Ultra-wide lens for street shooting?

Richard

The widest lens I currently have is the Canon 17-40 f/4L (my camera is APS-C), and I have been using it more and more lately. I have been toying with the idea of getting an ultra-wide--maybe the Canon EFS 10-22 or the new Sigma 8-16. While I wouldn't rule out a prime lens, I do like the flexibility of zooms.

So does anyone have experience with either of these lenses on the street? Or any other suggestions? Post some sample shots if you have them. :ear

rainbow

I can beat around the bush a little on this...

First thought is to consider a FF to get the different lengths with your current lenses. A used 5D is the budget way to go here.

I have the 10-22mm and a 40D. I liked this for mountain scenery, but used it infrequently. Since I purchased a refurbished 5D (not MkII), the 24-105 lives on this camera. Then I purchased the 17-40 because I figured having this on the 5D would give me almost the range of the 10-22, but with the sensor quality of the 5D. I still have used the 17-40 only infrequently on my street excursions as I stick with the 24-105 and carry a 70-200 rather than the 17-40. But on occasion I have desired the wider FL. In the near future, I should go out with the 17-40 as my main lens as see how well it works. (BTW, the two lenses use the same hood).

So the question is whether the FF body or the zoom lens would serve your needs better.

MarkR

You want to buy a Pentax DA 15mm f/4 limited.

Then, realizing it's a Pentax, and that you shoot Canon, you'll want to sell that lens to me at a discount price.

Richard

Interesting thought, rainbow. Have you had any problems with focus speed with the 5D? I'm just a little afraid of a slippery slope here...first a 5D, then my 70-200 would be too short and I'd want the 100-400, and of course I'd have to replace my Tammy 28-75 with a 24-105. :yikes --it never ends.

rainbow

Richard wrote: »

Interesting thought, rainbow. Have you had any problems with focus speed with the 5D? I'm just a little afraid of a slippery slope here...first a 5D, then my 70-200 would be too short and I'd want the 100-400, and of course I'd have to replace my Tammy 28-75 with a 24-105. :yikes --it never ends.

What's wrong with this slippery slope (?) -- end up with a 5D, 24-105, 100-400 with more to look forward to! ("He who dies with the most toys wins!")...

BUT you should still keep your 40D for when you anticipate needing the crop factor to help your zooms. The 5D will give you beautiful pics (so that you say "who needs that crop factor?") and you will have a spare body. I occasionally carry both with different lenses mounted to get the best of both worlds (not for casual street shooting, but rather sports events, family weddings...)

I have no problem with focus speed as they both feel very similar. I usually am on single center focus point (and can focus/recompose if shooting at f/4). I suppose with BIF, car racing, sports, etc. that there might be a difference, but then you should have a 1 series (hmmm... it is slipperier than I thought...).

One other advantage of FF is the shallower DOF/increased bokeh when framing a shot similarly (cuz you are closer to get similar framing) and I do like this when I actually think about it and shoot with primes.

Richard

Much as I would like to, I simply can't afford to have all that gear. The 200 bucks I spent on a P&S five years ago turned out to be the most expensive purchase ever.

OK, so mentioned that you have a 17-40, but you don't use it much on the street. On a 5D, 17mm is pretty wide. Have you ever tried it on the street? What did you like and/or dislike about it?

Justiceiro

I dig the 10-22 for landscape shots, but on close up targets it has quite a lot of barrel distortion. If that's what you are going for, great, but be aware. No experience with the pentax, I usually roll with the 24-70 L. I like it, but I would prefer a bit wider. Is there a great deal of distortion on the 17-40?

Richard

Justiceiro wrote: »

Is there a great deal of distortion on the 17-40?

I'm using the 17-40 on a 50D. As you would expect, the closer you are to the subject, the more distortion you see. I suspect that an ultra-wide without distortion at close range is almost impossible to build. My idea is that you would need to play with the distortion for creative purposes rather than seek to avoid it. What I am less sure about is whether this would grow old quickly and I would end up with an expensive, but seldom used toy.

black mamba

Hey Richard,

I would think that your above stated concerns are well founded. I think it's very possible, even likely, that the " passing fancy " syndrome might prevail here.

