Fast wides for canon.

RumpFace

RumpFace

Messages
501
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking for a 2.8 lens or faster for full frame canon.
I've got the 17 40 f4 and it's not quite fast enough for night work.
I'd like feedback on anything you've used, I'm thinking of the canon 24mm 2.8 (not the efs crop one)
The samyang 14mm.
Anything non AF I could convert?
Any other ideas? Needs to be decent wide open which I know equals money.
 
RumpFace said:
Can you focus on infinity easily in the dark?
Click to expand...

Yeah just use live view and zoom to check. I'm lucky on mine as the focus markings are spot on.
 
There is/was also a Tamron 14mm f/2.8 which is AF and gives less (and more "normal") distortion than the Samyang. AFs fine in the dark on a D750 so should do the same on Canons.
 
I've been looking at irix lenses, they've built a lovely looking 15mm f2.4 but it looks like they're not ready for distribution yet.
I'm a try before I buy kind of bloke though. I'd have to hold one before I bought anything.
 
Or the Sigma 20mm f/1.4?
 
The Zeiss 15/2.8 Distagon is a true optical masterpiece but, as you alluded to in your first post, it's not cheap. I had mine modified (by Zeiss) to remove the hood and allow use of Lee 100mm filters.

Bob
 
RumpFace said:
Sounds expensive. Is it a canon?
Click to expand...

The one I was referring to is,yes. And yes it is expensive! I havent got one but am considering it at the moment. Looking between the 14mm 2.8, the 16-35mm 2.8 and the 24mm 1.4. Probably going to go for the zoom but torn due to the quality of the primes.
 
Giles2373 said:
The one I was referring to is,yes. And yes it is expensive! I havent got one but am considering it at the moment. Looking between the 14mm 2.8, the 16-35mm 2.8 and the 24mm 1.4. Probably going to go for the zoom but torn due to the quality of the primes.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest downside to the 14mm is that I believe you can't use filters. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Canon are about to release a mk3 of the 16-35 F2.8 which makes sense given the F4 is apparently optically better than the mk 2. I'm surprised that people are looking at a 24 or a 14 they have massively different fov's.
 
What about the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8?
Its a nice lens and not what i would call expensive, although not dirt cheap either. I found it to be hit or miss wide open at the wide end when i borrowed my mates, but he hasnt had the same issues with his 7Dmkii.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-18-35-1-8

EDIT; Ah sorry, just noticed we are talking about for full frame. Please ignore me in that case.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Els said:
I think the biggest downside to the 14mm is that I believe you can't use filters. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Canon are about to release a mk3 of the 16-35 F2.8 which makes sense given the F4 is apparently optically better than the mk 2. I'm surprised that people are looking at a 24 or a 14 they have massively different fov's.
Click to expand...
Yes, while doing a little more research today, i saw that about the 14mm. Reason for the 14mm or 24mm was that the 14mm would have just ben landscapes, whereas the 24mm could have potentially been landscapes but also inside low light shots with the 1.4. However, have decided to go for versatility and opt for the 16-35mm 2.8. Just need to start saving a little now!
 
dave_bass5 said:
What about the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8?
Its a nice lens and not what i would call expensive, although not dirt cheap either. I found it to be hit or miss wide open at the wide end when i borrowed my mates, but he hasnt had the same issues with his 7Dmkii.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-18-35-1-8

EDIT; Ah sorry, just noticed we are talking about for full frame. Please ignore me in that case.
Click to expand...

That's not compatible with full frame.

Edit - that'll teach me to read the full post!
 
Last edited:
Giles2373 said:
Yes, while doing a little more research today, i saw that about the 14mm. Reason for the 14mm or 24mm was that the 14mm would have just ben landscapes, whereas the 24mm could have potentially been landscapes but also inside low light shots with the 1.4. However, have decided to go for versatility and opt for the 16-35mm 2.8. Just need to start saving a little now!
Click to expand...

You might actually find the 14mm too wide for landscapes on FF a lot of the time :)
 
Wayne Els said:
I think the biggest downside to the 14mm is that I believe you can't use filters. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Canon are about to release a mk3 of the 16-35 F2.8 which makes sense given the F4 is apparently optically better than the mk 2. I'm surprised that people are looking at a 24 or a 14 they have massively different fov's.
Click to expand...

