Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Jan 2011 (Monday) 12:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which wide angle for 7D??

 
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Jan 10, 2011 20:21 |  #16

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #11613817 (external link)
Does anyone have AF issues with Tokina 11-16 on 7D, my fairly high SN (2 month back) was quite inconsistent focusing at infinity. Saw some posts here and on dpreview about that as well.
I went for Sigma 8-16, so glad I did.

Nope - sharp all the way through with spot on AF.


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,256 posts
Likes: 86
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Jan 11, 2011 10:36 |  #17

bulldog-yota wrote in post #11611330 (external link)
Mostly looking at wide angle lenses for landscapes with a 7D. (No a 5DII is not in my budget :lol:).

I have the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the results are OK, but really come up short comapred to the 24-105 pictures under the same circumstances. The 24-105 picture just seem to be much sharper, especially when blown up for larger prints.

So just wondering if there was a reasonably affordable lens for a 7D that will produce much better results than the Sigma. Something that will later work on FF body will be a bonus.

Or maybe my Sigma is just not that sharp, or my technique is not that good with it??

There is exactly one UWA lens that will work fully on full frame, if that's important... Sigma 12-24 is a full frame lens that will also be quite wide on crop. It's rather pricey and probably compromises more in IQ than the lens you have right now. But it's the widest available non-fisheye, FF lens.

The next widest FF lenses are Nikon 14-24/2.8, Canon 14/2.8, 16-35/2.8, 17-40/4. Most of these are rather pricey. The Nikon will need an adapter, won't AF, of course, and aperture control will be fully manual, too. The three Canon EF lenses will have full functionality. 14mm is very wide on a cropper, but not ultra wide. 16 and 17mm are wide on a cropper, but not what I'd call very wide.

Some other lenses might have limited use on FF. They will have to be third party, though, since Canon EF-S lenses can't even be mounted on their FF bodies (well, at least they can't without some work on them with a Dremel tool, which you might be a little reluctant to do).

I use the Tokina 12-24/4 personally. It's a crop camera lens, but I have experimented with it on FF and can tell you it will work to about 18 or 19mm before vignetting starts to set in. It's a very well made lens ("L-like"), and for about $500 new I think it's one of the very best values among the UWA, non-fisheye lenses.

The Tokina 11-16 is nearly identical in build, size and weight, but is about 20% more expensive, has that ultra narrow zoom range, and I don't find f2.8 all that important or useful on an ultrawide angle. I don't know if or how well it works on FF.

I haven't tried the Tamron 10-24mm, so can't really comment.

When I was shopping for an UWA, I compared the Canon EF-S 10-22 and Sigma 10-20 with the Tokina and a now discontinued 11-18 Tamron.

The Canon 10-22 can't be mounted on FF, of course. But I felt the IQ was pretty equal with the Toki 12-24, and that these two lenses were the best of the bunch. except of course the Canon is 2mm wider (take two steps backward!). The Canon was the most expensive of the UWA cropper zoom bunch, too (the FF Sigma 12-24 is more expensive, as are the Nikkor and EF lenses mentioned above). The third party lenses all seem to have higher build quality than the Canon, although the Canon is quite well made, Canon's "mid-quality/USM" that's a notch or so below the L-series lenses.

The Siggy 10-20 seemed to have slightly lower IQ, in my comparisons. I don't know if it can be used on FF at all... probably in a limited way, like the Toki 12-24.

The older Tamron 11-18 image quality just didn't impress me as much as the other lenses. IQ wasn't as good and it also seemed to have lesser build quality than the other lenses. A short time later they replaced it with the currently available 10-24, which I really haven't compared.

All these lenses except for the Tokinas, the Nikkor and the EF Canon are variable aperture lenses. By that I mean the aperture changes size as you zoom. It varies, but might be f3.5 to f5.6 or something like that. The two Tokinas, the Nikkor and the Canon 16-35 are all fixed aperture zooms. Their apertures don't change size when you zoom, which generally are more expensive.

If you throw out the idea of using the lens on FF at all, there are a number of moderate wide Canon EF-S zoom lenses, that go to 15mm through 18mm. I just don't have experience with most of these, so can't really comment.

There are some even wider lenses now, like the 8-16 Siggy. Interesting, I haven't tried one, but I can't imagine it would work at all on FF.

I'm happy with my Tokina 12-24. It's the only "crop" lens I own, yet is still usable on FF in a pinch (I'd usually just use my Canon 20/2.8 though.)


