Topic: Wide Angle recommendation (Read 5113 times)

kevs · « **on:** October 30, 2018, 04:57:57 pm »

I'm on Canon 5D 2 and widest thing I have is 24-70.

Just had a 1/2 talk with BH, but would love to hear recommendations on rectilinear wide angle (not fish eye), Canon or 3rd party. thanks.

capital · « **Reply #1 on:** October 30, 2018, 05:25:54 pm »

Canon 16-35 F/4 covers a good general purpose range, is weather resistant with front filter, takes standard filters.

Rokinon 14 mm F/2.8, Good for casual astro photography. Very wide coverage, useful when you need to be right on top of the foreground elements, more so than the 16-35 Canon. Does not take screw on filter w/o investing in a cumbersome setup.

Since you've not stated an application, its hard to recommend anything in particular.

Venus optics has some very interesting lenses.

kevs · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2018, 06:02:50 pm »

thanks Capital,
He mentioned canon 16-35 2.8 and then 17-40 f/4, did not mention a 16 - 35 f/4.

He mentioned the Rokinon as very inexpensive lens. He said 14 can be difficult to work with vx 16 or 17 in terms of distortion?

Your opinion? How is Rokinon for quality?

This is for environmental portraits.

Never heard of Versus.

Two23 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2018, 06:19:49 pm »

Either a SIgma 20mm f1.4 or the 14mm f1.4. Very different lenses.

Kent in SD

capital · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2018, 06:40:59 pm »

16-35 F/2.8 is for subjects that need the extra stop wide open. If you are doing landscape photography F/4 suffices, you save a pound, and $1K USD.

14 mm rokinon has unusual distortion might not work for architectural settings. Resolution is adequate on a 5DM2 for 70% of the full frame, outer margin improves when stopped down.

Ultra-wide Venus optics: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/981-laowa12f28

My suggestion is sift through this list to come up with some contenders given your coverage and F/stop requirements:

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff

guido · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2018, 10:28:04 am »

I'm another big fan of the Canon EF 16-35 f4L IS. Wonderful sharpness, lightweight and a great value.

stever · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2018, 11:58:23 am »

the stabilization of the 16-35 f4 opens up all kinds of hand-held low light possibilities. it is optically much better than the old 17-40 and still reasonable size and weight. like all other wide zooms it is sharpest at the wide end, and even at 24mm is not as sharp as the 24-70 f4.

kevs · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2018, 12:09:25 pm »

thanks Guido/ Steve

1) Why is it optically better than 17-40? Both L lenses
2) is the IS worth the extra $270?
3) I guess that is the one then I'd lean towards getting
4) The 16-35 2.8; you agree is overpriced at double the cost? 2k instead of 1k
5) I'm taking notes for future but actually leaning towards just not buying now and using the 24 end of my 24 to 105 for these fine art environmental portraits. Do you concur? Would you spend 1k to get to 16mm/ 17mm?

stever · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2018, 10:40:49 pm »

1) the 16-35 is a much newer design which i believe is better engineered for manufacturing - there seem to be few complaints of asyemetry in Canons recent wide and wide-tele zooms
2) it is if you shoot hand-held
4) i see little point in an F2.8 wide angle vs f4 with IS - at f2.8 there still isn't much out of focus at 16mm. F2.8 is useful for night sky.
5) I use 16mm mostly for travel interiors and urben exteriors. at f4 the 16-35 is okay, but not great for night sky.

kevs · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2018, 11:14:28 pm »

Thanks Steve great: final opinion from you:

I'm actually leaning towards just not buying now and using the 24 end of my 24 to 105 for these fine art environmental portraits. Do you agree for that need maybe not really worth it to spend another 1k to just have a lens that goes 16/17 when I have 24, and portraits inside??

funfoto · « **Reply #10 on:** November 02, 2018, 02:24:43 pm »

Don't forget the Tamron 15-30mm. Quite excellent and priced right...f/2.8 and stabilization to boot!

kevs · « **Reply #11 on:** November 02, 2018, 02:44:36 pm »

Tamron's are actually not priced nearly low enough to bail from Canon.

