Which Ultrawide Lens?

Victor Bieganek · June 12th, 2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen Elliott

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.

You might want to check out the often over-looked Canon EF 200mm 2.8L MKII. Its not IS but the prime colour renditions are amazing.

Jon Fairhurst · June 13th, 2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Chung

I'm surprised the Nikon 20-35 is out of budget...

I should shop around more. When I did a quick check, I recall a listing that was close to $1k.

A Canon 20-35 f/2.8 L non-USM just popped up locally. Anybody have experience with that lens? From what I read it lacks modern coatings, so it suffers from CA.

But frankly, I'm in no rush to buy. My first ultrawide target project needs top quality, so I'll rent the 14mm Canon and 17-35 Nikon for the trip.

Anmol Mishra · June 16th, 2009, 10:39 AM

So far, we have :-
Primes :- < 1K
Olympus OM Zuiko f2.0 21mm
sigma 20mm 1.8
Olympus OM Zuiko f2.0 24mm

Zoom :- ~ 1K
Canon EF 16-35 f2.8

Nigel Barker · June 16th, 2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anmol Mishra

Summary - recommended affordable fast primes

I don't think that there has been any consensus yet on recommendations. One post from Dan Chung alone lists four zooms none of which are in your 'recommended' list.

Steev Dinkins · June 16th, 2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

I don't think that there has been any consensus yet on recommendations. One post from Dan Chung alone lists four zooms none of which are in your 'recommended' list.

Agreed! I'll echo now quite redundantly.... Sigma 12-24!

Jon Fairhurst · June 16th, 2009, 12:03 PM

The only prime I'm really excited about is the EF 14mm f/2.8. It's compatible, has low falloff, and accepts ND gels.

The Zuiko seems a bit too good to be true - how can it be that fast and that small? Unfortunately, it's rare and expensive, so I can't just rent to try it out.

The Nikon 12-24 has fantastic reviews, but has no aperture ring and doesn't accept filters.

The Sigma has more falloff than I would like. (Look at the corners of the photo in this thread. There's a line that fades away in the corner.) It's not a rental.

The Nikon 17-35mm is highly rated, accepts filters and has an aperture ring. You can rent it!

The Canon 16-35mm L II is well regarded, but some here prefer the above Nikon in this range. It accepts 82mm filters, while the Nikon takes 77mm filters. Only the Canon provides autofocus, but that's not required for most ultrawide shots.

On a budget, the 20-35mm lenses are worth a look.

Personally, I plan to rent the Canon 14mm and Nikon 17-35mm lenses when I need those lengths.

Tramm Hudson · June 16th, 2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

The Sigma has more falloff than I would like. (Look at the corners of the photo in this thread. There's a line that fades away in the corner.) It's not a rental.

I have the Sigma 20 mm f/1.8 and don't really like it. The fall off is really very pronounced on the full frame and the focus motor is loud and slow. Not having full-time manual focus is a drag.

I'd like to replace it with a 16-35 f/2.8L or a 14mm f/2.8L. Perhaps one day.

Dylan Couper · June 16th, 2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

The only prime I'm really excited about is the EF 14mm f/2.8. It's compatible, has low falloff, and accepts ND gels.

That lens gets me excited too, I have to admit. I'd trade the extra 2mm of the Sigma 12-24 for f2.8 and better glass.

Ben Syverson · June 16th, 2009, 01:57 PM

Jon, be careful with that 14mm. It's extremely expensive, and 14mm on FF is wiiiiiide. Like goofy wide. When I see shots that wide, I tend to roll my eyes and think "gee, the DP had fun with this one." It's a gag lens in my book.

The EF 28mm f/2.8 is cheap (you can get it for $150 used) and wide, and way underrated. The reason they haven't updated it in 20 years is because they haven't had to. It's extraordinarily well corrected.

The 17-40L is a great lens. f/4 means it can be better corrected than a f/2.8, which is really pushing into extreme lens design territory. If you need the extra stop, bump it to ISO 200 or 400, which are both pretty flawless. But in low light, you're sunk.

