Hi guys,looking for a Wide lens for 5d mark iii

[Jon Fairhurst]

I'd amend that. It must be level - or at an extreme angle. Nearly level is the dead zone.

I have access to a Zeiss 21/2.8 and it's also a bit of a dead zone lens. It's wide enough to act "funny" during normal shots but not wide enough to clearly be delivering an effect. I've developed a few "rules" for using the 21mm view effectively:

1) Don't stick it on a head-height tripod for a general purpose shot. It will look normal until you pan or somebody walks into the edge of the frame.

2) Keep people away from the edge of the frame. Q: "Does this lens make me look fat?" A: "Not in the middle of the frame, but definitely at the edge."

3) Stop down when possible - unless your subject is very close to the lens and the ground is not visible. For instance, if you break rule #1 and shoot at f/2.8 with a moderately distant subject, everything will be in focus except the ground near your feet. Rather than looking like shallow DOF, it looks like the lens is soft at the bottom. Very unattractive. However, shallow DOF can still work when you have the subject close enough to throw the background out of focus.

4) When possible, use up close at a dramatic angle. This clearly shows the effect of the lens and delivers a good, forced perspective view. Of course, this might not apply to landscapes and establishing shots.

5) Along with rule #1, use a dolly/jib/crane/Steadicam to move through space, rather than to pan. When you pan, the edges and middle compress and expand, looking like a lens thing. When you move through space, you see the perspective of the world change, which looks dramatic, rather than like an optical artifact.

6) Put the lens in the upper corner of the room for a security camera look. (Or avoid this if you don't want to channel "security camera.)

Applying those rules, I get some of my favorite shots with the 21/2.8. Ignore the rules, and I get shots that don't work so well. Many of the rules apply to ultra-wide end as well.

For instance, when shooting a light crowd in front of a large building or stadium, stop down the lens and put the camera low on the ground (rather than at tripod height - and yes, get it perfectly level.) I've done slow-shutter timelapses like this and the results rock! The same shot at eye height, wide open, just wouldn't capture the same energy. And if the camera is tilted or poorly centered on a symmetrical building, the eye will be drawn to the imperfections.

Ultrawides are a blast, but they are demanding. Put one in the hands of a photographer who leaves it in auto and stands there looking though the viewfinder and the results will likely be dull or poor. Give it to a photographer with expertise and creativity, and the results can be truly stunning and unique.

[Nigel Barker]

The lack of IS on the 16-35mm doesn't bother me one bit. I quite often shoot handheld at 16mm & at most it needs a bit of stabilisation in post but with the lens that wide you don't see any shakes. I mostly use this lens on my Glidecam & Steadicam Pilot. I also have the 24-105mm if I do need a lens with IS on the 5D3 but on the C300 I would be using the 17-55mm F/2.8 EF-S.

[Paul Cronin]

Jon those are excellent points to always keep in mind using wide and ultra wide. I am always very low with my 14mm. As for dolly or pan I only use it for stills on the MKIII but will keep all of your points in mind when I might use it on the C300 which is not often.

Nigel I bet the 16-35 is great for video but for wide on my C300 I use the EF 17-55 which is a very nice combo.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I shot a video a bit ago with 35mm, 85mm and 100mm (macro) lenses, and used the 21mm for a single b-roll shot. I wanted a "fear" moment, so I went to the local firehouse and asked to get footage of the ambulance rolling out of the garage. I set the tripod as low as it would go and got close to their path. In this case, I panned, but it was tracking the ambulance so it was okay. It worked great, and a wider lens than the 21mm would have been even better.

For the overall effect, I started in color and faded to black and white as I mixed in a newsprint effect and slowed the footage. The results was a classic "doom" shot that I couldn't have delivered with a tighter lens.

The rest of the piece was a technical documentary that required a more straightforward approach. The 21mm would have been wrong for every other shot. But for that one clip, an ultrawide was exactly what was needed.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Nigel I bet the 16-35 is great for video but for wide on my C300 I use the EF 17-55 which is a very nice combo.

The 17-55mm F/2.8 EF-S is the lens that is on my C300 all the time. Just about the only other lens that I use on it is the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II which I would use all the time if I could stand far enough back:-)

[Steve Slattery]

Another vote for the 16-35mm for a wide lens. Does roll off as stated at the 16mm end but a great quality lens. The thumbnail on this video was at 16mm and the flying at around 21mm.

Nicki & John - An Ashridge House Wedding on Vimeo

Steve

[Arthur Abramov]

Thanks i got the sigma 12-20 4.5-5.6,

Great stuff! here some footage i've taken

Winter 2013 Middle-East on Vimeo

[Justin Carlson]

I mainly use my 24-105 as my wide angle as I like the way the IS handles when I'm going hand-held at 24mm, it feels natural without to much wobble. Anything more than 24mm though and I'm not a fan of the distortion.

I use my 14mm as well but only on the rare occasion when I'm on a tripod and I can position the lens to minimize the distortion. Other than that, I don't find a need to go wider that 24mm as in most cases I'm actually wanting to get tighter and shoot more macro.

[Soumendra Jena]

I use 24-70mm f2.8 with my 5D3 for video and photo both. Its awesome.

You may go for 16-35mm f2.8 or 17-40mm f4

[Luis de la Cerda]

I use the world famous Nikon 14-24 2.8 with a fotodiox adapter. A fantastic lens! Only downside is losing autofocus and electronics.

[Andreas Schmidt]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Really? Isn't the 17-40 an EF (not EF-S) lens? I believe that it works on Full Frame, which is larger than APS-H.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Review

Of course, it won't be as wide on APS-H. 17mm becomes 22mm or so.

You are right, the 17-40 4.0 works just great on the 5D M3.

[Evan Bourcier]

Today is thread resurrection day apparently...

Just thought I'd throw in that there's the Rokinon Cine 14mm for anyone interested.