Do all wide angles suck on SLRs?

[michaelnotar]

how good is the image quality of an image at 100% from a wide angle lens (24mm and wider)? i see significant improvements at 50mm and another significant step at 80-100mm. this is with several lenses with several cameras. it takes significant sharpening (300/.5 smart sharp) to bring any detail out of the image, it is very soft.

currently i shoot a canon 1d3, sigma 12-24mm, canon 24-105/4 and canon 70-200/2.8. i have had the canon 16-35/2.8 v1, a 1ds2, 1d2.

and soft in a weird way. and i can get that at 5.6 iso 400 on a sunny day so its not me. i know about AF micro adj. which helped a lil. with the sigma at 12mm with a close subject focus was correct at 0. at 12mm with a distant subject, 50ft, focus was horribly off. at the same distance at 24mm focus was correct at 0.

sounds like a rant about the lens, i dont want it to go that way. when i had the 16-35mm i sold it for the sigma unhappy with the canon. same problem. even the 24-105 has this soft characteristic at 24mm. but portraits i shot recently with it at 50-105mm are amazingly tack sharp. actually i find the sigma to have less CA and distortion than the canon. but that was an older lens and i understand it was improved in a new version.

now all the wides were soft at 100% with a 8-10MP camera from a full res raw file, from a 1/4 res raw small file the images were quite good. current examples from the 1d3 produces a Sraw file of 1900x1200, so its large enough to check some detail. my tests were soft, obviously as described above, but most of my work, home interiors is shot Sraw and is great. so its a the test say they are bad but my work says it is fine situation.

so whats a man to do? considerations: see if the lens is defective with sigma. Canon 16-35/2.8 v2 or 14mm v2. open to your suggestions.

(this is what got me onto MF digital 2 years ago and then on to a cambo wds...finally the IQ i want! but i cant shoot it all the time so its not a good replacement)

[Lester]

I know your problem too well, Canon wide angles sucks. I thought the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L is the best you could buy, for a 1Ds MkII, wrong. When I was shooting the Kodak 760, it used the Nikon lenses and I happen to have a Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D, I got a adapter and put it on the Canon, it is like night and day. I am still using it on the 5D MkII and the 1Ds MkIII.

PM me I will shoot something with it on a D3x and show you what 100% look like at the edge.

[NashvilleMike]

I'm a Nikon user and I'm extremely happy with the performance from the 14-24/2.8G AFS lens. Honestly, outside of my 200/2, it's my best lens and I have a nice collection of their glass.

To be a bit frank without wishing to start a brand war here, IMO in the past Canon has never had amazing wide angles - although I think that might be changing - from what I've seen from that new 17mm Tilt/Shift from Canon, I'm very impressed. I think good things will be coming for users of all systems in terms of the newer lenses - the demands of the higher resolution DSLRs will require all brands to up their game and ultimately that's a good thing for all of us, no matter which brand we've aligned ourselves with.

But overall your point is a good one - if your really want fine detail rendition in a wide angle type of scene, going to a larger format / higher rez system is definitely going to provide an advantage too - different tools for different jobs and all that.

-m

[michaelnotar]

I'm a Nikon user and I'm extremely happy with the performance from the 14-24/2.8G AFS lens. Honestly, outside of my 200/2, it's my best lens and I have a nice collection of their glass.

To be a bit frank without wishing to start a brand war here, IMO in the past Canon has never had amazing wide angles - although I think that might be changing - from what I've seen from that new 17mm Tilt/Shift from Canon, I'm very impressed. I think good things will be coming for users of all systems in terms of the newer lenses - the demands of the higher resolution DSLRs will require all brands to up their game and ultimately that's a good thing for all of us, no matter which brand we've aligned ourselves with.

But overall your point is a good one - if your really want fine detail rendition in a wide angle type of scene, going to a larger format / higher rez system is definitely going to provide an advantage too - different tools for different jobs and all that.

-m

happy to hear all that. we really need a D series of lenses, like the schneider digitars, why cant schneider mount them on other non view cameras  leses optimized for digital imaging not with a smaller IC like the EF-S.

through the view finder the 24-105/4 looks very nice and crisp. its a newer lens so perhaps theres change in the air. i would 'hope' the new 14 and 16-35 are good too.

[Josh-H]

The new Canon 24mm F1.4L MKII, 24mm TSE and 17mm TSE are ULTRA sharp - I use them on a 1DSMK3 regularly.

The 16-35mm is mush by comparison.

[michaelnotar]

everyone is that the mark II version of the 16-35...is the new one soft?

[bradleygibson]

Yes the latest 16-35 isn't anywhere near what the primes can do.

