What Wide??

fraggle101

fraggle101

Not a mermaid
Messages
4,648
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Guys , iv been looking at wide angle lens's, im not sure which one would be better..

Sigma do a couple that look quite good, 10-20 and a 12-24 or the canon 10-22..

The canon is EFS (i think) so i wont be able to use on a FF when i get one, im not sure what else is out there.. can anyone throw in some advise?? :shrug:

The other thing is, i would have thought that the wider the lens the faster it would be!! i was expecting the WIDE lenses to be able to have a nice bit apature.. but that dos'nt seem to be the case!! :shrug:

Anyway, and pointers would be very helpfull.. (y)
 
For the money, the Sigma 10-20mm is hard to beat.

Looked at the canon, but could not justify the extra expense.
 
yer, plus the canon i was looking at was EFS.. so a bit limiting..

but money aside.. Which one??

what lens would a pro go for?? i guess a 17-40 on a FF would be ideal.. im answering my own questions here!!! lol..
 
Spot on fraggle101, the 17-40L is a cracking lens even on a crop camera. Incidentally, the Sigma 10-20 is effectively and efs lens much the same as the Canon 10-22.
 
Yeah the 17-40 is stupidly good, I have one. It's aweome, really wide aswel.

I'v tried it on a 5D and it's simply amasing, it's sooooo wide! Like how you see with your eyes wide lol.

I'v heard a 10mm looks wierd on a full frame beccuase its so wide.
 
If you want a lens which will be nice and wide on your crop sensor and will also work on a FF if you do invest in the future then your only choice at the moment is the Sigma 12-24mm. The 10-20mm Sigma that so many on here have is indeed a superb bit of kit, but it's no good on FF unfortunately, and it was for that very "future proofing" reason that I went along the path of buying the 12-24mm instead.

Remember also if you use a film body at all that you can't use "digital only" lenses on 35mm cameras. I had huge amounts of fun with my super wide on the film camera when we were on holiday, and got some results I was really pleased with as well.

I've said before, and will happily say again - if I had to replace my kit again right now, I'd buy exactly the same as is currently on my kit list. :)
 
thanks for the replies guys.. if i already had a FF the it would be the 17-40L but at the moment i think its gonna have to be the 12-24, thanks for that Witch, i wonder what the difference in IQ is on the 2 Sigmas??

Also im none the wiser on why these lens's are so slow?? anybody know???
 
I use a 16-35 2.8 II, lovely bit of kit, pricey though.

I would imagine anything wider would vignette pretty badly on a FF camera.
 
That sounds like a better lens for FF as it is a lot faster than the lens's iv been looking at, the only trouble is its not that wide on a crop.. its not bad though..

What about the Tokina 12-24?? its faster than the Sigma although iv read that it needs stopping down to get a sharp image so that exra speed is wasted!! oh dear.. i think im going to give up and just get a mortgage!! hehe..

Smashing website weddinghack.. im very impressed.. along with all your clients by the looks of it!.. personaly i found it quite inspiring!! :)
 
The Tokina 12-24 is supurb for sharpness, can't fault it at all. I've used both this and the sigma and the Tokina's build quality feels far superior, hard as a tank!
 
But whats the IQ like compared to the Sigma?? iv read a couple of reviews online tonight and its was regarded as a good lens, just a bit soft wide open at 12 and 18mm other than that it was ok.. a little ca and distortion but they all suffer to some extent eh..

i think im gonna sleep on it and have another look tomorrow! :bonk:
 
If you decide to get a secondhand 16-35, make sure it's a MKii version. A lot of the original lenses were a pile of poo, including the one I had.
 
I wrote about this on here not so long ago.

Read this article on good old Bob Atkin's website.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/wide-angle-lenses.html

Note in particular the table shown on field of view...

Personally, I want as wide as I can get if I am gonna bother when using a non-full frame camera. As such there really is only one contender - the EFS-10-22. Every mm counts for much more than you would imagine - again check that table from Bob!

Don't imagine because its "only an EFS" that its rubbish, it isn't - its really good.

I'm sure the 17-40 L is a really nice bit of kit, but its just not wide enough in my book for those truly wide shots on a non-FF body.
 
BTW the Canon might be "more expensive" but not that much more in my book. If we were talking 500 quid more, then maybe not, but its probably about 65 quid more expensive if you shop around....
 
I have the Canon 10-22. It really is superb.

There's a very good compartive review of ultra-wides by Ken Rockwell, here. Rockwell is normally a bit of an idiot, but this review is very good and very, very thorough. At the time he was a Nikon user, so he compared the Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 11-18. His conclusions:
Get the Nikon if you can afford it, otherwise go for the Tokina.
Click to expand...
But he also said:
I'd buy the Canon 10-22 in an instant if I had a Canon digital camera. It is better than any of these four lenses, including the Nikon.
Click to expand...
And:
The Sigma 12-24 is a huge, older lens... It's too darn big and heavy.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, thanks for this guys..

I have read that the canon was the better lens, but now this is not because 'its just an EFS' well, it is but only as it wont work on a FF when i get it.. im looking for glass i can keep, i dont want to have to change everything when i upgrade.. The 17-40 isnt wide enough for me right now so it'll have to be an ultra wide, ok when i get a FF it will be ULTRA wide.. you see where im going i hope!! lol..

So, im gonna keep looking and it'll probably be a case of whatever i find at the best price at the time!! we'll see.. i hope the 5D comes first!!! lol.. Anyone got a cheap one going???? :woot:
 
I could've gone for the Sigma when I was purchasing, but went for the Canon in the end. Probably helped by the cashback, as well as it garnering more favourable reviews.
 
AndyBorzi said:
I am looking at the EF-s 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20 but I am veering towards the Sigma due to cost.

Off hand, does anyone know what Kerso charges for either of these lenses?
Click to expand...
canon 10-22 at 405+10 postage (415), canon cashback = 55...result = 360...
 
fraggle101 said:
I have read that the canon was the better lens, but now this is not because 'its just an EFS' well, it is but only as it wont work on a FF when i get it.. im looking for glass i can keep, i dont want to have to change everything when i upgrade.. The 17-40 isnt wide enough for me right now
Click to expand...

You are kinda buggered then mate, the EFS10-22 is obviously 16mm on a APS-C but I think you will find that the 17-40 is as far as you will get non-APS-C sized as the Sigma DC range are equivalent to EFS and the Tokina the same. The ultra wide EF is the Canon 14mm, but its a prime and a LOT of cash...

A friend of mine is in a similar situation, having upgraded to a MKIIN (which isn't full frame, but not a 1.6x crop either) but I have won out because he has long term lent me his EFS10-22 :woot:
 
16mm on my 400 is (in 35mm terns) is fine for me.. im not too interested on any more that 16 or 17mm on a FF anyway, it would mainly be for Landscapes so its fine.. Id just like to be able to get a lens that would be able to work on both.. but we'll see, even if i do get the Canon EF-S then it fine too as i'll still have the 400D to go with it.. (y)
 
I'd buy the sigma 10-20 and then just flog it when/if you go full frame, gives you a really wide lens now and tese hold there value quite well so you shouldn't loose much when you go full fram and a 17-40l will then be more than wide enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top