Canon wide angle

10mm? Golly.

AFAIK the widest full frame zoom is the Sigma 12-24mm and even that doesn't get to 10mm.
 
I've got a Sigma 15 - 30 that I could part with. Better IQ (so I'm told) than the 12-24. Razor sharp. Excellent condition. £200 posted and it's yours.
 
"Better" needs to be qualified as there will be areas in which the 12-24mm is deffo "better." Control of distortion for example, distortion at the wide end being a comparative weakness of the 15-30mm whilst the 12-24mm basically hasn't got any. Well, nothing to worry about anyway.
 
Last edited:
10mm is insanely wide on FF, not even sure they make a prime that wide that isn't a fisheye
16-35 or 17-40 are the popular ranges, the latter being cheaper
 
woof woof said:
"Better" needs to be qualified as there will be areas in which the 12-24mm is deffo "better." Control of distortion for example, distortion at the wide end being a comparative weakness of the 15-30mm whilst the 12-24mm basically hasn't got any. Well, nothing to worry about anyway.
Click to expand...

I now to your greater knowledge of my lens!
 
17mm is a fair bit wider than 24mm on ff.
Ideally you could get the new 16-35 f4 but its more expensive than the 17-40.
 
joel222 said:
My widest currently is 24mm, would 17mm be much wider?

Cheers for the offer Mickledore but would probably rather stick with canon.
Click to expand...

The difference between 24mm and 17mm is the same 'relative' increase in field of view as going from 35mm to 24mm, ie big difference.

You need full-frame lenses, and all those 10-20, 10-22 and 11-16 kind of zooms are all for crop format. Sigma 12-24 is the widest full-frame zoom and it is very wide indeed. Great lens, especially the newer version, though the obvious choice without spending tool much is Canon 17-40L. Or the new 16-35L 4 IS for more money.
 
What I'm trying to achieve is to get the full weeding/christening party in while sat in a church or hotel rather than one shot of each side of the aisle, plus I struggle to get the full room set up in one shot at wedding receptions . I've read the Ken Rockwell article but all that's done is made me doubt wether I need one?
 
joel222 said:
What I'm trying to achieve is to get the full weeding/christening party in while sat in a church or hotel rather than one shot of each side of the aisle, plus I struggle to get the full room set up in one shot at wedding receptions . I've read the Ken Rockwell article but all that's done is made me doubt wether I need one?
Click to expand...

In which case, a wide-angle is perhaps not what you're wanting, or at the very least should be used with great care for group shots. A wide-angle will play havoc with walls (converging verticals) and anything towards the edges and corners will be pulled out of shape, eg egg-shaped heads and faces. These are not lens faults. For those kinds of group shots, there is no substitute for a bit of distance.
 
Last edited:
joel222 said:
What I'm trying to achieve is to get the full weeding/christening party in while sat in a church or hotel rather than one shot of each side of the aisle, plus I struggle to get the full room set up in one shot at wedding receptions . I've read the Ken Rockwell article but all that's done is made me doubt wether I need one?
Click to expand...

good. Because I wouldn't normally contemplate using anything wider than 24mm in a wedding where people are involved (the distortion on the sides would look amusing!). Take a step back or two if it helps and ideally stick it to 35m++. Posing of people is never as straightforward as lining up everyone in a line. Three rows or more (to keep it simple here) helps a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top