help me! Please Vote. I bought the...

[evilenglishman]

Ok I made a post a while back about which wide angle I should buy and I still haven't reached a conclusion. :evil:

It's payday and I'm sat here ready to order. :?

I initially started out with six or so lenses and I've narrowed it down to the three in the list.

Which lens would you get bearing in mind the following criteria:

1. I will be using studio lighting mainly but also natural light on occasion.
2. It is for 'stylized' shots of models, so a bit of distortion is mandatory.
3. Image quality is important as the results will be published in a magazine.

4. its for a D60 but i might upgrade to a mk2 or 1ds

[Belmondo]

I know the 17-40 is going to win your poll, but I just love my 12-24. It's a lot of fun, is respectable performing, and certainly solves the problem of wide angle depletion due to crop factor.

[evilenglishman]

tom, i have to admit it is one of my most favoured out of the three - i'm just a bit worried about the stuff i read on LL about using it on full frame

[Jon]

Get the Sigma 12-24. Time enough to worry about its behaviour on a full frame if you get the 1Ds rather than the Mk II (or, maybe, the 20D - in which case you could afford the 16-35!)

[Belmondo]

tom, i have to admit it is one of my most favoured out of the three - i'm just a bit worried about the stuff i read on LL about using it on full frame

Evil:
At the time I bought it, I was influenced heavily by the 1.6X crop factor of the 10D I was using at the time. I never anticipated then that I'd be using a camera with a larger sensor quite so soon. Ironcially, that might have been enough to scare me away from it, but the fact is, it works very well on the Mk II. I can't say how it would work on full frame, but at 1.3X, it's stellar.

[evilenglishman]

but at 1.3X, it's stellar.


oh! that's very good to know. cheers for that info :)

Jon: Good point.

[nucki]

Evil:

I get really good results with a borrowed 12-24. its extremly wide also on a 10D. I do not own it by myself, but a friend of mine. he is also very satified with that lens.
And I'm still happy with my 15-30 :)

hers a shot with the 12-24

http://www.pixelbeisser.at/exhibit/photo.php?photo=307

best regards
Peter

[evilenglishman]

nice pix - i like that manhatten skyline.

<whisper>
I like your d70 photos too :wink:
</whissper>

[nucki]

nice pix - i like that manhatten skyline.

<whisper>
I like your d70 photos too :wink:
</whissper>

thanks! but the nikkons are from a friend of mine... im truly canon :lol:

but the shots are made with the sigma 12-24 not as metioned nikkon 12-24. we didnt have the sigma in the database.

[jgbeam]

Here are a couple of Sigma 12-24 shots with the MkII. The group shot was too wide - you can see some distortion in the kids on the ends - but the shot would have been impossible without resorting to two stitched images, in which case the lighting would have been a problem, and how do you stitch fidgety kids anyway? :lol: The architectural shot would also have been impossible without the 12mm. One more thing - a friend who has the 16-35 f2.8 wishes he had the 12-24 for interiors. :(

http://www.imagevenue.com/host/web1/0cd78_IW6I5066W.jpg
http://www.imagevenue.com/host/web1/3176d_IW6I5035r1res.jpg

Jim

[evilenglishman]

nice shots jim :D

should I be reading anything into the fact that people who have voted for the sigma have actually posted something - resons or examples, whereas the canon voters haven't said anything? :?

I smell a conspiricy :wink:

[KennyG]

You know who this is, yes? 1D and 17-40L. Great lens, can't fault it.

http://www.motorpix.co.uk/images19/cr-025.jpg

[timmyquest]

Get the sigma.

I have the (300D) kit lens and at 18mm, there are many times when wide really doesnt feel all that wide.

18*1.6=29

12*1.6=19

I once put the kit lens up to my rebel body, what i saw...now that was wide.

[evilenglishman]

nice shot kenny! It's good to see a head and shoulder shot with that lens - do you ever find that f4 isn't enough??

timmy - yes thats one of my dilemas would 17mm be wide enough

:?

[roanjohn]

Would you ever consider the new canon ef-s lens.

I think its the widest of the bunch.

Ro1

I voted for the 17-40 f4L though.............

[evilenglishman]

Would you ever consider the new canon ef-s lens.

I think its the widest of the bunch.