Tom

michswiss

The 50D is a 1.6x crop body, no? My experience isn't with Canon gear, but I've shot a fair number of images with a 20mm on a D700 on the street. I like it, but I haven't shared many of those images. It's difficult and composition is truly challenging. A meter away from the primary subject is often too far. You have to be close. I'd imagine the same sort of experience with a 10 to 14mm on a crop body. I've found that a 30mm equivalent is really nice.

Richard

black mamba wrote: »

Hey Richard,

I would think that your above stated concerns are well founded. I think it's very possible, even likely, that the " passing fancy " syndrome might prevail here.

Tom

You may be right. Perhaps I'll try to rent or borrow one before buying.

michswiss wrote: »

The 50D is a 1.6x crop body, no? My experience isn't with Canon gear, but I've shot a fair number of images with a 20mm on a D700 on the street. I like it, but I haven't shared many of those images. It's difficult and composition is truly challenging. A meter away from the primary subject is often too far. You have to be close. I'd imagine the same sort of experience with a 10 to 14mm on a crop body. I've found that a 30mm equivalent is really nice.

Yes, the 50D is 1.6x, so my 17-40 gives me a 27mm minimum equivalent. I think what's in the back of my mind is being able to extend my possibility of getting someone at the side of the frame without them suspecting they are the subject. Most people don't understand what a wide angle lens can do, and I have done that from time to time at 17mm. The problem is that distortion is greatest at the edges, so the results could be a little freaky. What I don't really know is whether it would be good freaky or bad.

rainbow

I looked through my photos and have not shot street with the 17-40/5D. When I tried it out on its maiden voyage, I shot at 40mm...

But I also looked at my shooting history with my 24-105/5D. Probably at most 20% are shot at 24 mm. I do like the perspective of this when I can get really close (which usually means I am not surreptitious...). Only on rare occasion can I recall wishing that I had wider (due to the compositions desires, not to shoot unsuspecting fringe bystanders). The edge distortion of people is quite exaggerated (attached photo demonstrates this - shot at 17mm).



The difference using the 24-105 with a 5D is about 4mm wider (about 14% wider) than your 17mm with a 50D. I suspect that if you went this route, you would use the 24-40 range much more than the 17-24. You might want to check to see how many shots you take at 17mm and also take notice of how often you wish you had a wider lens because it is restricting your shooting style.

Should this urge still exist, I would still recommend considering the 5D route to get the increased versatility out of your current lens collection and having a second body.

Richard

rainbow wrote: »

Should this urge still exist, I would still recommend considering the 5D route to get the increased versatility out of your current lens collection and having a second body.

I spent a bit of time today looking at prices of used 5Ds. Damn you, rainbow.

rainbow

Richard wrote: »

I spent a bit of time today looking at prices of used 5Ds. Damn you, rainbow.

Well, not only did Paul Simon sing "Kodachrome", but he also sang "Slip Sliding Away"... :ivar

Grainbelt

The ultrawide zooms are really quite large, may be off-putting for street shooting. A prime may be better suited.


Then there's this:

MarkR wrote: »

You want to buy a Pentax DA 15mm f/4 limited.

Then, realizing it's a Pentax, and that you shoot Canon, you'll want to sell that lens to Grainbelt at a discount price.

The limited primes are taking control here too. I'm ready to sell my Sigma 10-20 for the 15 F4.

Syncopation

Richard,

I also have a Canon APS-C and have the following lenses:
17-40mm F4L
24-105mm F4L
70-200mm F4L

I would say that the usage ratio for my 'street' shots is 5%/70%/25% respectively.

