Which Ultrawide Lens?

[Dan Chung]

Steev.

I used to have a 12-24 Sigma, also owned a Sigma 15-30 in the past. They are all usable and I think the 12-24 is hard to beat for ultrawide effect. If you need ND you can fit a small gel over the rear of the lens.

If you intending to run and gun I would recommend the 20-35, 16-35, 17-35 range of lenses though as they give more flexability for following people around and take filters. You will rarely want to use 12mm on people because of the extreme egg head effect you give them.

Dan

[Steev Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Dan Chung

You will rarely want to use 12mm on people because of the extreme egg head effect you give them.

Dan, I agree that you can use 12mm wrong on people. But I definitely bought it for having the under-24mm ability. I was tempted by the Canon 17-35, but it was too much $$, and felt like 12-24 filled the ultra wide gap better. But you're right that the 17-35mm is a bit more sane for closeup shots of people.

For 24mm+, I have a 24-70mm f2.8 which is definitely the primary run and gun lens. But I'd keep the 12-24mm right on my side in case I want to go ultra wide.

I am still pretty happy with even 24mm on the 5D. It's significantly wider than my HVX200 stock lens.

[Thomas Lowe]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

At $2k+, that looks like a fine rental.

I've got a concept that would include timelapse and astronomical shots, and that lens is at the top of the list for that job...

Why not go with the 14-24 G if timelapse and astro are some of your goals? It's more versatile than the EF 14mm prime and boasts better image quality.

It used to be good to go with Nikon lenses for timelapse, because you could gain control over the iris, which eliminates some of the flickering that can be caused by the inaccuracies of an iris opening and closing with each frame. I read somewhere at the Timescapes forum that the 5D2 firmware update allows you to lock iris for stills, but I do not know if this is true. Either way, you might consider investigating the 14-24 vs the EF 14.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Thomas,

The Nikon 14-24G looks like an awesome choice, except that it has no aperture ring. I've read that one can prop it closed with a matchstick, but I've never had my hands on a G-lens to test if this is practical. It's available as a daily/weekend rental locally for $30, so it's very practical from that perspective. Reading review, the optics sound fantastic!

I've got a few applications, and plan to cover them with a ~$400 purchase and occasional rental. The applications are:

* Ultrawide timelapse. I've got a concept for a short film that would incorporate this into the story. If I can prop closed the 14-24G aperture, I'll rent that. Having no rear gel slot could be a problem though, as I'd need a very large mattebox to ND daylight shots. I want no quality compromises here.

* Forced perspective stills. My purchased lens should cover this. The subject would generally be inanimate objects. The Sigma could be the right choice - the wider the better! I generally publish to the web, rather than print, so I'll balance price and quality.

* Forced perspective video. I'd like to do stuff like showing a hand on a chess piece in the foreground, with the person's face in the background (where it won't be as distorted). This lens doesn't need to be crazy wide, but should be no slower than f/2.8. I've got the EF 28mm f/1.8 (and a 24mm f/2.8 Vivitar), but would like 20mm or wider. Maybe the Sigma will cover this too.

My filter strategy (NDs, polarizers and softening/diffussion) had been built around screw ons, but I've got to re-evaluate that. I've been avoiding the matte box approach because it adds cost at every step and isn't as practical for straight-up photography.

Decisions, decisions...

[Thomas Lowe]

You can control the 14-24's iris ring with this adapter:

Nikon G - Canon EOS Adapter

I have it on my 14-24 now, on my 5D2. It works great!

Of course, no screw-on filters for the 14-24. At night, you don't want any, though.

Like you say, choices, choices!

[Jon Fairhurst]

Well... I think I've figured out my ultra-wide strategy.

For purchase, I'll get the EF 20mm f/2.8. It looks like all of the affordable lenses have falloff issues, but only the EF lenses get in-camera correction. I eliminated all of the affordable 3rd party lenses for this reason. Besides, it will match my collection of mid-level EF lenses from 28mm to 85mm.

The Canon 17-35 and 17-40 f/4 L lenses are pretty attractive, but I'm already feeling at the end of the plank with f/2.8.

The Olympus Zuiko 21mm f/2.0 looks like a jewel, but it's rare and out of budget. The Nikon 20-35mm is also out of budget.

The rental picture surprised me. I think I'll end up renting the Nikon 17-35, when I want high quality, the versatility of a zoom, and want to use filters. The EF 16-35 II uses 82mm filters, and the original 16-35 (77mm) isn't available at the local shop anymore, so the Nikon wins.

For crazy wides, the Nikon 14-24mm looks insane for time lapse night work. I have to see if there's a way to jerry-rig the aperture down without risk though. I can't justify a $200+ adapter for a specialty rental. The Canon 14mm simplifies things and lets me use a gel ND for daylight work. So the Canon gets the nod for crazy wides under most conditions. The Nikon would only work for me at night if I can find an aperture hack. Either way, I'd pair one of these with the Nikon 17-35.

Thanks everybody for your input!

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Thomas Lowe

Nikon 14-24G > Contax N Zeiss 17-35 > Nikon 17-35 > Canon 16-35 > Third Party

The Nikon needs a special adapter, but it is the clear stand out on both Canon and Nikon. And it's 2.8

Any buyer needs to define prime or zoom and focal length to have a reasonable analysis. Talking about Bokeh on ultrawides is optimistic unless focus is very close.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

The Nikon needs a special adapter, but it is the clear stand out on both Canon and Nikon. And it's 2.8

Any buyer needs to define prime or zoom and focal length to have a reasonable analysis. Talking about Bokeh on ultrawides is optimistic unless focus is very close.

