Ultra Wide Lens for a Full Frame Canon

mdollan

mdollan

Messages
1,072
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a Canon 17-40 - which isn't wide enough for me.

I'm looking for something around the 10-20mm mark, but I'm not having any joy at the minute.

Any sugesstions? :)

Mark
 
Oh, quick after thought....

Am I correct in thinking that the Sigma 12-24mm is FULLY functional on a full frame?
 
As far as I know, your only real option is still the Sigma 12-24.

It's a big step down in IQ from the 17-40 when your pixel peeping but processed and sharpened it's more than usable. Especially when you consider that A) you don't have a choice and B) it's a 12mm lens for less than the budget of NASA.
 
Thanks guys!

I realise it'll be a big step down - but unfortunately even at 17mm the shots are not wide enough for creating 360x180 panoramas :(

Hopefully I'll be able to get hold of one second hand from the classified ;)
 
Mark the Sigma 12-24 is the wides you can get on a FF without going fish. I used to have one but the IQ was not brilliant however it was well usable
 
david1701 said:
primes?
Click to expand...

Primes are a possibility and I'm looking forward to some feedback from Marac on the 14mm ;)

I'd sooner have the flexibility of having the zoom.

Just been given a heads up on the 15-30mm too :thumbs:
 
"It's a big step down in IQ from the 17-40 when your pixel peeping..."

Cough...splutter... I beg to differ :lol: On my APS-C 20D at least...

I have a 12-24mm and it's a great lens and much better than the Canon 10-22mm I owned and better than the 17-40mm I tried when looking at a standard zoom, no competition. :) Even at 100% it's sharp.

Here's a test shot after cleaning my sensor, 100% crop with focus on the lettering, Rawshooter Essentials sharpening set to 0. On real shots corner sharpness is fine at least on my 20D.

IMG_0309-01c.jpg
 
Last edited:
a 14mm f2.8 might do it for you or the Canon 15mm f2.8 FF fisheye you can easily de-fish them after shooting at the PP stage
 
woof woof said:
"It's a big step down in IQ from the 17-40 when your pixel peeping..."

Cough...splutter... I beg to differ :lol: On my APS-C 20D at least...

I have a 12-24mm and it's a great lens and much better than the Canon 10-22mm I owned and better than the 17-40mm I tried when looking at a standard zoom, no competition. :) Even at 100% it's sharp.
Click to expand...

Really?

It'd be interesting to see some examples if you have any? :)
 
Phiggys said:
a 14mm f2.8 might do it for you or the Canon 15mm f2.8 FF fisheye you can easily de-fish them after shooting at the PP stage
Click to expand...

I don't really want to go along the fish eye route.

I'm awaiting reports from a friend on the 14mm 2.8 to see if it gets the thumbs up!
 
If anyone wants corner shots at 100% posting let me know.
 
woof woof said:
"It's a big step down in IQ from the 17-40 when your pixel peeping..."

Cough...splutter... I beg to differ :lol: On my APS-C 20D at least...

I have a 12-24mm and it's a great lens and much better than the Canon 10-22mm I owned and better than the 17-40mm I tried when looking at a standard zoom, no competition. :) Even at 100% it's sharp.

Here's a test shot after cleaning my sensor, 100% crop with focus on the lettering, Rawshooter Essentials sharpening set to 0. On real shots corner sharpness is fine at least on my 20D.

IMG_0309-01c.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for the image! :thumbs:

It does look sharp, you're right.

Apparently there are some good ones and bad ones - looks as though you got one of the good ones! - You dont want to lend it to me on long term load do you? :lol::lol:
 
I have a 12-24mm and it's a great lens and much better than the Canon 10-22mm I owned and better than the 17-40mm I tried when looking at a standard zoom, no competition. Even at 100% it's sharp.
Click to expand...

If it's working out for you then it's clearly all good but your view is very much a minority one in terms of the wide zoom food chain.