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Jan 11, 2011 10:42 |  #18

Good info amfoto1. Just like to add the 11-16mm works like a 15/16mm prime on FF. There are examples on this board if anyone is interested. This is the reason why I still have the lens.


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Genome
Goldmember
Avatar
1,000 posts
Joined Dec 2009
     
Jan 11, 2011 10:43 |  #19

try using your sigma at the hyperfocal distance. I got WAY better results with mine once i masterd that.

Basically, at 10mm i set the focus manually to about 2mm past the 1 meter mark (should go 1m and then infinity on the scale). Set the aperture to F10 and everything is sharp and in focus. Just gotta make sure the shutter speed is fast enough after that.

Give it a try. You current lens should be perfectly good. Its pretty much on par with the canon.

The tokina 11-16 is known for being the sharpest but suffers more from CA than the others and isnt quite as wide. All compramises of course.


Flickr (external link)
In the bag:
Canon 500D Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Canon 70-200L f4 Jessops 2x converter Jessops 360 Flash

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bulldog-yota
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
183 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
     
Jan 11, 2011 17:57 |  #20

Thx for all the input guys.

Genome, I will try your technique and see if it works on mine. May just be a technique and also expectation issue for me. Will look at lens options if I'm still not satisfied.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,090 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 179
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
Jan 12, 2011 04:07 |  #21

On the photograph you've posted what is the focus point aimed at ? If its the centre of the picture, and this is typical of the shots you take, then you won't get sharp shots. At 100% as your focus point is way too far away. As Genome has already suggested you need to focus on something MUCH closer to the camera with an UWA.
Typically I like to shoot in portrait orientation as this allows me to include lots of foreground in the shot, as well as a nice bit of sky too. I shoot with a Sigma F4-5.6 and find it super sharp. As you already own this lens, if focusing closer doesn't help, send it off for callibration and see the improvement when you get it back. If its new and under warranty then it will cost you nothing.
When I set my focus point on my 7d, I sometimes use the very bottom point to get a point of interest, and this still allows plenty of sharpness as your eye is drawn through the picture. On this shot I focused on the 1st large rock in the pool and as you look further forward you can just make out two figures on the edge of the incoming sea, they're tiny but clearly defined.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / 500/4 :D XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
warnabrother
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
13 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Melbourne
     
Jan 12, 2011 04:24 |  #22

Genome wrote in post #11617667 (external link)
try using your sigma at the hyperfocal distance. I got WAY better results with mine once i masterd that.

Basically, at 10mm i set the focus manually to about 2mm past the 1 meter mark (should go 1m and then infinity on the scale). Set the aperture to F10 and everything is sharp and in focus. Just gotta make sure the shutter speed is fast enough after that.

Give it a try. You current lens should be perfectly good. Its pretty much on par with the canon.

The tokina 11-16 is known for being the sharpest but suffers more from CA than the others and isnt quite as wide. All compramises of course.

h14nha wrote in post #11623056 (external link)
On the photograph you've posted what is the focus point aimed at ? If its the centre of the picture, and this is typical of the shots you take, then you won't get sharp shots. At 100% as your focus point is way too far away. As Genome has already suggested you need to focus on something MUCH closer to the camera with an UWA.
Typically I like to shoot in portrait orientation as this allows me to include lots of foreground in the shot, as well as a nice bit of sky too. I shoot with a Sigma F4-5.6 and find it super sharp. As you already own this lens, if focusing closer doesn't help, send it off for callibration and see the improvement when you get it back. If its new and under warranty then it will cost you nothing.
When I set my focus point on my 7d, I sometimes use the very bottom point to get a point of interest, and this still allows plenty of sharpness as your eye is drawn through the picture. On this shot I focused on the 1st large rock in the pool and as you look further forward you can just make out two figures on the edge of the incoming sea, they're tiny but clearly defined.

+3 .. I too was a little dissapointed when i first got this lens.. focusing on "nothing" does indeed make the pictures soft and lifeless.. but by making an effort to focus on something close by, the shots are definitely sharper...


Step away from the red ring son...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Headbone
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
     
Jan 12, 2011 04:46 |  #23

Olly_K1 wrote in post #11611424 (external link)
Canon 10-22mm produced the best results for me

+1 for me.
I tried the Sigma 10-20 and was not happy with the IQ. Tried the Canon and was sold almost immediately.