Also, the Contax N Zeiss 17-35 needs to be professionally adapted to fit the Canon. It's way out of budget and not a standard rental.

And I agree that bokeh is not generally a concern with ultrawides. For timelapse, I'll be stopping things down anyway. For video, I want a fast lens in order to minimize noise in natural, indoor light. As long as the iris has six or more blades, it's likely good enough for me. The only really bad-bokeh lenses that I've seen in the Canon line have been the five blade lenses - not so much because I don't like the shape, but because the alignment is often poor, resulting in poor symmetry, which I find distracting.

[Glen Elliott]

UPDATE: My Canon 16-35 2.8L went back. I was experiencing vignetting, as expected (especially with 82-77 step-down) and to be honest it wasn't much wider than my existing 24-70 2.8L. I should have thought about it before ordering- it's only 8mm wider.

Now a 14mm fish could be fun. Even though it's technically 14mm it offers 180 degree coverage! However that is ONLY an effects lens. I'm sticking with my 24-70 2.8, 50 1.2, and 85 1.8 combo for now. Next lens to invest in is the 70-200 2.8L IS.

[Steev Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Glen Elliott

UPDATE: My Canon 16-35 2.8L went back. I was experiencing vignetting, as expected (especially with 82-77 step-down) and to be honest it wasn't much wider than my existing 24-70 2.8L. I should have thought about it before ordering- it's only 8mm wider.

Now a 14mm fish could be fun. Even though it's technically 14mm it offers 180 degree coverage! However that is ONLY an effects lens. I'm sticking with my 24-70 2.8, 50 1.2, and 85 1.8 combo for now. Next lens to invest in is the 70-200 2.8L IS.

I gotta say again, the Sigma 12-24 satisfies the boost to ultrawide, as distinct from the 24-70. It's tremendously wider when you need/want it. The 16-35 didn't seem to be enough *oomf* to me.

[Bill Binder]

Originally Posted by Glen Elliott

UPDATE: My Canon 16-35 2.8L went back. I was experiencing vignetting, as expected (especially with 82-77 step-down) and to be honest it wasn't much wider than my existing 24-70 2.8L. I should have thought about it before ordering- it's only 8mm wider.

Now a 14mm fish could be fun. Even though it's technically 14mm it offers 180 degree coverage! However that is ONLY an effects lens. I'm sticking with my 24-70 2.8, 50 1.2, and 85 1.8 combo for now. Next lens to invest in is the 70-200 2.8L IS.

Not arguing with you at all here, just going to provide a second opinion for others.

I find my 16-35II significantly wider than my 24-70 and more versatile than a 12-24. But, I say that more as a stills photographer than a videographer, and I do understand that the 12-24 is much more of a "specialty" lens, so no one using it expects it to be that versatile. You use that lens when you're going wide, real WIDE, on purpose.

For PJ-like work, the 35mm on the 16-35 makes the lens very, very usable even for non-wide shots. It's really apples and oranges comparing the two in a way. But regardless, at 16mm, that 8mm extra from the 24-70mm is SIGNIFICANT, plus the distortion on the Mark II of the 16-35mm is quite impressively small given the focal length.

Also, using a step-down ring on the 16-35mm is just a complete non-starter right out of the gate. If anything, use a step-up for screw-on filters, or at an absolute minimum, use a slim filter. That said, the 82mm filter size of the 16-35 II kind of sucks, but it just goes to show the new version of the lens is quite different from the Mark I.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins

I gotta say again, the Sigma 12-24 satisfies the boost to ultrawide, as distinct from the 24-70. It's tremendously wider when you need/want it. The 16-35 didn't seem to be enough *oomf* to me.

I know what you mean. Once you use it, nothing over 16mm will ever seem wide again. Really. It kind of spoils everything else.

12mm owner: "What's that lens?"
Other photog: "A 20mm.
12mm owner: "Why are you shooting telephoto?"

Anyway, it's definitely not what you want for an all purpose walking around "wide" lens.

[Steev Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I know what you mean. Once you use it, nothing over 16mm will ever seem wide again. Really. It kind of spoils everything else.

12mm owner: "What's that lens?"
Other photog: "A 20mm.
12mm owner: "Why are you shooting telephoto?"

Hahaha.. yes indeed!

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Anyway, it's definitely not what you want for an all purpose walking around "wide" lens.

Yes, I agree with it not being an all purpose anything. But I wouldn't call the 17-35mm as all purpose either, although, yes 35mm is more useful than 24mm. But 12mm-16mm is far more useful to me than the 17mm limit for wide.

All in all though, great thread! I had deliberated and purchased prior to this thread beginning, but I would have loved to have these opinions available to me at the time.

-steev

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins

All in all though, great thread!

Agreed - and not because I started it. ;)

There are a lot more options listed in this thread than I knew existed, and the hands on experience that people have shared brings a lot of weight to the discussion. Now, if only I had the cash to buy a small collection the best recommended lenses!

[Dan Chung]

Jon,

This had indeed been a great thread. One word of caution though, I really don't rate the Canon 20mm f2.8 wide open. It's nothing that the in camera correction can help. Maybe I've just had duff copies in the past but its not a patch on the zooms for some wierd reason. I'm surprised the Nikon 20-35 is out of budget, when I got mine it was cheaper used than a new Canon 20mm, there's one on ebay with no bids at $295 but it will probably go up. Maybe people have realised what a bargain it is.

Dan