Wide Angle Question

Freedom Photography · January 26, 2008

Okay I have done some searches on this subject and still have a couple of questions. First off I am using a Canon 5D, Shooting mostly portrait and weddings. But I am interested in getting into some architecure and commercial photography as well. In the threads I researched There was some discussion about certain wide angle lenses that will not work with the canon 5D. I think it was EF-S lenses that will not work and EF that will? What is it about the EF-S lense that does not allow it to be used with the 5D. Sorry if these questions are a little elementary. I love photography but have not had much education in a lot of the technical aspects, that is one of the reasons I just registered to this forum. I plan on reading some books and doing more research on the web when I have some more time (by the way I would love to pointed to some medium level free education somewhere). But I have found out through shooting some big families and certain times at weddings, a wide angle lense would be very beneficial. But I am not sure which one would be best for my 5D. I am willing to spend from 500-700 USD. I am looking on the dell website as I have a sizable coupon there. And these are the ones they have to choose from

Sigma EX zoom lens - 10 mm - 20 mm
Canon EF wide-angle lens - 20 mm
SP A013 11-18 mm F/4.5-5.6 Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
Sigma EX wide-angle lens - 20 mm
Sigma EX wide-angle zoom lens - 12 mm - 24 mm

Now by looking at some of the other threads some of these will not work with the 5D. Which of these would suit me best? Thanks for your help!

Eric&Susan · January 27, 2008

Welcome to Dgrin

Have a look at this link:

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

About a quater of the way down it explains ef-s mounts in detail and why they will or won't work with cameras.

Eric

Freedom Photography · January 27, 2008

Thanks!
Hey, That was a great link. Thanks! Any more advice is greatly appreciated.

LiquidAir · January 27, 2008

From early reviews the best hyper-wide rectilinear lens available is the Nikon 14-24/2.8G. While it is not available in Canon mount, it performs well on full frame Canon bodies when mount adapted. Look here for more info: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html.

If you want to stick to Canon mount lenses and you need wider than 16mm, your best bet is likely the Sigma 12-24. If you don't need quite so wide a lens, Canon 16-35/2.8 II is well regarded.

Personally I have the Canon 17-40/4 and I am reasonably happy with it. On a tripod and stopped down to f/11 it performs quite well in a small, lightweight and comparatively affordable package.

Another lens you might consider for architecture is the Canon 24mm TS-E which with some stitching can give you a quite wide field of view as well as prespective control when you don't need to go quite so wide.

Freedom Photography · January 27, 2008

LiquidAir wrote:

From early reviews the best hyper-wide rectilinear lens available is the Nikon 14-24/2.8G. While it is not available in Canon mount, it performs well on full frame Canon bodies when mount adapted. Look here for more info: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html.

Has anyone tried this and had prolonged success doing it?

And has anyone used this lense?

Tamron USA, Inc.
SP A013 11-18 mm F/4.5-5.6 Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

Tee Why · January 28, 2008

That Tamron is made for a cropped sensor. It has an EF mount, so it'll mount on the 5D, but since the image circle is smaller you will get light fall off till you crank the focal length back by a bit.

Considering your choices, I'd recommend the Sigma 12-24. It's the widest non fisheye lens for a Canon mount and from the reviews, the sigma has little distortion at 12mm.

Freedom Photography · January 28, 2008

Thanks Tee! I checked out your website, very creative and cool shots. Inspiring.

Freedom Photography · January 29, 2008

Anyone have any reviews on this paticular lense?

Canon-16-35mm-USM-f-2-8-Ultra-Wide-Angle-Zoom-Lens
(NOT THE II)

Tee Why · January 29, 2008

check popphoto.com, photodo.com, photozone.de, and slrgear.com.

Compared to the Mark II version, more flare and softer corners, and more distortion. Still a fairly well regarded lens though.

Freedom Photography · January 29, 2008

Thanks again Tee! I think I am getting closer. I decided to spend my dell coupon on something else so I would not be forced to only get something they sell. So now the world of ebay and other fun internet stores are open for shopping.

Tee Why · January 30, 2008

So what did you decide upon?
The 16-35mm Mark I?

Freedom Photography · January 30, 2008

Well I browsed some more on those websites you gave me and now I am watching a couple

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens's on ebay. It has gotten a lot of good reviews, especially of people using it specifically to go wide on a 5D. It is not perfect by any means by for the money I probably am not going to get any better. I dont know, most of the revies just compared it to other canon lenses. I wish I would have seen it compared to the sigma 12 - 24.

LiquidAir · January 30, 2008

Freedom Photography wrote:

Well I browsed some more on those websites you gave me and now I am watching a couple Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens's on ebay. It has gotten a lot of good reviews, especially of people using it specifically to go wide on a 5D. It is not perfect by any means by for the money I probably am not going to get any better. I dont know, most of the revies just compared it to other canon lenses. I wish I would have seen it compared to the sigma 12 - 24.

From my experience with the 17-40L and the samples I have seen of the Sigma 12-24, my feeling is that unless you really need the 12-17mm range you will be happier with the Canon lens. The 17-40L is at its sharpest in the 17-24mm range and looks really good everywhere but the extreme corners of the 5D.

Freedom Photography · February 2, 2008

Ok, I can not decide between the -

Canon 16-35mm F/2.8 Mark I

Or

Canon 17-40mm f/4

Anyone have any concrete evidence for or against the other?

