1D UWA Decision (sorry but i have to do it)

hey guys,

normally i try not to do such threads but i am really struggling here. with winter coming soon, i decided to pick up a wide angle for my landscape work and even after reading about 50 threads on this issue, i still don't know which one i should go with. here are my options so far and how i view them:

Canon 17-40: fantastic lens that i know and love but it is not that wide on the 1.3 compared to my 24-70.

Sigma 12-24: i used this lens before and did like it but it wasn't as sharp as i would like and the fact that i can't use my filters with it doesn't make me too happy.

Sigma 10-20: i know that this is a crop sensor lens but i did read and saw that it would work from about 11-12mm and it will also allow me to use the filters and have better IQ than the 12-24

Sigma/ Canon fisheyes: seems like a nice enough option but i really don't want to start dealing with defishing images and again, no filters can be used.

any advice would be great and if you can share some photos, that would be even better. and again, i am only interested in experiences from 1.3/FF camera owners because i know that 1.6 owners have way more and better options than we do

Sigma 12~24mm, hands down best solution on the 1 series sports bodies if you want truly wide UWA images and don't want to skimp by using a DC lens. I hate the idea of getting black corners because I bumped the lens... BTW I own options #1, #2, and #4 right now. We should get together sometime. Me you and you're checkbook.

Edit:BTW, what filters are you using. On FF you can use Cokin X-pro filters no problem (the rectangular ones, not the CP)... Not sure how much smaller you need to go for it to work on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop...

For a 1DmkIIN, I would rec the 16-35II. I know its not real wide on a 1.3X but its alot wider than a 24-70! The extra stop (over many UWAs) is great and the sharp borders at the wide end are worth the difference imo.

well, the 16-35 is out of the question for a few reasons: it is too expensive, i don't need the extra stop and well, it just isn't a big difference compared to the 17-40.

blonde wrote in post #4090635
well, the 16-35 is out of the question for a few reasons: it is too expensive, i don't need the extra stop and well, it just isn't a big difference compared to the 17-40.

TOO EXPENSIVE!! I would kill for that 500 f/4!! Just kidding. Its your business...

Hope you do not mind but I am also seeking a wide angle lens... Just tagging along for the ride Snir.

12-24. Only real wide angle for non 1.6x. ut if you don't need that wide, go 17-40. Come on, you should know. 12 or 17? The 10-20 is nice, but why risk the vig and all that. Some test show 11 on, i saw a thread that showed 15 was pushing it. Maybe it was certain shots.

12-24 to be say since it's 1.3 and not FF. There's oddly a big diff.

Maybe we should ask you another question first though Snir...
Are you staying with a 1.3? I mean really, are you REALLY going to stay put this time?

Sorry, but someone had to ask. IMHO 16~17mm effective FL is what I consider a proper wide angle on any camera. So 10~11mm for a 1.6 and 12~13mm on a 1.3. YMMV, it all comes down to how wide you really need/want to go.

Same boat -- saving for 14mm L -- FF camera in the future for the UWA work as well.

15mm fisheye is nice, very nice, but not enough.

dude, i have been with the 1.3 for a long time now and i have 0 plans to move to FF or back to 1.6. i love the 1.3

reewik wrote in post #4090699
Hope you do not mind but I am also seeking a wide angle lens... Just tagging along for the ride Snir.

you know that you are always welcome Eric

blonde wrote in post #4090799
dude, i have been with the 1.3 for a long time now and i have 0 plans to move to FF or back to 1.6. i love the 1.3

Just checking.

Looks like we've all been asking the same question. I think the Sigma 12-24 seems to be the best bet for a 1.3x since people have been saying it's meant for FF. And I'm like you...the 16-35 is too expensive, and the 17-50 isn't Ultra wide. I figure 12mm on a 1.3x is just as wide as the 16-35's wide end, and at 1/3 the price.

Here's the breakdown in mm's
FF | 1.3x | 1.6x
10 | 13.0 | 16.0
11 | 14.3 | 17.6
12 | 15.6 | 19.2
13 | 16.9 | 20.8
14 | 18.2 | 22.4
15 | 19.5 | 24.0
16 | 20.8 | 25.6
17 | 22.1 | 27.2
18 | 23.4 | 28.8
19 | 24.7 | 30.4
20 | 26.0 | 32.0

The 10-20 will work for sure, I've used mine a little bit but mostly it's on permanent loan to my brother. The Sigma 15-30 is another option I've tossed around but if you want really wide, I think working with the 10-20 is the deal.

If you can find a sharp Sigma 12-24 they're not all that bad. The Canon 10-22 I had was sharper than the 12-24 that I currently have but the only real complaint I have about the Sigma 12-24 is lens flare. Sharpness and color are good.