Topic: Wide Angle recommendation (Read 4978 times)

kevs · « **Reply #20 on:** November 03, 2018, 09:11:43 pm »

TWO, good point, I'm having to ask so that probably means I'm ok with 24 wide angle on 24 to 105; sorry I have 24-105 not 24 to 70.

Craig, please expand: "The 16-35 is not much of an upgrade from the 24-70"

For wide angle portraits, when at 16 or 17 setting on the 16-35, not much better or worth spending 1-2k that when on 24 setting of 24 -105?

11-24....What do you use it for? Why is it great?

Craig Lamson · « **Reply #21 on:** November 04, 2018, 08:18:33 am »

Quote from: kevs on November 03, 2018, 09:11:43 pm

TWO, good point, I'm having to ask so that probably means I'm ok with 24 wide angle on 24 to 105; sorry I have 24-105 not 24 to 70.

Craig, please expand: "The 16-35 is not much of an upgrade from the 24-70"

For wide angle portraits, when at 16 or 17 setting on the 16-35, not much better or worth spending 1-2k that when on 24 setting of 24 -105?

11-24....What do you use it for? Why is it great?

16mm is just not enough of a "wide" upgrade in my opinion. The 11-24...thats "wide".

My professional needs are specialized, I shoto confined space interiors, but I also use this lens for fun. Its very sharp, the disgortion is easily correctable and 11mm gives some really in terestiong viewpoints. Its not for everyone I suppose and its big and heavy, and cannot accept front filters. Thats said I made many hunderds of thousands of dollars shootimg with the original Sigma 12-24 lens. Not a perfect lens but quite capable if you get ahold of a good sample. I have no experience with the new versions but I suspect they too are decent.

kevs · « **Reply #22 on:** November 04, 2018, 06:03:05 pm »

Great post Craig!

You saw earlier post by, .... member said he thinks for people/ portraits, 24 suffices in that as you get wider, people get smaller. Do you disagree?

How do you correct distortion easily?

You lens is rectilinear?

Can you please send link of it? Is this your lens? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1282158-REG/sigma_205954_500mm_f_4_dg_os.html

No front end filter, why is that, don't get that.. What miss mostly.. protection?

Craig Lamson · « **Reply #23 on:** November 04, 2018, 07:23:20 pm »

Quote from: kevs on November 04, 2018, 06:03:05 pm

Great post Craig!

You saw earlier post by, .... member said he thinks for people/ portraits, 24 suffices in that as you get wider, people get smaller. Do you disagree?

How do you correct distortion easily?

You lens is rectilinear?

Can you please send link of it? Is this your lens? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1282158-REG/sigma_205954_500mm_f_4_dg_os.html

No front end filter, why is that, don't get that.. What miss mostly.. protection?

I’m using the Canon 11-24. The front element is to big to accept a filter. Quite frankly I don’t use a up fliter on any lenses. Distortion is corrected in either Capture One or photoshop. I can’t imaging using 11mm for a portrait but who knows.

That’s the new version of the Sigma 12-24

kevs · « **Reply #24 on:** November 04, 2018, 09:45:43 pm »

OK GREG, So you used to use Sigma and then decided to spend double and buy Canon? How was/ or is Sigma vs Canon.

Darn, that is the most expensive option in discussion.

I do love those 2 images.. could be part of an environmental portrait story? Sadly it seems this thread or forum does not attract too many portrait photographers. so I still out of luck on my last important question:

"'Im 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??"

kevs · « **Reply #25 on:** November 04, 2018, 09:56:23 pm »

PS Airplane and Motor Home? Those are at 11 on the Canon Lens? (and would quality of a Sigma be the same?)

guido · « **Reply #26 on:** November 05, 2018, 11:04:30 am »

I use the 16-35 f4 on the 5DSR. I have both it and the 11-24 f4 and the quality of the 16-35 f4 hangs right with it for stopped down landscape work. If you don't need the extra width then it is a no brainer, it is much lighter than the 11-24 f4 and a small fraction of the cost.

I tried a friends 17-40 on the 5DSR and I was not happy with the results. The sharpness, especially in the corners just wasn't there for me.

I almost never work hand held so someone else will have to help you on the IS question...