Ro1

I voted for the 17-40 f4L though.............

no because the camera I own doesnt have ef-s and the camera i will buy in the future probably wont have ef-s either

[sGu]

You know who this is, yes? 1D and 17-40L. Great lens, can't fault it.

http://www.motorpix.co.uk/images19/cr-025.jpg

cool shot! where did you take it? did you take any shots of her driving?

she's the only female driver i would probably feel safe enough to ride in car with :roll:

[roanjohn]

Would you ever consider the new canon ef-s lens.

I think its the widest of the bunch.

Ro1

I voted for the 17-40 f4L though.............

no because the camera I own doesnt have ef-s and the camera i will buy in the future probably wont have ef-s either

:x DOPE!!!

Alright.........then the 17-40 it is then. In terms of color, build and resale value, this lens tops it. Don't hesitate.......and you can thank me later.

Ro1

[Sketcher]

I'd post images taken w/my 10D and 17-40 f/4L but my photography skill (or lack thereof) does more to detract from product perception than support it :oops: . So mine would be one of the 17-40 f/4L silent votes. *Edit* Well, IMO one shouldn't gripe about elections if one doesn't cast a ballot. So, though it's nothing to look at for photographic quality it gives you the wide end of the 17-40 on a 10D. I think the 17mm would be really fun on a 1.3 or full frame sensor.

Hand Held
Manual Mode
Zero Post Processing

Original 2.15mb w/Exif ----> http://www.pbase.com/image/32942763/original

http://www.pbase.com/image/32942763/large.jpg

[evilenglishman]

:x DOPE!!!



there is no need to be rude :(

Sketcher - thats an awesome image!! :shock:

[drisley]

I think RJ was just kidding around.
I think he actually meant "DOH!" like homer simpson.
:D

I know a guy who had both the 12-24 and 17-40 lenses that he used on his 10D. He said the Canon was slightly sharper, but the Sigma was very good, and offered a nice wide angle. Once he upgraded to a MKII camera, he sold the Sigma, and kept the Canon.

[Belmondo]

As I predicted....

About 3 to 1 in favor of the 17-40L.

I still stand by my original statement.

I know the 17-40 is going to win your poll, but I just love my 12-24. It's a lot of fun, is respectable performing, and certainly solves the problem of wide angle depletion due to crop factor.

But then, I'm repeating myself.

[RikWriter]

As I predicted....

About 3 to 1 in favor of the 17-40L.

I still stand by my original statement.

I know the 17-40 is going to win your poll, but I just love my 12-24. It's a lot of fun, is respectable performing, and certainly solves the problem of wide angle depletion due to crop factor.

But then, I'm repeating myself.

I agree with you. Plus, if he wants distortion, he ain't gonna get it with the 17-40.

[Andy_T]

I think that Sketcher's Vette shot shows some pretty nice distortion!

I also think that anything more on models might be overdoing it ... meaning that the 17-40 would maybe be sufficient for your task and keep its value nicely.

However, if you have the opportunity to score a 1Ds somehow at an attractive price (all the best luck for that 8)), then the Sigma might be interesting...

Best regards,
Andy

[evilenglishman]

Thanks everyone for voting and for all the useful comments. It has helped me make up my mind. :wink:
I don't think there are any better people to ask then the people on here!

So which did I buy and why?
I bought the 17-40
The reason I bought it? Sketchers car showed me pretty much what i wanted to see - a hint of exagerated perspective. As Andy said (which was in the back of my mind) more of a distortion might have been pushing it too far.

The second reason is that image quality is important - to an extent that I think the canon will have the edge (bearing in mind the images will be printed at 100%)

The third reason (something roanjohn touched on) resale vaule - I can play with this lens for a while and if it isn't what I want and I find I need the sigma I can bung it on ebay and will have a better chance of getting back most of what I paid for it. I don't think I could get the same for the sigma.

Thanks again guys!

have i disappointed you tom :shock:

[Belmondo]

have i disappointed you tom :shock:

No, not at all. :lol:

Besides, my predicting skills remain intact. Good luck with the new lens.

[evilenglishman]

Good luck with the new lens.

I'll need it, with my luck if there is one dodgy lens in 10,000 i'll get the bad one :lol:

For anyone in the UK the cheapest I could find it was for £549 - I got the angle finder c as well for £139 :D

[jgbeam]

So which did I buy and why?
I bought the 17-40

Oh, what the L! You can never go wrong picking fine glass. 8) You'll still be backing up and hitting the wall without getting the whole picture, though. :( The Sigma 12-24 will still be lurking there on those rare occasions. :wink:


Have fun with the new toy.

Jim