You're not going to see your best performance using zooms anyway.  I'll second Josh's statement.  Depending on how critical you are, the new generation of wides might suffer from a bit more CA than you might like, but this is fixable--"mush" isn't fixable.

[michaelnotar]

Yes the latest 16-35 isn't anywhere near what the primes can do.

You're not going to see your best performance using zooms anyway.  I'll second Josh's statement.  Depending on how critical you are, the new generation of wides might suffer from a bit more CA than you might like, but this is fixable--"mush" isn't fixable.

i am considering the 14mm II..any feedback?

[dwdallam]

I have this lens that says 16-35mm L on it and the letters C-A-N-O-N on it. Does anyone know how much I could get from it? It's hardly used and in perfect condition.

Seriously though, I use the 16-35L for many things where it's sharpness is fine. But I know what you mean when shooting landscapes and sharp is not negotiable. For automobile photography, people, street, art stuff it's nice. But then I'm not worried about extreme perimeter sharpness. It seems sharp around the center area, 50% out anyway. If this correct, or have I jsut not seen a really sharp image from a wide angle--16-35 is the only one I own.

[jjlphoto]

If you need 14mm, a better bet would be the NikkorG 14~24/2.8. Another fine choice would be the Leica Elmarit 15/2.8R- without a doubt, the best fixed focal length in the 14/15/16mm range. But too expensive compared to the Nikkor zoom and the Canon 17TSE

Other fine lenses worth mention and my findings over the years:
*Canon 24~70/2.8- Not that bad at the wide end. Needs to be stopped down to f8 to get the corners sharp however. Suffers from sample variation, you need to cherry pick this one. (FWIW, the Canon 24~105/4L IS is not nearly as good as the 24~70.)

*Canon TS-E 17/4L, Canon TS-E 24/3.5L II, Canon 24/1.4L II- These three lenses have put Canon back in the game for W/A lenses. I have not read any thing negative about these.

*Contax Vario Sonnar 24~85/3.5-4.5N- excellent performer. Sharp at the corners even at wide apertures.

*Contax Distagon 21/2.8- The gold standard for wide angles.

*Contax Distagon 28/2.8- excellent and inexpensive.

*Contax Distagon 28/2.0- Rivals the legendary Leica Elmarit 28/2.8R

*Leica Elmarit 28/2.8R- The benchmark lens in the 28mm range.

*Contax PC Distagon 35/2.8- Excellent lens, plus shift.

*Canon 35/2.8 FD TS- excellent lens, shift plus tilt. Hard to find.

[Lester]

I have this lens that says 16-35mm L on it and the letters C-A-N-O-N on it. Does anyone know how much I could get from it? It's hardly used and in perfect condition.

I got one of those thing, sitting around somewhere.  It not until people bitching about the Canon wide angle that they start coming out with their Mk II lenses. My question is why it take so long? I compare Nikon manual lenses before their auto-focus and most of the time they are sharper then Canon new auto focus lenes.

I have the Nikon 14-24mm G lenses and it is sharp, but it is also big. I think they design it that way to use the middle part of the lens. It is one of their best lens. I just don't have a adapter yet for the G lenses. For the Canon.

Canon makes good camera, but they just have to step up on their wide angle lenses. That might be the main reason why people is switching to Nikon.

[ChrisJR]

If you need 14mm, a better bet would be the NikkorG 14~24/2.8. Another fine choice would be the Leica Elmarit 15/2.8R- without a doubt, the best fixed focal length in the 14/15/16mm range. But too expensive compared to the Nikkor zoom and the Canon 17TSE

Other fine lenses worth mention and my findings over the years:
*Canon 24~70/2.8- Not that bad at the wide end. Needs to be stopped down to f8 to get the corners sharp however. Suffers from sample variation, you need to cherry pick this one. (FWIW, the Canon 24~105/4L IS is not nearly as good as the 24~70.)

*Canon TS-E 17/4L, Canon TS-E 24/3.5L II, Canon 24/1.4L II- These three lenses have put Canon back in the game for W/A lenses. I have not read any thing negative about these.

*Contax Vario Sonnar 24~85/3.5-4.5N- excellent performer. Sharp at the corners even at wide apertures.

*Contax Distagon 21/2.8- The gold standard for wide angles.

*Contax Distagon 28/2.8- excellent and inexpensive.

*Contax Distagon 28/2.0- Rivals the legendary Leica Elmarit 28/2.8R

*Leica Elmarit 28/2.8R- The benchmark lens in the 28mm range.

*Contax PC Distagon 35/2.8- Excellent lens, plus shift.