For wide and fast, there's only one option -- the 24L. The stop means that if you're at ISO 400 with a f/2.8 lens, you can drop down to ISO 100 at f/1.4. I shot about half of a music video last week on the 24L, dipping to f/1.4 frequently. It let me do greenscreen at ISO 100 without setting up lights! The overhead tracklights in the space were actually too bright -- I had to dial them down. If you go for this option, do not buy the 24L Mk II -- the Mk I is fantastic and $700 cheaper.

Jon Fairhurst · June 16th, 2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

Jon, be careful with that 14mm. It's extremely expensive, and 14mm on FF is wiiiiiide. Like goofy wide. When I see shots that wide, I tend to roll my eyes and think "gee, the DP had fun with this one." It's a gag lens in my book.

Agreed! However, my application is a bit unique. I plan to shoot 21MP RAW photos and timelapses as backgrounds and other video elements. The end product would be 1080, which allows me to do 2:1 crops for framing and faux camera moves, so the end product won't be so wide, but I do need top quality. I also look forward to shooting some nutty forced perspective stills. Cost isn't an issue, as I'd rent.

Quote:

The EF 28mm f/2.8 is cheap (you can get it for $150 used) and wide, and way underrated.

I've got the EF 28mm f/1.8 and love it! It's my standard wide lens.

Quote:

For wide and fast, there's only one option -- the 24L.

My friend has one here locally (a II) that he uses for video (the I is good enough), and stills (the II is definitely sharper, from the test images I've seen). My 28mm will cover the day to day stuff, but for a critical low-light shoot, the 24L wins!

I've also got a Vivitar 24mm f/2.8 that I picked up for about $30. It wins the value competition. ;)

Allan Tabilas · June 16th, 2009, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tramm Hudson

I have the Sigma 20 mm f/1.8 and don't really like it. The fall off is really very pronounced on the full frame and the focus motor is loud and slow. Not having full-time manual focus is a drag.

I'd like to replace it with a 16-35 f/2.8L or a 14mm f/2.8L. Perhaps one day.

Hey Tramm. Let me thank you for your incredible firmware hacking work. I'm looking forward to disabling AGC and levels for sure.

Is the light fall off (I did see your attached still, fall off is massive) at f/1.8 while shooting video so bad that you have to stop down to f/2.8 or so? Have you tried the sigma 24mm f/1.8 or sigma 28mm f/1.8? I'm trying to find some wide angle alternatives also.

Thanks

Steev Dinkins · June 17th, 2009, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allan Tabilas

Is the light fall off (I did see your attached still, fall off is massive) at f/1.8 while shooting video so bad that you have to stop down to f/2.8 or so

My experience with the Sigma 20mm f1.8 is that it gets a little soft at 1.8, and vignettes. Stopping it down just one notch makes a bit of a difference in sharpness and reducing the vignetting. However I think of the softness as really shallow DOF from that 1.8 stop. If I'm wanting that shallow DOF and light sensitivity, I haven't cared about the sharpness or vignetting.

Most of the photos below are 1.8, all but one is a screen grab from video.

I think of the 20mm 1.8 as a specialty lens to get what's likely the shallowest DOF you'll see in a 20mm lens.

I have this lens in Nikon mount, and I don't know what Tramm is referring to with no full time manual focus on the Canon version. The Nikon adapted to Canon is only manual focus, of course.

Overall, I LOVE this lens, especially at around $400. Oh and remember it's magical macro abilities on a wide. It focuses excitingly close.

Allan Tabilas · June 17th, 2009, 11:18 AM

Steev, thanks for your input. I'm looking at the sigma f/1.8 to shoot video, so I'll take your opinion and Tramm.

Tramm Hudson · June 17th, 2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins

I have this lens in Nikon mount, and I don't know what Tramm is referring to with no full time manual focus on the Canon version. The Nikon adapted to Canon is only manual focus, of course.

In the Canon EF version there is both an AF/M switch and a clutch mechanism that needs to be pushed or pulled to engage the manual focus ring. So there are really two states that work and two that don't:

* AF/M in AF and clutch disengaged: autofocus only
* AF/M in M and clutch engaged: manual focus only
* AF/M in M and clutch disengaged: no function at all.
* AF/M in AF and clutch engaged: even slower, louder AF, plus possible damage to motor if you turn the focus wheel

Engaging the clutch jolts the lens, too, so it is not possible to smoothly switch from auto to manual focus. Compared to a Canon USM with full-time manual, it is really frustrating.

