Wide angle/fish eye question

benj1867

benj1867

Messages
661
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently use a Canon 10-22 on my 7D wide angle shots. Pretty soon I'll be going full-frame with either a 6d or a 5d3, funds depending. So I've started to look at what to replace the 10-22 with. I'm happy to buy second hand and so far I've come up with the 17-40 f4, 8-15 f6 and the various 16/17-35. I should mention I already have a 24-105 in the bag so that range is covered. My main subject is aircraft but I'm currently trying to get myself into other areas such as landscape and architecture. If anyone has any advice on the lenses I've already mentioned please offer any thought and I'm also open to other suggestions. My budget depends on weather I get a 6d or a 5d3, so between say £400- £600

Cheers in advance
 
You might like to consider the Sigma 12-24mm. I use its crop frame analogue the 8-16mm, and find those extra few mm are really useful. With my earlier 10-20mm I found I was doing a lot of shots at 10mm, indicating that I'd rammed it up to the wide end and it wouldn't go any further. That happens a lot less with the 8-16mm. I often do perspective adjustment on my widest shots, such as aligning verticals, and the extra width gives me more room for adjustment and cropping. It's major disadvantage for landscape shooters is the very bulbous front element, which it's difficult to attach filters to without vignetting at the widest angles.

E
 
How did/does fish-eye come into the question? Seems you have mind set on a wide-angle.
 
chuckles said:
How did/does fish-eye come into the question? Seems you have mind set on a wide-angle.
Click to expand...

Mainly I do want UWA but I was also toying with a moderately priced Samyang manual focus fisheye. The 8-15 just adds the fisheye element in one package.

Ben
 
As you already have the 24-105 personally I would not bother with the 17-40 or any wide angle.
I have both and the 17-40 hardly gets used.
If you want something different then get the fisheye, I got the sigma 15mm which I find great but it does not give the circular effect on FF, if you want that then the 8-15 but its expensive .
 
If you don't mind MF, the Samyang 14mm is rather good? There's a bit of moustache distortion which TBH I don't mind too much (14mm on FF looks rather crazy anyway so sometimes it add to the funkyness!) but that can be fixed with an LR profile no probs.

Very sharp even at f2.8, and at under £300 is a steal.
 
Might have to have a look at this
 
If you DO mind MF (and on Canons, manual aperture) that the Samyang will leave you with, there's a Tamron 14mm f/2.8 which crops up second hand from time to time (mine cost me £240 earlier in the year) and IIRC there's a Sigma of the same length. FWIW, AF on ultra wides and fisheyes is pretty much redundant due to the huge DoF at f/8 and smaller but I have to admit that I'm now far too used to auto aperture that I couldn't be doing with the Samyangs on Canon but I probably could on my Nikons!
 
Lots to consider. I think I need some more research.
 
I'd concur that the 17-40 f/4 is very, very nice but the 16-35 f/4 is technically better but more expensive too.

If money is no object I'd heartily recommend the 11-24 f/4 - it's simply awesome, lens of the year IMO. But expensive, and heavy.

The 8-15mm fisheye is great too but gives too stylised a look for me to use everyday. One day I'll get one but for now the 17-40 f/4 is filling that niche for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top