1D Mk III - 7D - EF 50mm f1.8 - EF-S 10-22 - EF 70-200 f/4 L IS - EF 24-105 f4 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joebokeh
Member
50 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jan 12, 2011 07:07 |  #24

bulldog-yota wrote in post #11613600 (external link)
Seems that the higher the f-stop the softer it gets. This one is at f/10 some others at f/16 seems softer to me.

DLA? try googling diffraction limited aperture... maybe that helps??




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LostInInaka
Senior Member
Avatar
500 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Takizawa, Iwate, Japan
     
Jan 12, 2011 08:17 |  #25

+1 for the Tokina 11-16mm Great lens, and makes for interesting portraits as well!

But the CA....it can be killer...


5DmkIII | Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 | Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L mk II | Canon 24mm f/1.4L mk II | Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L mk II | Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L | Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II | + Misc
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,905 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
     
Jan 12, 2011 12:15 as a reply to  @ h14nha's post |  #26

I also have a 7D and I've had the 10-22 for almost 4 years now and I absolutely love it!
I've also heard great things about the Tokina 11-16 but I've never used it.

Here's an interior (handheld) shot with the 10-22 at very low light 10mm FL f/5.6 1/100 (I know, too high) and ISO3200.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bulldog-yota
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
183 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
     
Jan 12, 2011 12:45 |  #27

Thx for all the pointers, I learned a lot about landscape pictures. I will make the suggested changes to my technique and see how it goes.

Seems like manual focus to set for the hyperfocal distance is the way to go for me. Looking at the charts from the tool on this website, I don't need much above f/10 (or even less) with a focus distance a few mm past the 1m mark the lens for good shots.
http://www.dofmaster.c​om/download_chart.html (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
theCOkid
Senior Member
268 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Portland, OR
     
Jan 12, 2011 19:19 |  #28

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #11613817 (external link)
Does anyone have AF issues with Tokina 11-16 on 7D, my fairly high SN (2 month back) was quite inconsistent focusing at infinity. Saw some posts here and on dpreview about that as well.
I went for Sigma 8-16, so glad I did.

My first Tokina 11-16 would not AF to infinity. It would stop short every time. I could get it there manually, but I wasn't willing to accept that from a brand new lens. I took it back to the shop where I bought it and luckily they had ordered two copies and swapped it out for me.

The replacement 11-16 is one of my favorite and most used lenses. I like to shoot primes, so the short zoom doesn't bother me at all. But also, keep in mind that a few mm's in the UWA range make a huge difference in perspective.

The other major factor for me was the 2.8 aperture. A UWA is a very useful indoor lens and I wanted to be able to shoot in low light comfortably. Also, there is a noticeable difference in DOF in many photos when shooting at 2.8 vs 4 even at 11mm depending on the distance between you and your subject.

Anyway, I would very strongly recommend the Tokina 11-16. It's an excellent lens that's really fun to use.


--Ty--
website (external link)
photo blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
doc.paradox
Member
222 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Jan 12, 2011 21:34 as a reply to  @ post 11613868 |  #29

With my copy (Tokina 11-16) I have had no AF issues on my 7D. CA is a little bit of a post pain, (as with any fast & wide glass) but I knew that going in. Personally, I'm a Canon fan-boy and could never imagined going off the ranch, BUT I think it all comes down (as always) to what your needs are shooting wide. If my muse was outdoors only, I would have happily kept my 10-22, . . . but for me, the ability to shoot interior shots (think church/weddings) without a flash (3.5 wasn't cutting it) was paramount. The toki-tank 11-16 2.8 is a rare bird, and it delivers. I basically use it as a 11mm 2.8 prime, but when I go full frame, it will be a 16 (maybe 14) 2.8 prime, . . works (very well) for me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rkkwan
Member
134 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Jan 12, 2011 22:07 as a reply to  @ post 11613868 |  #30

First 11-16 (which worked perfectly with my 40D) won't focus out to infinity at times. Then separate issue with soft on the right side. Sent back to Tokina, they gave me another, still have focusing problem. Sold it and got 8-16 instead.

The 11-16 is the sharpest of all - I've also used 10-22 - and of course 2.8. But 8-16 is sharp enough for me, and even more fun with the wider angle-of-view. Still kind of miss the 11-16 at times, however.


rkkwan.zenfolio.com (external link)
5D/BG-E4; 70-200/2.8L IS II, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 28-75 Asph, Tokina 10-17 Fish, 1.4x III; 580EX II; G7 X
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,683 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which wide angle for 7D??
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Dirtstar
817 guests, 235 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.