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 04 Mar 2014 (Tuesday) 22:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Ultra wide lens ?

 
Angelmia
Senior Member
254 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Florida
     
Mar 04, 2014 22:33 |  #1

I hope this is the right place to ask ,. At the moment I have a 7D and the 10-22mm ,. but I'm finding I am using more and more my 5D mark III , I do have the 24-105 but I would prefer a great landscaper/seascape lens for my full frame that would be equivalent to the 10-22mm which I truly love . No limitations on price , I just want tack sharp images . Been looking around and I've been thinking about the Canon's 16-35 , Tokina ? ,.. Sigma ? or even the Nikon 14-24mm . What do you all suggest ? Thanks in advance .


5D Mark III, 7D, T2i -10-22, 100 L macro, 50-1.4, 40mm f/2.8 ,18-55 IS, 17-55mm, 24-105 Is L, 70-300 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, 300mm 2.8 IS II, 2xIII, Canon 580EX II, Canon S100
Liza

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JP-Eugene
Member
Avatar
160 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Eugene, Oregon
     
Mar 04, 2014 22:42 |  #2

Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 should be a contender


60D, 100L, 430EX II | Sony RX1R II
Flickr (external link) Օ 500px (external link) Google+ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Mar 04, 2014 22:48 as a reply to  @ JP-Eugene's post |  #3

16-35L II for almost the same FoV. The 17-40L would also fill in well, while slightly narrower.

Would you really want to spend $1500-$2500 for a prime lens? Zoom is more versatile, as i'm sure you know from your 10-22.


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JP-Eugene
Member
Avatar
160 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Eugene, Oregon
     
Mar 04, 2014 22:52 |  #4

True, OP mentioned equivalent range to his 10-22 so the 16-35 on FF would be a great option; the sharp comment and no budget made me think of the Zeiss. :)


60D, 100L, 430EX II | Sony RX1R II
Flickr (external link) Օ 500px (external link) Google+ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
Avatar
4,620 posts
Gallery: 432 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 833
Joined Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
     
Mar 04, 2014 22:53 |  #5

Well, many users and testers have tried out the 14-24 Nikon with adapter (obviously manual focus and settings) and praise it. I see one is listed right now in the classifieds on this forum with Novoflex adapter. It would certainly be worth a try at $1800.
I was happy with the results I had with a Sigma 12-24 and I hear the newer version is even better. It may not be across the full frame sharp as the Nikon, but it is less expensive and does have all the automation to mate with your 5D III. Then there is that full manual 14mm Rokinon/Samyang/Vivita​r . I've playing with one and can safely say it is sharper than the Sigma, although there is a mustache distortion, similar to the Zeiss super wide--and hardly anyone complains abut Zeiss quality.
I do have a 16-35 and I know by comparison that the II version is a little sharper than my copy, but not enough to make me want to sell mine. I have heard good things about the Tokina 16-28 and the price is reasonable. It is a hard choice. The availability of a Nikon 14-24, and cost no object, would do for me if I were looking for more than what I have.


Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrfobbyaccent
Junior Member
22 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Location: 626
     
Mar 04, 2014 23:00 |  #6

16-35 is the greatest!


ROYAL ORIGIN.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,330 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8343
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Mar 04, 2014 23:05 |  #7

I have seen several threads where the OP said, they went from the 16-35 to primes for the UWA and they were much sharper, others said they prefer the 16-35 for convenience.

With that said...not cheap
14 Samyang
17 TS e
21 Zeiss
35 Sigma art


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Angelmia
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
254 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Florida
     
Mar 05, 2014 22:56 |  #8

Thanks all for the input ,.I truly wouldn't mind a prime being most of my landscape images are on the wider end but I do see and I've been in situations that I have needed the zoom for the sake of not falling off a cliff sorta speak . So I assume that any of these mentioned here including the primes would be equivalent more or less to the 10-22 on my full frame but much sharper ? I do intend before I pull the trigger to rent one or 2 lens , I have a few months to decide as I would like to have it for my summer trips . Thanks all , I do appreciate the feed back !


