Wide angle lens Canon FF

U

User.82148

Suspended / Banned
Messages
846
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm sure it has been asked before, but what wide angle is recommended for an old Canon FF camera which is wider than a 17-40L? I'm not intending to spend a fortune but need something that is sharp and relatively fast.
 
Hmm. Wide, cheap, sharp, fast. I think you need to decide which three (or maybe two) of these attributes are most important to you.

Compared to the 17-40mm f/4 L, and assuming you want a zoom:
* the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk II is a tiny bit wider and a stop faster, but it's considerably more expensive
* the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk III, due any time now, should be a lot sharper, but it will certainly be very expensive
* the Canon 16-35mm f/4 L IS is a tiny bit wider, and sharper, but not faster and more expensive
* the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is a tiny bit wider and a stop faster, not too expensive, but I don't know what it's like optically
* the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 is a bit woder, and a stop faster, but more expensive, and I don't know what it's like optically
* the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 is very wide, reasonably sharp, not too expensive, but slow
* the Canon 11-24mm f/4 L is much wider and superbly sharp, but not faster and eye-wateringly expensive
 
StewartR said:
Hmm. Wide, cheap, sharp, fast. I think you need to decide which three (or maybe two) of these attributes are most important to you.

Compared to the 17-40mm f/4 L, and assuming you want a zoom:
* the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk II is a tiny bit wider and a stop faster, but it's considerably more expensive
* the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk III, due any time now, should be a lot sharper, but it will certainly be very expensive
* the Canon 16-35mm f/4 L IS is a tiny bit wider, and sharper, but not faster and more expensive
* the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is a tiny bit wider and a stop faster, not too expensive, but I don't know what it's like optically
* the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 is a bit woder, and a stop faster, but more expensive, and I don't know what it's like optically
* the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 is very wide, reasonably sharp, not too expensive, but slow
* the Canon 11-24mm f/4 L is much wider and superbly sharp, but not faster and eye-wateringly expensive
Click to expand...

StewartR said:
16518-1475145688-a2d63d297cb444b1080fc1132314485b.png
Click to expand...
Very useful Stuart, thank you for taking the time.
 
Hi Archie747,

In case you don't need/want a zoom, the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is as great lens! Very sharp, faster than the 17-40 and very cheap. It's manual focus and has quite a bit of distortion, though.
 
Just get the Sigma 12-24mm.

IMO it's reasonably priced for what it is, it's pretty sharp (at least me was) and the performance and lack of distortion will astound you, as will the 12mm PoV, to the point of blowing your socks off... in fact it's so wide you'll actually see your own socks blow off :D

I had one and used it on my 20D and then 5D. It was about a million times better than the Canon EF-S 10-22mm it replaced.
 
woof woof said:
Just get the Sigma 12-24mm.
Click to expand...
Well, that ticks 3 of the OP's boxes. It's wide, it's sharp, and it's not expensive. But he also wanted fast, and fast it ain't. That's why I asked which features were most important. If fast is non negotiable then the 12-24, admirable though it is in other respects, is not the answer.
 
I get the impression you have a soft spot for the Sigma 12-24. I could probably cope with it not being fast for most my photography. I have a Canon EF-S 10-18 which I am pleased with on my cropped sensor camera.
 
StewartR said:
Well, that ticks 3 of the OP's boxes. It's wide, it's sharp, and it's not expensive. But he also wanted fast, and fast it ain't. That's why I asked which features were most important. If fast is non negotiable then the 12-24, admirable though it is in other respects, is not the answer.
Click to expand...

If you want a fast wide lens prepare to hear your wallet scream in pain...

Archie747 said:
I get the impression you have a soft spot for the Sigma 12-24. I could probably cope with it not being fast for most my photography. I have a Canon EF-S 10-18 which I am pleased with on my cropped sensor camera.
Click to expand...