I toyed with the idea of the 10-22mm but decided against it on the basis that I wanted to have a range of lenses that would work equally well on a FF camera, should I ever switch (Canon first has to bring out an upgrade/replacement for the 5D MK II with the AF/viewfinder/continuous shooting capabilities of the 7D).

Had I bought the 10-22mm lens I'm sure it would only be used for landscape shots (e.g not a lot) and would soon have ended up on ebay !

Richard

Grainbelt wrote: »

The ultrawide zooms are really quite large, may be off-putting for street shooting. A prime may be better suited.

The 10-22 is smaller than other lenses I currently use on the street, but I'm really not too concerned about size. Once you are committed to using a dSLR I don't think it matters much.

Syncopation wrote: »

I toyed with the idea of the 10-22mm but decided against it on the basis that I wanted to have a range of lenses that would work equally well on a FF camera, should I ever switch

Good point. The Sigma I mentioned is also designed for APS-C sensors. A used 5D might just be the answer.

MarkR

Richard wrote: »

The 10-22 is smaller than other lenses I currently use on the street, but I'm really not too concerned about size. Once you are committed to using a dSLR I don't think it matters much.

I used to think that, but I've found that shooting with smaller lenses makes the entire camera look and feel smaller and less obtrusive. I also think that people's first reaction to an SLR is usually not about the size of the camera, but the size of the lens.

Richard

MarkR wrote: »

I used to think that, but I've found that shooting with smaller lenses makes the entire camera look and feel smaller and less obtrusive. I also think that people's first reaction to an SLR is usually not about the size of the camera, but the size of the lens.

Well, you are probably right in some cases. I suspect, though, that more important effect is on the photographer, who may feel more at ease. I was very uncomfortable when I first went out on the street with a long, white lens, but now the only thing that bothers me is the weight of the damn thing.

Brody

A reply to part of one of your notes here Richard.You said that with the 5D Mark II you'd feel the need to get the 100-400 as your 70-200 would be too short. My wonderful local store loaned me a 2X extender and a 100-400 for a weekend... I tested my 70-200 with the 2X against the 100-400, and the 2X / 70-200 combo took cleaner shots in almost all ranges than the 100-400. Just thought I'd mention it as another option so you don't feel trapped into buying the 100-400, since the 2X is a lot less expensive. Also the 1.4X extender is supposed to be even sharper if that's long enough for you.

.

Richard

Brody wrote: »

A reply to part of one of your notes here Richard.You said that with the 5D Mark II you'd feel the need to get the 100-400 as your 70-200 would be too short. My wonderful local store loaned me a 2X extender and a 100-400 for a weekend... I tested my 70-200 with the 2X against the 100-400, and the 2X / 70-200 combo took cleaner shots in almost all ranges than the 100-400. Just thought I'd mention it as another option so you don't feel trapped into buying the 100-400, since the 2X is a lot less expensive. Also the 1.4X extender is supposed to be even sharper if that's long enough for you.

.

Cheers, John. I have a 1.4x TC. There is a slight loss of sharpness and you do lose one stop, but it's quite usable. I suppose I could simply hang on to the 50D for when I want to shoot long.

Syncopation

A reply to part of one of your notes here Richard.You said that with the 5D Mark II you'd feel the need to get the 100-400 as your 70-200 would be too short. My wonderful local store loaned me a 2X extender and a 100-400 for a weekend... I tested my 70-200 with the 2X against the 100-400, and the 2X / 70-200 combo took cleaner shots in almost all ranges than the 100-400. Just thought I'd mention it as another option so you don't feel trapped into buying the 100-400, since the 2X is a lot less expensive. Also the 1.4X extender is supposed to be even sharper if that's long enough for you.

Good suggestion. just be aware of the effect the extenders have on the maximum aperture. On a F4 lens the 1.4x extender gives a maximum aperture of F5.6 and the 2x extender gives a maximum aperture of F8. On a F2.8 lens the values are F4 and F5.6 respectively. See below.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/canon1_4xExtender.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/canon2xExtender.html