Wide angle lens

B

Bugler77

Messages
150
Edit My Images
No
Ok here is my thoughts at the moment. I am in the Market for a new wide angle lens. I can't decide which to go for and looking for some advice or a push to go for what I think is right!
The 2 lenses I am looking at are the sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 or the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L.
There is a considerable price difference but I do believe in buying the best possible as spending £500-£600 on something I find later doesn't perform as well as the other could be £500-£600 wasted.
I will mainly be using the lens for landscape and wedding large group shots. The camera I mainly use is a 1d mark iii.
 
Will that Sigma work on your 1D?? It is alot wider than the 16 if so!
 
Worth considering the 17-40l as well IMO. I have one and really like it. I'm not convinced of the value of large apertures on a wide lens, as generally you won't want a very shallow DOF.

You would probably use it with a flash at a wedding, and stopped right down for landscapes, so the 2.8 isn't worth paying through the nose for. IMHO.

Not sure about the Sigma, could see 12mm being used for landscapes but it's pretty crazily wide.
 
Hi Grumble
I must admit A few weeks ago I had decided on the 17-40 which is f4. I have a 24-105 L now so a lot of the coverage is at f4 with that lens. So if I buy the 16-35 this would give me the coverage at f2.8 and my 70-200 would give me f2.8 through that range leave a gap in between. The f2.8 would also benefit in low light conditions.
This is what I mean about spending money once.
 
Bugler said:
Hi Grum
I must admit A few weeks ago I had decided on the 17-40 which is f4. I have a 24-105 L now so a lot of the coverage is at f4 with that lens. So if I buy the 16-35 this would give me the coverage at f2.8 and my 70-200 would give me f2.8 through that range leave a gap in between. The f2.8 would also benefit in low light conditions.
This is what I mean about spending money once.
Click to expand...
 
2.8 is very useful, but less so at very wide angles IMO, as mostly you will want everything in focus. You'd be better spending some cash getting a 24-70 2.8 IMO (or the bargain Tamron 28-75 2.8 ) and getting the cheaper ultra wide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top