5D Mark III, 7D, T2i -10-22, 100 L macro, 50-1.4, 40mm f/2.8 ,18-55 IS, 17-55mm, 24-105 Is L, 70-300 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, 300mm 2.8 IS II, 2xIII, Canon 580EX II, Canon S100
Liza

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
Avatar
4,620 posts
Gallery: 432 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 833
Joined Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
     
Mar 06, 2014 07:54 |  #9

On a full frame the 16-35/17-40 range gives you about the same field of view as the 10-22 on the APS-C format. Nikon's 14-24 is a bit wider and Sigma's 12-24 wider still. Nikon quality--resolution, sharpness--is top notch. The Sigma has edge softness (in the copy I had) about the same as my 16-35 L. which ain't too bad, all things considered. But stopped down to, say, f22, at 12mm at ISO 200, 1/250s and -1.33 Ev (for highlight preservation), you are in master class landscape territory. I purposely left in the vignetting, otherwise easily corrected in post and cropped the foreground. The 22-inch print is superb.


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


Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,503 posts
Gallery: 1847 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11409
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Mar 06, 2014 08:08 |  #10

Angelmia wrote in post #16737856 (external link)
Thanks all for the input ,.I truly wouldn't mind a prime being most of my landscape images are on the wider end but I do see and I've been in situations that I have needed the zoom for the sake of not falling off a cliff sorta speak . So I assume that any of these mentioned here including the primes would be equivalent more or less to the 10-22 on my full frame but much sharper ? I do intend before I pull the trigger to rent one or 2 lens , I have a few months to decide as I would like to have it for my summer trips . Thanks all , I do appreciate the feed back !

Heya,

16-35 makes sense to me, if price is no concern. Doubles for night-time shoots too (astro).

If you want to cut the budget, look at the Tokina 16-28 F2.8. Great lens, for way less cost.

Otherwise, get primes in the length(s) that you need most.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Angelmia
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
254 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Florida
     
Mar 07, 2014 08:53 |  #11

Advaitin, love the image , color and sharpness ! Though looking into the Nikon 14-24 on the canon I would need an adapter like you mentioned, no biggy BUT the issue for me it would not have autofocus and I truly depend on it as I have poor vision and with that said it seems most primes don't have autofocus either . I also found out Canon will be coming out with the new 16-35 ,. Not sure if that's true as the II is fairly new .


5D Mark III, 7D, T2i -10-22, 100 L macro, 50-1.4, 40mm f/2.8 ,18-55 IS, 17-55mm, 24-105 Is L, 70-300 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, 300mm 2.8 IS II, 2xIII, Canon 580EX II, Canon S100
Liza

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
Avatar
4,620 posts
Gallery: 432 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 833
Joined Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
     
Mar 07, 2014 09:51 |  #12

The nikon 14-24 for sale in our forum includes the novoflex adapter. All superwides are difficult to assure focus, which is why using the aperture and the distance scale to create zone focus is important. That silly extra few millimeters on the Sigma mean you have to search to find a way to utilize it all.


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



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


Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,330 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8343
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Mar 07, 2014 09:58 |  #13

Angelmia wrote in post #16740952 (external link)
Advaitin, love the image , color and sharpness ! Though looking into the Nikon 14-24 on the canon I would need an adapter like you mentioned, no biggy BUT the issue for me it would not have autofocus and I truly depend on it as I have poor vision and with that said it seems most primes don't have autofocus either . I also found out Canon will be coming out with the new 16-35 ,. Not sure if that's true as the II is fairly new .

Sounds like the 16-35 II is right up your alley, I would not put to much hope in Canon rumors...but it would be certainly welcomed...

Happy shooting !!


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yeamans17
Senior Member
Avatar
657 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 1395
Joined May 2007
Location: Simsbury, CT
     
Mar 07, 2014 16:12 |  #14

The 16-35 should be an improvement to your 10-22 in that it will give you f/2.8, but if you don't mind that you'll go from f/3.5 to f/4 then I would consider the 17-40L. Tack sharp, slightly less wide than the 15-35 and no f/2.8 but a solid lens that I never leave home without.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 07, 2014 18:44 |  #15

Landscape/seascape will involve apertures of f8 or smaller. This means the 16-35 has virtually no advantage over the 17-40. The 17-40 also takes the same filters as your 10-22, and weighs less.

If you need 2.8 though, then get the 16-35.

If you need 2.8 and you don't need filters or AF, get the Nikon 14-24.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

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

3,632 views & 0 likes for this thread
Ultra wide lens ?
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 Shawvon
916 guests, 335 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.