Which ultra wide canon FF lens?

lolage

lolage

Messages
911
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I am currently saving up for a 5Dmk3 but with my current lenses the only lens I'd be able to use is the 50mm 1.4. My current setup is:

Tokina 11-16 2.8
Sigma 17-50 2.8
Canon 50mm 1.4

Am going to replace my Sigma for a Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC which just leaves me unsure on what to do with an ultra wide!

Done a fair bit of research and found that there aren't really many options for a Tokina 11-16 2.8 equivalent unless I fork up £1k+ for the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II.

Ideally I'd want 2.8 as I do nightclub videography and the 2.8 is obviously going to help here, but maybe I can get away with an f4 lens seeing as the ISO ability will be stronger than my 600D?

There is the Tokina 16-28 which looked ideal until I found out you can't put filters on it. :bonk:

I am going to keep the 600D so perhaps it may be a better idea to just keep the Tokina 11-16 and just use the 600D for super wide angle shots? After all I can still use the Tokina 11-16 on FF so long I use it at 16mm?

Any other ideas?

Cheers.
 
Why not buy a good condition well looked after used 16-35mm mk1 - they tend to go for around £600-650..
 
lolage said:
Read somewhere that the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L is a better than that? Will look into it though! Cheers
Click to expand...

all of them are not great, so you just get the cheapest one then :LOL:
In defence of 17-40 it has great contrast and is very flare resistant, but resolution is not record breaking away from centre

for night clubs I'd certainly go for 16-28mm. They are sharp and night clubs don't exactly require filters
 
lolage said:
Read somewhere that the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L is a better than that? Will look into it though! Cheers
Click to expand...

17-40 is a great lens, my dads got one for his 5D2 and its really nice. I've borrowed it for my 550D a couple of times and its really sharp and produces nice pics.
 
The 11-16mm lens will work at 15-16mm on a full frame camera. Any less than 15mm, it'll vignette, same goes for if you use the hood at any focal length.
 
daugirdas said:
how is it f/2.8, let alone sharp? And obviously 12mm on FF is pretty pointless
Click to expand...

I seem to have read this from you about 100 x before.

You don't like the lens. I get that. As for 12mm being pointless, you post that with such certainty when in reality it's a matter of opinion as is if it's sharp enough.

My reason for posting was purely to raise the possibility of 12-24mm to the OP.
 
I've just picked up a 14mm f2.8 Sigma from the classifieds on here, mainly for interiors and startrails / milky way work. It seems sharp enough, for the money.

17-40 I've also got, decent quality, corners are a little soft at the wide end, good for the money.

24mm TS-E as stated by Robin is very sharp, but a ballache for nightclub use I would imagine.
 
I have a Samyang 14mm f2.8 and it is ridiculary sharp! Absolutely love it!

I'm thinking in replacing it with a 17-40L though, because it would see more use, but I'm not sure if I should...
 
I think for the time being I'm going to make do with using my Tokina 11-16 at 16mm or using it on my 600D. Means I only need to upgrade 1 lens now ready for full frame.
 
17-40. L build quality and a lot less than 16-35. Not as soft as people make out at the edges and for ultra wide angle shots razor sharpness is not normally needed.
 
PitaDaVespa said:
I have a Samyang 14mm f2.8 and it is ridiculary sharp! Absolutely love it!

I'm thinking in replacing it with a 17-40L though, because it would see more use, but I'm not sure if I should...
Click to expand...

2 totally different lenses that serve a different purpose, unless you just want to shoot was wide as it technically can be done

valb said:
for ultra wide angle shots razor sharpness is not normally needed.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more with you here. Nonsense frankly, unless you never print anything over 4x6". Why the hell spend ££££s on gear to just put up with terrible IQ. You could get 400D, kit lens and a fisheye adapter for a lot less.
 
Hi,

If you don't mind manual focus and aperture you can not do much better than use a Nikon 14-24mm on your Canon. It would need an adapter ring.
Don't take my word for it (why should you?) - look up reviews of use ing this lens on a Canon body by the best photographers in the business and then way up the pros and cons etc. for yourself.
By the way, the Samsung 14mm prime is also amazingly sharp - I don't own one ( I have heNikon) but it comes out well in every test of its IQ.
James
 
PitaDaVespa said:
I have a Samyang 14mm f2.8 and it is ridiculary sharp! Absolutely love it!

I'm thinking in replacing it with a 17-40L though, because it would see more use, but I'm not sure if I should...
Click to expand...

Depends on exactly how frequently you use it.
I have both the Canon 14mm II and 17-40. As daugirdas has mentioned they serve completely different purposes to each other.
If I could only keep one it would be the 17-40 simply due to more use.

On topic though I'd recommend either lenses I mentioned above
 
Last edited:
I bought the samyung 14mm at focus this year. Amazing lens for £260 and compliments my 25-105 perfectly
 
I've just switched to full frame and my Tokina 16mm (ignore the 11-15mm) seams to be working very well! Just keep that for now and see how you get on.
 
GeForce Junky said:
I've just switched to full frame and my Tokina 16mm (ignore the 11-15mm) seams to be working very well! Just keep that for now and see how you get on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, think I'm going to stick to this option. Instead of buying a Canon 17-40mm f/4 L I'm just going to save the money and wait till I can afford the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 as I really do like my Tokina and use this focal length a lot.
 
When I went full frame, I used my 11-16mm for a little while, but I found the prime-like focal length too restricting for my taste so decided to pick up a well priced 17-40mm. Fantastic lens.
 
I would also suggest Samyang 14mm f2.8. Fast, sharp and cheap. Zeiss options are better, but not as good value. I liked my zeiss 18mm but it costs nearly 3x more and is slower. The better 15mm f2.8 is very very expensive.
 
James Thomas 75 said:
Depends on exactly how frequently you use it.
I have both the Canon 14mm II and 17-40. As daugirdas has mentioned they serve completely different purposes to each other.
If I could only keep one it would be the 17-40 simply due to more use.

On topic though I'd recommend either lenses I mentioned above
Click to expand...

Off topic, I know, but how do you compare them in terms of sharpness?
Are they very different?

Thanks.
 
PitaDaVespa said:
Off topic, I know, but how do you compare them in terms of sharpness?
Are they very different?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I've always been very happy with my 17-40 on both my old 5D II and my current 5D Mark III.

In terms of sharpness though the 14mm II wins hands down throughout the whole range. It's even extremely sharp wide open.

That's not to say the 17-40 isn't sharp (in my opinion). Just that the 14mm is in another league - but then so is the price tag :)
 
James Thomas 75 said:
I've always been very happy with my 17-40 on both my old 5D II and my current 5D Mark III.

In terms of sharpness though the 14mm II wins hands down throughout the whole range. It's even extremely sharp wide open.

That's not to say the 17-40 isn't sharp (in my opinion). Just that the 14mm is in another league - but then so is the price tag :)
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top