MattBurt · « **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2018, 03:55:58 pm »

I have the Pentax 15-30/2.8 that is the same design as the Tamron 15-30 and I really like it. I also have the Rokinon 14 and it can come in handy but the 15-30 is sharper and easier to use. Both of those lenses have designs that prevent normal filter use. The 15-30 is not small.

Shiftworker · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2018, 03:47:36 pm »

I'd go for the 16-35 F4. I have used it on my Sony A7r2 with 42 MP and it holds up well across the frame at all focal lengths so it will be more than good enough on a 5D2. It's relatively light and small(ish) with very good build quality and has IS. You can also pick them up all the time on Ebay. It's as they say a 'no-brainer'
I've also got the Rokinon 14mm but it's got quite pronounced gull-wing distortion and needs careful focusing using live view as the edges and corners focus at different distances to the center. It's good value for a 14mm lens but the 16-35 is far more versatile well behaved.

kevs · « **Reply #14 on:** November 03, 2018, 05:17:35 pm »

thanks what do they go for on ebay about? Can you trust ebay? finally

5) I'm taking notes for future but actually leaning towards just not buying now and using the 24 end of my 24 to 105 for these fine art environmental portraits. Do you concur? Would you spend 1k to get to 16mm/ 17mm?

Two23 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 03, 2018, 07:04:09 pm »

Have I missed where you told us what the lens is to be used for, and why you think you need one? That's the WHOLE thing--match the lens to the purpose. If you're wanting a wide lens for night shooting, I suggest the Sigma 14mm f1.4. If you want a wide lens for general purpose night shooting I suggest the Sigma 20mm f1.4. If you want a wide lens for daytime landscapes, I suggest the Canon 24mm t/s. (It can make the widest shots of any Canon lens.) If want want something relatively compact and a value price wise, a 16-?? or 18-?? f4 lens will do that. There are a lot of choices, but you must have a very clear idea of what you want the lens to do before you can select one.

Kent in SD

stever · « **Reply #16 on:** November 03, 2018, 07:09:40 pm »

There's little downside for using 24mm for a while and thinking about where it limits you. if you want to experiment with wider angle get an L-plate and nodal slide and try some 5 frame vertical stitches.

the other problem with the Rokinon is that you can't zone focus since the scale on the lens is completely inaccurate.

kevs · « **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2018, 07:27:03 pm »

Two, yes I said environmental portraits.

Stever, what is L-plate and nodal slide ? (generally not into tiring computer things)

Again, for those who do indoor portraits, maybe are none here:

5) I'm taking notes for future but actually leaning towards just not buying now and using the 24 end of my 24 to 105 for these fine art environmental portraits. Do you concur? Would you spend 1k to get to 16mm/ 17mm?

Two23 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2018, 08:01:38 pm »

Quote from: kevs on November 03, 2018, 07:27:03 pm

Would you spend 1k to get to 16mm/ 17mm?

If I needed it, yes. If I had to ask if I needed it, I would then assume I don't need one. I rarely use my 20mm f1.8G--only when I need the low light capability (astro photos etc.) For my wide angle needs I use the Nikon 24mm PC-E (shift lens). It makes perfect landscape panos, and is the best choice for architecture images too. It's my most used lens. I rarely use anything wider than 35mm for portraits, and those are generally group or "street" photos. For street photos I prefer a small 28mm.

Kent in SD

Craig Lamson · « **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2018, 08:31:36 pm »

Quote from: kevs on October 30, 2018, 04:57:57 pm

I'm on Canon 5D 2 and widest thing I have is 24-70.

Just had a 1/2 talk with BH, but would love to hear recommendations on rectilinear wide angle (not fish eye), Canon or 3rd party. thanks.

The 16-35 is not much of an upgrade from the 24-70. The 17-40 is just an ok lens. I’ve had both.

Now the 11-24...oh my! It’s very nice, I use mine on a 5ds. Highly recommend this lens.

Author Topic: Wide Angle recommendation (Read 5113 times)