The weight of opinion would suggest that the canon 10-22 is a step up from the siggy 10-20 and the 10-20 is a little better than the 12-24. But then lets see either of those cover my full frame sensor..... that's right. They can't. :lol:

Your crop looks perfectly sharp to me but lets see the corners in comparison to the 17-40 and lets see them from a full frame sensor too. The facts are that the 12-24 is a remarkable piece of engineering and it says a lot for siggy that no-one else has even attempted anything remotely close.

It's a bit like the tripod choice. Width, coverage, IQ across the frame. Pick any two.
 
The performance of the 12-24mm is amazing. There's very little distortion (I can't see any but the review sites state that it's sort of wavey) and on my 20D there's zero vignetting and cormer performance is fine.

This is my most used zoom, but remember that I'm using an APS-C 20D. I've looked through this lens on my film body but I haven't shot with it.

All I can say is that if you want to go wide and fancy this lens you should try one out and if you do come across the much talked about Sigma copy variation get it corrected.
 
"If it's working out for you then it's clearly all good but your view is very much a minority one in terms of the wide zoom food chain."

Sez who?

Plenty of people who actually own the lens love it. I own one and it's a great lens.

Having owned the APS-C Cannon wide I can say that it has much more distortion and much more vignetting than the 12-24mm. This is something that you can verify by looking at the results on review sites. I'll post links if you like...
 
Last edited:
Sez who?
Click to expand...

Me :)

I own it and I love it too. It's in a class of one and as such any comparison is bit academic but if I was using a crop body I don't think I'd want the extra weight or cost over the wide choice that you have.
 
Limited access to pictures today but here's a shot, focus on the banner...and again RSE sharpening set to zero, nothing done to this shot...

IMG_6053-01c.jpg


100% crops...

TopLeft.jpg


TopRight.jpg


BottomLeft.jpg


BottomRight.jpg


If anyone wants shots with more in the corners I'll do a search later...

I don't think that this lens weight significantly more than a Canon 10-22mm, but it uis significantly better.

As you said, a cleass of one.

BTW. I don't have 17-40 shots as I didn't keep them when I didn't buy the lens. I went for a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which I thought was better.
 
Last edited:
I won't lie, that's one of the sharpest 12-24mm's images (straight off camera) I've seen... the only problem is that there is a fair bit of difference between the 'corner' on an APS-C format and a FF. Chances are the edges on the Full Frame will suffer some softness but, hey ho, that's what you can expect when you're pushing the optical boundaries. And lets not forget it'll have a 3 year warranty so you can send it off to Sigma if you think you've got a duffer.
 
Examples of the corners of shots taken on a 20D won't be of too much help as they won't show the corner of the frame when using a FF camera... I briefly had a 12-24 and I loved the FOV but unfortunately my copy suffered from a soft band down the left of the image - the softness didn't show when using it on a crop camera but was very obvious on FF. If I could get my hands on a good copy I'd definitely get another, but I would want to test it extensively before parting with any money.
 
hang on, just noticed you've stopped it down to F/8...

Do you have a pics of it at wide open?
 
Dunno.

It's not the sort of lens I'd want to use wide open, it's not very fast anyway, as usually I'm taking landscape shots and the like and often doing the hyperfocal thingy so f8 is probably where that lens pretty much lives.

Actually, previous posters do have a point about my 20D not being FF, but I have made it clear that APS-C is what I'm using and if you want to go really wide this is the choice... I use a 20-35mm on my film camera, pretty much the same FoV.
 
Last edited:
Those do look sharp, but these observations are a little flawed. The 'corner' of an image from a full frame lens on an APS-C camera is really not the corner of the lens but merely the outer thirds. And, if it has been stopped down to f/8 as suggested, it will look almost perfect. Even kit lenses at f/8 come up very nicely.
 
woof woof said:
Dunno.

It's not the sort of lens I'd want to use wide open, it's not very fast anyway, as usually I'm taking landscape shots and the like and often doing the hyperfocal thingy so f8 is probably where that lens pretty much lives.
Click to expand...

ok then... CAN YOU take a pic at wide open for us? :lol:

It'd be interest to see :)
 
mdollan said:
I don't really want to go along the fish eye route.

