Best (cheapish) ultra wide angle lens for FF Canon's?

ajax_andy

ajax_andy

Messages
3,650
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I fancy getting a 3rd party (as cheaper) ultra wide lens for my 5D MK III at some point but have no idea where to start looking... I've heard quite a few aren't compatible with FF bodies?

I have the 24-70mm zoom so I'm probably looking for something I'm guessing around the 16mm mark. Not too expensive either as it's probably going to be used for fun more than any of my pro work... fast though in case I shoot a gig and need that speed.

Any suggestions? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Sigma 12-24 (yes, 12mm is very, very wide on FF)
Canon 17-40L

IMHO, the Canon is sharper and renders colour better than the Sigma, but it doesn't do 12-16.9mm nearly as well ;)

Daugirdas will be along at some point to tell you both are rubbish lenses as they smear the corners a lot...
 
arad85 said:
Sigma 12-24 (yes, 12mm is very, very wide on FF)
Canon 17-40L

IMHO, the Canon is sharper and renders colour better than the Sigma, but it doesn't do 12-16.9mm nearly as well ;)

Daugirdas will be along at some point to tell you both are rubbish lenses as they smear the corners a lot...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestions :)

I think the Sigma is probably more what I'm looking for in terms of wideness... would give me a little extra scope when trying to have fun.
 
Not cheapish though are they?

I have one and it together with the Sigma 85mm f1.4 were big factors in deciding to go for a 5D.
 
Yes.

I initially got it hoping it'd be better than my Canon 10-22mm on my 20D, and it easily was. On FF it's a completely different beast... much wider.

Lenses like this need care and thought but they can IMVHO be some of the most creative and rewarding.

It may be worthwhile searching for some images to see what's possible.
 
woof woof said:
Yes.

I initially got it hoping it'd be better than my Canon 10-22mm on my 20D, and it easily was. On FF it's a completely different beast... much wider.

Lenses like this need care and thought but they can IMVHO be some of the most creative and rewarding.

It may be worthwhile searching for some images to see what's possible.
Click to expand...

Good tip and cheers for the info :thumbs:
 
Have you considered the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8? I've recently got one (but Nikon mount) and I am very pleased with it.
 
ajax_andy said:
Thanks for the suggestions :)

I think the Sigma is probably more what I'm looking for in terms of wideness... would give me a little extra scope when trying to have fun.
Click to expand...

I have one and the results have been good.

Just remember to keep your toes out of frame...
 
arad85 said:
Sigma 12-24 (yes, 12mm is very, very wide on FF)
Canon 17-40L

IMHO, the Canon is sharper and renders colour better than the Sigma, but it doesn't do 12-16.9mm nearly as well ;)

Daugirdas will be along at some point to tell you both are rubbish lenses as they smear the corners a lot...
Click to expand...

I had to come a long way back from France to satisfy you :naughty:, but now that I am back!!!... both are rubbish lenses as they smear the corners a lot...

On the cheaper end I'd get something Tokina. 12-24mm will be 18-24mm on FF, and for the price (used) it's Ok. 16-28mm is lovely but a lot more expensive and no filters on it. Samyang is also very sharp, but really a bit wider than needed, and again no filters
 
daugirdas said:
I had to come a long way back from France to satisfy you :naughty:, but now that I am back!!!... both are rubbish lenses as they smear the corners a lot...

On the cheaper end I'd get something Tokina. 12-24mm will be 18-24mm on FF, and for the price (used) it's Ok. 16-28mm is lovely but a lot more expensive and no filters on it. Samyang is also very sharp, but really a bit wider than needed, and again no filters
Click to expand...

Cheers mate :)
 
daugirdas said:
I had to come a long way back from France to satisfy you :naughty:, but now that I am back!!!... both are rubbish lenses as they smear the corners a lot...
Click to expand...
I knew I could count on you :thumbs:
 
woof woof said:
Not cheapish though are they?

I have one and it together with the Sigma 85mm f1.4 were big factors in deciding to go for a 5D.
Click to expand...

They used to be relatively affordable! I bought mine new for £440 on the High Street - about dealer 2nd hand price now.

digital said:
I have one and the results have been good.

Just remember to keep your toes out of frame...
Click to expand...

Yup, 12mm on FF is very wide but in landscape format it's easy to keep your toes out of frame. Portrait is a little harder and with an 8mm fisheye, I almost have to shoot as I fall forwards to keep me tootsies (and gut!) out of frame!

daugirdas said:
I had to come a long way back from France to satisfy you :naughty:, but now that I am back!!!... both are rubbish lenses as they smear the corners a lot...

On the cheaper end I'd get something Tokina. 12-24mm will be 18-24mm on FF, and for the price (used) it's Ok. 16-28mm is lovely but a lot more expensive and no filters on it. Samyang is also very sharp, but really a bit wider than needed, and again no filters
Click to expand...

Mine must be the exception to the rule - or maybe I just made sure I tested the copy I bought before I paid for it to ensure I didn't get a soft one. Yes, the filter issue could be a deal breaker but I rarely use filters and even then, only a pol and IMO pols give a far too uneven effect on UWAs anyway!
 
arad85 said:
Daugirdas will be along at some point to tell you both are rubbish lenses as they smear the corners a lot...
Click to expand...

I will admit that made me chuckle ;)


Consider the Sigma 15-30mm. Usually overlooked, cheap as chips (on eBay for £150 ish), my copy was from someone on here and is a lovely lens. Sharp enough edges for 99% of the time, considering the UWA lenses all seem somewhat compromised, and I didn't want to spend a fortune on a lens that realistically I'll not use often, not make a living out of, and I'm not an over zealous pixel peeper. I paid £170 for mine an I think it was a bargain.
 
daugirdas said:
... 12-24mm will be 18-24mm on FF, and for the price (used) it's Ok. ...
Click to expand...

You actually wrote that? :bonk:

You'll find 12-24 will be 12-24 on FF.

For clarity (and because I'm pedantic) it'll also be 12-24 on a crop camera (although it'll be cropped so you'll get similar viewing angles to 18-36)

Couldn't resist;)
 
I thiught you were all barmy thinking about the 12-24 for FF...but it's one of the few that is FF-compatible...

you learn something new every day.
 
I've got the Sigma 12-24 and don't use it on my 5dmk3 mainly because it's INSANELY wide. Also, it's flaws are shown up quite badly on full frame, like the softness in corners, etc.

Still if you stop it down you can get decent shots, but obviously doing this limits you somewhat. Way back when the 300D first came out (when I got into digital photography) I bought that lens and it seemed very nice, and I forget why now but the 12-24 was rated above the 17-40L. I did try to dig up the old advice thread on another forum but it's been archived :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top