For the 5d2 it is probably a closer decision, as that camera is less demanding of lens quality. But it you want to upgrade at some point, the 16-35 f4 will work wonderfully on the higher MP cameras, and so for me it is a better long term investment.

kevs · « **Reply #27 on:** November 05, 2018, 01:35:42 pm »

thanks Guido, good post. Ok leaning to Canon 16-35 f4 , is I get another lens.

But, man, no people shooters here!

Again, redundant, no good answer to this yet: ""'Im 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??"

Also Sigma?..

mcbroomf · « **Reply #28 on:** November 05, 2018, 03:05:37 pm »

If you're not sure then an option often recommended is to rent one or more of the lenses, for a trip or a project etc.

guido · « **Reply #29 on:** November 05, 2018, 03:54:53 pm »

Quote from: kevs on November 05, 2018, 01:35:42 pm

But, man, no people shooters here!

That's why the site isn't called Luminous Peoplescape

Craig Lamson · « **Reply #30 on:** November 05, 2018, 04:17:13 pm »

Quote from: mcbroomf on November 05, 2018, 03:05:37 pm

If you're not sure then an option often recommended is to rent one or more of the lenses, for a trip or a project etc.

Good advice. I rented the 11-24 from Lensrentals and when I found I was happy with it I bought the copy I had from them at a nice discount from new.

kevs · « **Reply #31 on:** November 05, 2018, 08:00:46 pm »

Guido, in the 10 -15 years I've been on forum, I've never connected Landscape to Landscape shooting. I just though was cool name for a forum! Now I know!

Jack Hogan · « **Reply #32 on:** November 06, 2018, 03:34:59 am »

Yet another non-people shooter here Kevs, but wouldn't something as wide as 16mm make head-shots all distorted on FF? Like huge noses and such?

Jack

kevs · « **Reply #33 on:** November 06, 2018, 02:11:32 pm »

As I've been saying throughout the thread environmental portraits not headshots.

guido · « **Reply #34 on:** November 06, 2018, 03:57:06 pm »

The Canon store has them refurbished...

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-16-35mm-f4l-is-usm-refurbished

kevs · « **Reply #35 on:** November 07, 2018, 12:18:10 pm »

thanks Guido, now torn between that on and 11 - 24! people but could be cool stuff, should rent probably...

HywelPhillips · « **Reply #36 on:** November 07, 2018, 05:21:48 pm »

Can I ask a follow-up question to everyone?

What ultra-wide for astro-landscapes, in Canon or Sony mount?

I've been using the Samyang/Rokinon 12 mm f/2.8 fisheye and the 14mm f/2.8 (actually the T/3.1 manual focus cine version but same optics, just different housing).

They're fine, but the distortion of the fisheye is pretty extreme and the 14mm isn't really quite wide enough for my tastes. Plus it is manual focus only, and the moustache distortion makes it unsuitable for general use. So I carry these two lenses as single-purpose tools for astro shots.

I wondered about the wide end of a more general-pupose lens with autofocus. On a hiking trip I'd rather not take too many single-purpose lenses!

Has anyone got experience of the Canon 11-24mm f/4 or Sony 12-24mm f/4 zooms for astrolandscape? The Canon's probably too heavy but the Sony's appealing.

Or the 12mm Laowa f/2.8 D-zero?

How about the 14mm f/1.8 Sigma Art?

I'm mainly shooting mountain-scapes with the Milky way, and the Aurora.

Lonely Speck just reviewed the Laowa 15mm f/2 Zero-D and liked it, but I was more interested in the 12mm/f2.8. Or even potentially the forthcoming 10-18mm zoom: that extra width is very appealing even with loss of a stop and a bit of light. 130 degrees field of view rectilinear might be pretty cool. Anyone have any recommendations?

Cheers, Hywel Phillips

HywelPhillips · « **Reply #37 on:** November 07, 2018, 05:59:16 pm »

(These are the sorts of shots I've been taking)...

guido · « **Reply #38 on:** November 08, 2018, 08:13:24 pm »

A lightly used one over here

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1566630

kevs · « **Reply #39 on:** December 06, 2018, 09:42:43 pm »

Finals question guys, please vote; yeah nay.

Would you buy the 16-35 Canon f/4 from Canon refurbished $879.00 over the BH new at $999?

Thanks.

Author Topic: Wide Angle recommendation (Read 4978 times)