I have a soft spot for the Sigma 12-24mm as I replaced my decidedly average Canon 10-22mm with one and never looked back. If you want a good performing, reasonably priced and very wide angle lens with almost an unimaginable lack of distortion then the Sigma deserves at least a glancing look. The only down side is, as has been so eloquently pointed out, that it's got what in a kit lens would be a rather pedestrian aperture... but in a super wide maybe it's acceptable for many uses and maybe only dark shooting such as star shots would be a problem for it.

If you want wider and / or faster there may be other lenses but rarely with this performance and at this price point.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
If you want a fast wide lens prepare to hear your wallet scream in pain...



I have a soft spot for the Sigma 12-24mm as I replaced my decidedly average Canon 10-22mm with one and never looked back. If you want a good performing, reasonably priced and very wide angle lens with almost an unimaginable lack of distortion then the Sigma deserves at least a glancing look. The only down side is, as has been so eloquently pointed out, that it's got what in a kit lens would be a rather pedestrian aperture... but in a super wide maybe it's acceptable for many uses and maybe only dark shooting such as star shots would be a problem for it.

If you want wider and / or faster there may be other lenses but rarely with this performance and at this price point.
Click to expand...

A fast wide UWA for FF doesn't have to make you scream, the very good Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is under £300. I still think you had a duff 10-22, mine is the best APS-C UWA I've ever used, love that lens.

The Sigma 12-24 is a suburb option for FF though, personally I'm looking at getting the mk2 before the year is out...
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
A fast wide UWA for FF doesn't have to make you scream, the very good Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is under £300. I still think you had a duff 10-22, mine is the best APS-C UWA I've ever used, love that lens.

The Sigma 12-24 is a suburb option for FF though, personally I'm looking at getting the mk2 before the year is out...
Click to expand...

The Samyang is MF and a prime, the Sigma is AF and a zoom. Take your pick...

No, I didn't have a duff Canon, It's just not very good in comparison to... other lenses :D Actually I bought my 10-22mm at the same time as I bought a 17-85mm, that was worse and I ended up giving it away. Canon make some nice lenses but those two are IMO worth comparing to other lenses before buying.
 
woof woof said:
The Samyang is MF and a prime, the Sigma is AF and a zoom. Take your pick...

No, I didn't have a duff Canon, It's just not very good in comparison to... other lenses :D Actually I bought my 10-22mm at the same time as I bought a 17-85mm, that was worse and I ended up giving it away. Canon make some nice lenses but those two are IMO worth comparing to other lenses before buying.
Click to expand...

Edit - misunderstood your bit about the 17-85 which is truly terrible.

There's a reason people call the 10-22 it the non L, L lens though :). The only lens I'd consider over it for crop is the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.
 
Last edited:
I have both. I started the thread asking about wide angle lenses for FF. The last few replies covered efs lenses and as I already have the efs 10-18 I was interested in what others thought given the negative and positive comments about the efs 10-22.

Craig_85 said:
So are you shooting crop sensor or full frame at the moment? You mention an old full frame canon then ask about your current efs lens?
Click to expand...
 
Given the price of the Canon EFS 10-18mm it's basically equivalent optical quality to the 18-55 IS kit lens, just wider. There's no way Canon would make a lens as good as the 10-22, add IS to it then sell it for less than £200.

I've never heard the Canon 10-22 described as a "non-L L lens". The 17-55 f2.8 IS maybe, but not the 10-22.

For crop frame. the Sigma 10-20mm is better than the Canon 10-18 (certainly better built), the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is probably better still, especially if you want to do low light shots.

OP: If you have both crop and full frame, assuming your full frame body is better/newer, why would you bother getting a crop-only lens?
 
Thanks for the reply. I already have the 10-18 which I use on a 7Dii.

I have only recently bought a used FF, a 5d mark I which is obviously a lot older, but I really like the results when it is used in favourable conditions. I'm looking for something wider than my 17-40l. It will only be used occasionally so I do not want to spend a fortune. The Sigma mentioned above should be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top