I'm awaiting reports from a friend on the 14mm 2.8 to see if it gets the thumbs up!
Click to expand...

Why not?

For 360x180 panoramas the software distorts the image anyway to get to the full spherical projection so if you are primarily looking for a Panoramic lens the Fisheye is really the best choice - it's what most of us use. With a full spherical fisheye you can reduce the shots to a row of 4 (plus top and bottom if you want)
 
"ok then... CAN YOU take a pic at wide open for us?

It'd be interest to see"

Oh for God sake... :) I'm supposed to be having a quiet day with my feet up. Hang on...I'll be back...
 
mdollan said:
Oh, quick after thought....

Am I correct in thinking that the Sigma 12-24mm is FULLY functional on a full frame?
Click to expand...

It certainly is on my D700 and 35mm bodies. It is very wide on FF - about 120
degrees across the long side.

Some people have reported that they've been through a few copies before they found a good one - mine's just fine and is the first I tried.
 
I can't take wide open shots that'll be any use today as it's too windy out, trees blowing etc.

Anyway, whatever I think about it it's up to the OP to make his own mind up.

Good luck.
 
:thinking:

I can't take a shot with things staying still. Windy day = trees move about = no good for demonstrating how sharp a lens is (or isn't) as nothing in the top corners will be sharp (as it's blowing in the wind.)
 
Sigma 12-24 wide open f4.5 on a 1Ds mkII


showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
 
EdBray said:
The 12-24 EX DG Siggy is a great lens if you get a good'un. Try before you buy.

I really miss mine!

Here's some images from it on a 5D

And some from my 5DMk2
Click to expand...

They certainly are very wide on FF, Ed - I'm guessing you regret getting rid of yours?

david1701 said:
what about a TSE or is that over budget?
Click to expand...

TSE is a bit over budget - but thanks for the suggestion :thumbs:

SimonTALM said:
Why not?

For 360x180 panoramas the software distorts the image anyway to get to the full spherical projection so if you are primarily looking for a Panoramic lens the Fisheye is really the best choice - it's what most of us use. With a full spherical fisheye you can reduce the shots to a row of 4 (plus top and bottom if you want)
Click to expand...

Simon, Fisheye wasn't something that I considered, I just assumed that having a rectangular image would make for a better image?

What Fisheye would you recommend?
 
mdollan said:
TSE is a bit over budget - but thanks for the suggestion
Click to expand...

Canon 14mm £1898 Brilliant lens B****R to get filters for though, Pol. needs
to be B/W oversize one. Robert White about £300 !

Canon 17mm TSE £1949
Both above from W/X

Or have you found a S/H one.
C
 
mdollan said:
Simon, Fisheye wasn't something that I considered, I just assumed that having a rectangular image would make for a better image?

What Fisheye would you recommend?
Click to expand...

No idea on the Canon system, I'm a nikon user, but I'm sure that any true Fisheye lens (rather than adaptor) will work.

In spherical panoramas the quality of the image relates to number of pixels per degree of the image. Unfortunately the better the quality means more pixels per degree and the more disk space the the image needs. Most 360s you see on the web are optimised for speed of loading so are a small image (mine are typically 1.7Mb Jpgs). Also remember that with spherical panoramas you are only looking a small proportion of the image at any time.

If you want the ultimate quality in spherical panoramas you need to use a longer (e.g. 200mm) to get more images and more data, the downside is that the resulting file will be huge and will need a very powerful computer to stitch overnight there are then the difficulties in viewing such a file.

The purpose of the Ultrawide in spherical panoramas is to reduce the number of images needed to get the shot and reduce stitch time (i.e. work faster); The circular fisheye is the way to get the minimum number of shots and the fastest stitch times.

So if you want top quality spherical panoramas I'd stick with the 17-40 and save your cash.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top