What I have gathered so far is that the 16-35 will be a little faster but I may have more issues with distortion and such.

rpcrowe · February 3, 2008

The Tokina 12-24mm F/4 "kind Of" Works
The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 ATX lens was designed to be used with a 1.6x camera however, it is not an EFs lens. The Tokina will fit on a full-frame camera (or on a non EFs 1.6x camera such as the 10D) however, it will vignette at wider focal lengths.

In other words, it could be used in an emergency but, no wider that 14 or 15mm. Since I don't use F/F; I don't know at which focal length the vignetting begins. I also don't know about edge quality on a F/F which I suspect would suffer.

LiquidAir · February 3, 2008

Look here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Freedom Photography · February 3, 2008

Thanks for the article. I wonder what the Author would say now that the Mark II 16-35 is out now and the other is running about the same price as the 17-40....=) It seems that whichever one I decide on I will enjoy and it will produce quality pictures. I now have to decide if the extra stop or a little more sharpness wide open is more important to me. Thanks for everyones help.

ziggy53 · February 3, 2008

Freedom Photography wrote:

... now that the Mark II 16-35 is out now and the other is running about the same price as the 17-40....=) ...

I'm not seeing that the old version is selling for that much less than the new EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

If you need the extra stop, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM is still a great lens, but by f4 the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM is very similar to the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM.

They are similar enough that I decided for my purposes, the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM was all I needed, so that's what I own.

They both have that "it" factor that is hard to quantify, but makes a shot "come alive".

If you need better corner sharpness (on a full-frame), the newer EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is improved especially wide open.

Photoskipper · February 3, 2008

I decided on 17 -40 finally

Freedom Photography wrote:

Thanks for the article. I wonder what the Author would say now that the Mark II 16-35 is out now and the other is running about the same price as the 17-40....=) It seems that whichever one I decide on I will enjoy and it will produce quality pictures. I now have to decide if the extra stop or a little more sharpness wide open is more important to me. Thanks for everyones help.

Hi,

I have been having the same issue as you for a year. I got my 5D with 24 -105 and very happy with it but found missing some wide-angle shoots then started to look for the wider angles.

15-35 II was first came to my mind but found the diameter is bigger than my other 2 L lens (24-105 and 70-200 F2.8 IS). It is much more expensive and heavier than the 17 -40. So I decided to pick up the 17 -40 and pending my CFO's (chief financial office of my house - my wife) approval.

I have been telling myself that, the 17-40 has lighter weight, equally good and sharpness as the 16 -35, cheaper than the later one, share the same filter diameter with the other 2 L lens so that I can save the money from buying additional set of filters and ........ but it just bit older.

the 1 mm additional wider coverage may cost me double the price (US 624 vs 1399).

Anyway, I don't really need such fast lens for wide angle shooting such as the landscape and portrait. Fast lens may be more useful for me to take the sports, adding TC for birds, or macro works. I will never put a 2X TC on the 17 -40!!! For DSLR, you can increase the ISO to one or two steps to compensate the speed at no cost. Our 5D has no noise up to ISO 800, that is already 3 steps.

I hope these facts are solid enough to help you make the decision.

Freedom Photography · February 3, 2008

Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L USM Lens - excellent condition

Here is the 16-35 selling on e-bay for $580 but there is still 18 hours of time left so it could go up substantially. But I thought I saw one go in the $600 range recently but I could be mistaken. If that is true that it is not going for around the same price that will probably be the deal breaker for me to go ahead with the 17-40. I really appreciate everyones help and input. it has been an enjoyable experience researching this and getting experienced opinions. I am sure I will be back with many more questions and hopefully be able help out myself sometime soon.

dmmattix · February 4, 2008

As a 17-40 owner
I have to echo what Ziggy said. The lense is just a great lense. It is tack sharp and has great color. I have had others (Tokina) in this range and the difficultly getting the color right in post is significant. With the 17-40 is is just right!!.

From what I have heard the Mark I of the 16-35 was rather soft wide open so by the time you get to F4 you equaled the 17-40's sharpness so you really ARE paying an extra $5-600 for 1mm of coverage on the wide end. I actually am amazed at how often I shoot the 17-40 at 40mm (probably should be using the old 50 F1.8 Mark I more often...).

Anyway the summary is that the 17-40 F4 is a great lense for my money and I guess that is all it has to be.

cannyman · February 6, 2008

Freedom Photography wrote:

Okay I have done some searches on this subject and still have a couple of questions. First off I am using a Canon 5D, Shooting mostly portrait and weddings. But I am interested in getting into some architecure and commercial photography as well. In the threads I researched There was some discussion about certain wide angle lenses that will not work with the canon 5D. I think it was EF-S lenses that will not work and EF that will? What is it about the EF-S lense that does not allow it to be used with the 5D. Sorry if these questions are a little elementary. I love photography but have not had much education in a lot of the technical aspects, that is one of the reasons I just registered to this forum. I plan on reading some books and doing more research on the web when I have some more time (by the way I would love to pointed to some medium level free education somewhere). But I have found out through shooting some big families and certain times at weddings, a wide angle lense would be very beneficial. But I am not sure which one would be best for my 5D. I am willing to spend from 500-700 USD. I am looking on the dell website as I have a sizable coupon there. And these are the ones they have to choose from

Sigma EX zoom lens - 10 mm - 20 mm
Canon EF wide-angle lens - 20 mm
SP A013 11-18 mm F/4.5-5.6 Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
Sigma EX wide-angle lens - 20 mm
Sigma EX wide-angle zoom lens - 12 mm - 24 mm

Now by looking at some of the other threads some of these will not work with the 5D. Which of these would suit me best? Thanks for your help!

for safety reasons the EF-s lens will not fit onto the 5D. End of story.

Wide Angle Question

Comments