*Canon 35/2.8 FD TS- excellent lens, shift plus tilt. Hard to find.

I'll second using the Contax lenses. I had a 24-105 plus Sigma 12-24 and while the Sigma was ok the 24-105 was useless (bad copy perhaps).

Now gone back to using Contax Distagon lenses and they are absolutely stunning. Sharp right across the frame and very contrasty. Seemingly much better for distortion that the Sigma as well, which surprised me.

[johnkraus]

I use the 16-35 MKII and find its quality excellent from @ 19mm on. Very sharp, very crisp, good contrast and 3D quality to the imagery. Huge improvement over Mark I.
16-19 is fine in the center, not sharp in the corners. Fine for some images, but if you want corner to corner sharpness start at about 19mm.
A friend pointed out to me how good the lens was from 19/20 on before I purchased, and my findings match his.

[Geoff Wittig]

I use the 16-35 MKII and find its quality excellent from @ 19mm on. Very sharp, very crisp, good contrast and 3D quality to the imagery. Huge improvement over Mark I.
16-19 is fine in the center, not sharp in the corners. Fine for some images, but if you want corner to corner sharpness start at about 19mm.
A friend pointed out to me how good the lens was from 19/20 on before I purchased, and my findings match his.

That's also been my experience...but those last few mm of width are kinda the whole point of the lens, you know? So it's a bit disappointing. It's quite acceptable for images like indoor environmental portraits where optimal sharpness out at the corners isn't an issue, but for landscapes with lots of vegetation detail the chromatic aberration and general softness out at the corners is frustrating. If I'm going that wide with a landscape image, I find myself using the 24-70 f:2.8 and stitching.

[bradleygibson]

i am considering the 14mm II..any feedback?

I've never gone that wide, so I don't have any first-hand experience with it, unfortunately.

[eronald]

The new Canon 24mm F1.4L MKII, 24mm TSE and 17mm TSE are ULTRA sharp - I use them on a 1DSMK3 regularly.

The 16-35mm is mush by comparison.

Seconded. 14mm as well.

Edmund

[petermarrek]

Just finished shooting a series of photos using a D3x and 14-24. Most shots were from a boat in choppy water, ASA 400, hand-held @ 1000 F 8.0 , the quality was outstanding. 40 inch prints look great. Certainly is a killer combo. Peter

[Rob C]

Just finished shooting a series of photos using a D3x and 14-24. Most shots were from a boat in choppy water, ASA 400, hand-held @ 1000 F 8.0 , the quality was outstanding. 40 inch prints look great. Certainly is a killer combo. Peter

Were you using it at 14mm for much of the work?

I ask, because I had a brief affair with the Nikkor 2.8/24-70mm and returned it very rapidly as it was hopeless at the wide end - on a D200, reduced format! Of course, this could have been a single, bad copy, but once bitten seems best to follow Chuck Berry´s advice: don´t let the same dog bite you twice.

My current problem, at the wider side of life, is that though I have a late-copy manual 2.8/24mm Nikkor which is excellent with film, on my reduced format digi it is only a 35mm and not a great lot of use as a wide, though good as a general walkaround option, not that I do much walkarounding. I have looked at a variety of wide alternatives for that little digital format but they all seem to require sacrificing the use of front filters, which I refuse to do. I'm not sure it´s a good idea to spend more on that small format anyway... this is fun?

Rob C

[JeffKohn]

I ask, because I had a brief affair with the Nikkor 2.8/24-70mm and returned it very rapidly as it was hopeless at the wide end - on a D200, reduced format! Of course, this could have been a single, bad copy, but once bitten seems best to follow Chuck Berry´s advice: don´t let the same dog bite you twice.

My current problem, at the wider side of life, is that though I have a late-copy manual 2.8/24mm Nikkor which is excellent with film, on my reduced format digi it is only a 35mm and not a great lot of use as a wide, though good as a general walkaround option, not that I do much walkarounding. I have looked at a variety of wide alternatives for that little digital format but they all seem to require sacrificing the use of front filters, which I refuse to do. I'm not sure it´s a good idea to spend more on that small format anyway... this is fun?

Rob C

Consider the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. It's a great lens, only sells for about $399 new these days, and can probably be had for considerably less used. It's a DX lens, but at that price you probably won't be out much if you sell it on eBay if/when you upgrade to full-frame. Front filters are no problem with this lens, and it's much smaller/lighter than the Nikkor 14-24.

I've also heard good things about the Sigma 10-22, but don't have any personal experience with it.

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

The Tokina AT-X 11-16mm lens looks promising.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

Regards

Simon