You can use filters in the 14mm (I assume we're still talking Samyang?).

In fact, mine came with a free filter holder. The downside - you need to buy huge ones (161mm by 139mm)!
 
Giles2373 said:
Good to know, its also the inability to use my Lee filters that puts me off a bit.
Click to expand...

You can use Lee filters, you'll just have to buy bigger ones! But you would anyway most likely with a lens that wide...
 
odd jim said:
You can use Lee filters, you'll just have to buy bigger ones! But you would anyway most likely with a lens that wide...
Click to expand...
15mm can run with 100mm wide filters....the Zeiss has a 95mm thread for screw-ins.....so 14mm might just tip the balance.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
15mm can run with 100mm wide filters....the Zeiss has a 95mm thread for screw-ins.....so 14mm might just tip the balance.

Bob
Click to expand...

I don't think the Samyang takes screw in filters, only square ones?
 
odd jim said:
I don't think the Samyang takes screw in filters, only square ones?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's correct and Canon's 14mm is the same but being able to use Lee's 100mm filters on the Z15 is a big advantage whilst only losing 1mm's worth of coverage.

Bob
 
Wayne Els said:
Ah that's good to know. It was the Canon I was on about, i thought the hood was fixed and that you couldn't get a Lee (or an other) holder on it.
Click to expand...

Interpretation failure here......

The Canon 14mm takes rear gel filters and, like you thought, it won't take front filters (fixed hood).
 
RumpFace said:
I'm looking for a 2.8 lens or faster for full frame canon.
I've got the 17 40 f4 and it's not quite fast enough for night work.
I'd like feedback on anything you've used, I'm thinking of the canon 24mm 2.8 (not the efs crop one)
The samyang 14mm.
Anything non AF I could convert?
Any other ideas? Needs to be decent wide open which I know equals money.
Click to expand...
The Canon 20mm 2.8 in my experience is better than its reputation. It's good value for money and image quality is good if not great. Not sure what is like wide open though, I've never really used it like that.

Depends on what you shoot obviously but could you get a tripod instead and stick with your current lens?
 
I'm getting star trails when I want pin pricks on my night shots so I need to keep the exposures shorter than 30 secs, it's that or higher iso.
 
The Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 VC ? I have one its a nice lens, fast glass for a ultrawide that also has VC :)
 
Wayne Els said:
I think the biggest downside to the 14mm is that I believe you can't use filters. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Canon are about to release a mk3 of the 16-35 F2.8 which makes sense given the F4 is apparently optically better than the mk 2. I'm surprised that people are looking at a 24 or a 14 they have massively different fov's.
Click to expand...

Seems you were right Wayne. The mk3 has jusr been announced. Glad I hadnt pressed the button on ordering the MK2.
 
Although just seen the price! Could buy the Mk2 and a 14mm prime for that. Would need to be phenomenal.
 
Giles2373 said:
Although just seen the price! Could buy the Mk2 and a 14mm prime for that. Would need to be phenomenal.
Click to expand...
That's full rrp pre-order price. It'll soon be considerably less, the mk 2 has a rrp of around £1700. I guess it depends on how good it is. The Zeiss is around that price for a fixed manual lens. (Not knocking the Zeiss - just pointing out that if it's amazing then maybe it can justify the eye-waveringly expensive initial tag).
 
Wayne Els said:
That's full rrp pre-order price. It'll soon be considerably less, the mk 2 has a rrp of around £1700. I guess it depends on how good it is. The Zeiss is around that price for a fixed manual lens. (Not knocking the Zeiss - just pointing out that if it's amazing then maybe it can justify the eye-waveringly expensive initial tag).
Click to expand...
Yep, sure it will drop fairly quickly after release, it's just about being patient. I'm not in a desperate need for it at the moment, its just wide angle 2.8 is on my kit list as the next purchase.
 
I've got someone coming to look at my Sigma 24mm 1.4 ART at dinner time today. If it doesn't go then I shall let you know :)
 
I have ordered a sigma 14mm f2.8, should be here on Wednesday, it's quite an old one that's seen some action, but i hope/think i paid the right price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top