the Sigma 15-30 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37783), which is very nice wide-angle lens. It's not the sharpest lens ever, but it's very good performer, especially with smaller apertures.


That could be a good alternative and a little bit faster than the 12-24

If you don't like the 12-24 then you really won't like the 15-30mm IMHO not to dwell on the fact that some reviewers have ascertained that the 15-30 is actually a 16-30mm

[drisley]

Olegis, how did you take that shot? Get down on the ground? :wink:

[drisley]

I did some reading about wa lenses, and it appears that the 2 lenses that alexandre mentioned at the top of the thread, the sigma and canon 15mm f2.8's, get VERY good reviews almost everywhere.
When needed, you can defish these lenses and get very good results too.
Since they are small, light, and relatively inexpensive, that MAY be the route I will go. They only drawback is that neither will accept front filters.

[Olegis]

Olegis, how did you take that shot? Get down on the ground? :wink:

No, I actually put my hand with the camera down while pointing the camera up, and clicked the shutter without looking into the view-finder. That gave me a relatively low shooting angle without getting down and dirty on the ground. 8)
You see, this is the beauty of wide-angle - sometimes you don't have to look in the view-finder in order to get the picture. Just point the camera in that direction, shoot and crop later if necessary. The wide-angle will take care of including all the desired objects within the frame :)

[mikeg]

Thank you guys for all your inputs :)

[Murph7355]

Laptop HDD died on Saturday so buggered me royally on testing!

I've kept the 12-24 based, but I couldn't get decent test shots onto a known good screen. Will be downloading in the next day or so. Let me know if you want to take a look.

FWIW the extra width is very noticable and I can easily conceive of situations where it would be needed. Will follow up on quality later.

PS FEL button on the 1DmkII is brilliant!

[mikeg]

Laptop HDD died on Saturday so buggered me royally on testing!

I've kept the 12-24 based, but I couldn't get decent test shots onto a known good screen. Will be downloading in the next day or so. Let me know if you want to take a look.

FWIW the extra width is very noticable and I can easily conceive of situations where it would be needed. Will follow up on quality later.

PS FEL button on the 1DmkII is brilliant!

I'm interested in your test shots. thanks in advance...