Quote:

Overall, I LOVE this lens, especially at around $400. Oh and remember it's magical macro abilities on a wide. It focuses excitingly close.

It is a fairly inexpensive lens and the minimum focus distance is inside of the lens hood, but I just don't like it that much.

Luis de la Cerda · June 18th, 2009, 02:09 AM

As I mentioned earlier I also have the sigma 20. I wouldn't go as far as to say I hate it. It has a special character. The close focusing, vignetting, even the corner softness can at times turn into some surprising effects shots that no other lens could. The worst thing about it is that you'll most likely want to leave it at home more often than not because of it's technical "deficiencies". Sometimes I like to force myself to use it by not bringing any other lens along, because it really makes some very creative shots at times that I would normaly not think of trying. I'll post something tomorrow if I have the time.

June 16th, 2009, 10:39 AM	#48
Anmol Mishra Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 401	Summary - recommended affordable fast primes So far, we have :- Primes :- < 1K Olympus OM Zuiko f2.0 21mm sigma 20mm 1.8 Olympus OM Zuiko f2.0 24mm Zoom :- ~ 1K Canon EF 16-35 f2.8

June 16th, 2009, 12:03 PM	#51
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	The only prime I'm really excited about is the EF 14mm f/2.8. It's compatible, has low falloff, and accepts ND gels. The Zuiko seems a bit too good to be true - how can it be that fast and that small? Unfortunately, it's rare and expensive, so I can't just rent to try it out. The Nikon 12-24 has fantastic reviews, but has no aperture ring and doesn't accept filters. The Sigma has more falloff than I would like. (Look at the corners of the photo in this thread. There's a line that fades away in the corner.) It's not a rental. The Nikon 17-35mm is highly rated, accepts filters and has an aperture ring. You can rent it! The Canon 16-35mm L II is well regarded, but some here prefer the above Nikon in this range. It accepts 82mm filters, while the Nikon takes 77mm filters. Only the Canon provides autofocus, but that's not required for most ultrawide shots. On a budget, the 20-35mm lenses are worth a look. Personally, I plan to rent the Canon 14mm and Nikon 17-35mm lenses when I need those lengths. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

June 16th, 2009, 01:57 PM	#54
Ben Syverson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: chicago Posts: 434	Jon, be careful with that 14mm. It's extremely expensive, and 14mm on FF is wiiiiiide. Like goofy wide. When I see shots that wide, I tend to roll my eyes and think "gee, the DP had fun with this one." It's a gag lens in my book. The EF 28mm f/2.8 is cheap (you can get it for $150 used) and wide, and way underrated. The reason they haven't updated it in 20 years is because they haven't had to. It's extraordinarily well corrected. The 17-40L is a great lens. f/4 means it can be better corrected than a f/2.8, which is really pushing into extreme lens design territory. If you need the extra stop, bump it to ISO 200 or 400, which are both pretty flawless. But in low light, you're sunk. For wide and fast, there's only one option -- the 24L. The stop means that if you're at ISO 400 with a f/2.8 lens, you can drop down to ISO 100 at f/1.4. I shot about half of a music video last week on the 24L, dipping to f/1.4 frequently. It let me do greenscreen at ISO 100 without setting up lights! The overhead tracklights in the space were actually too bright -- I had to dial them down. If you go for this option, do not buy the 24L Mk II -- the Mk I is fantastic and $700 cheaper.

June 17th, 2009, 11:18 AM	#58
Allan Tabilas Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 81	Steev, thanks for your input. I'm looking at the sigma f/1.8 to shoot video, so I'll take your opinion and Tramm.

June 18th, 2009, 02:09 AM	#60
Luis de la Cerda Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mexico City Posts: 181	As I mentioned earlier I also have the sigma 20. I wouldn't go as far as to say I hate it. It has a special character. The close focusing, vignetting, even the corner softness can at times turn into some surprising effects shots that no other lens could. The worst thing about it is that you'll most likely want to leave it at home more often than not because of it's technical "deficiencies". Sometimes I like to force myself to use it by not bringing any other lens along, because it really makes some very creative shots at times that I would normaly not think of trying. I'll post something tomorrow if I have the time.