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

[Arthur Abramov]

Rokinon 14mm.
Sigma 12-24

which is good?

[Arthur Abramov]

which wide lens do you use?

need advice!

thanks

[Jon Fairhurst]

I use the EF 16-35/2.8L II, which I bought used. I haven't used the lenses you list.

Note that the Rokinon has very strong falloff, as is seen here (roll your mouse over to see the 16-35L II @ 16mm):
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Lens (Rokinon/Bower) Vignetting Test Results

It doesn't look nearly as sharp in the center as the 16-35L (again, roll over):
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Lens (Rokinon/Bower) Image Quality

But do you really want something as wide as 14mm? That's extremely wide. It's really only useful for special effects shots. It's almost a fisheye. This would be a great view for extreme sports, but would barely be used in narrative film.

For narrative on full frame, anything wider than 20mm is an effects shot. 24mm is about as wide as you want to go for a normal looking shot that captures a lot of space. 28mm has a bit less perspective distortion and is even easier to use for normal shooting. 35mm gets into the true normal range, but with a touch of wide lens attitude.

But for extreme sports, I think an ultrawide rocks - along with an 85mm lens for interviews and some very long lenses for capturing distant action. For narrative, however, 24 to 85mm is the sweet spot.

[Arthur Abramov]

I own a 24-70 L lens.
24 is not wide enough
I need just a very wide angle almost as a fish eye for the effect, i work shooting events and i need this king of lens. so samyang is rokinon?

[Trevor Dennis]

Other than the pricey Canon 14mm, there is...

Sigma 12-24mm which works with full frame. A nicely rectilinear (the world's widest according ken Rockwell). I ownd one for a short period when I first got my 1DsMK3, and found it unacceptably soft at frame edges and corners. Nothing to do with pixel peeping. It just wasn't sharp! The 5D2 & 3 would be in a similar position to the 1Ds3 I am thinking.

So I make do with the Canon 17-40mm f4 as my widest lens, but at least that is a fully sharp lens. Unfortunately I can't use it for DSLR video as I only have a 1DMK4 that will do video, and the 17-40mm will not work with APS-H.

So the 24-70mm f2.8L is the widest I can shoot video, but that is one of favourite lenses and VERY sharp.

I don't have personal experience with anything else, so won't offer an opinion.

[Robert Turchick]

There's Zeiss...
18mm or the king of wide...new 15mm f2.8 but it's almost as much as your 5D mk3!

I also use the 16-35 f2.8 which gives a bit of fisheye at 16 and is great through 35.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Yes, Samyang and Rokinon are the same lens with different brand names.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Trevor Dennis

the 17-40mm will not work with APS-H.

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.

[Trevor Dennis]

Jon

Not sure what I was thinking there, but yes of course it works with APS/H. I actually shot some video with it fully wide today without giving it a second thought! I think I was in in a "why are there no ultra wides for APSH?" mood when I wrote it. :-(

[Nigel Barker]

The 16-35mm doesn't really fisheye at the wide end but you do need to be aware that vertical lines like a doorway will fall away if they are close to the edge of the frame. Same with the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm which has a very decent image is great value & is really really wide. It is of course manual only but with a 14mm you don't need to do much focusing as pretty much everything is in focus. I have both lenses but generally use the 16-35mm as it allows me to quickly reframe at a more conventional wide angle & of course has AF.

[Paul Cronin]

In my opinion the Canon EF 14mm is cheap for what it offers. I purchased one a few weeks ago and could not be happier with the results.

[Nigel Barker]

The 14mm is a fantastic lens & I wish that I could justify one but it's a bit of a one trick pony plus it's not that much wider than the 16-35mm & costs 50% more. I compromised by buying the 16-35mm plus the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm & still had change from what the Canon 14mm would have cost me.

[Paul Cronin]

Nigel we all pick what works for us, nice to have options. I jump from the 14 mm prime to the 24-105 and have not felt that I lost anything. For me the 16-35 not having IS hurts my type of shooting, and it is a fantastic lens.
As for the Rokinon I do not like their look as much as I like the warm Canon lens.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Yeah, the Canon EF 14/2.8L II gives lines so straight, it's scary.

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Distortion Test Results

On that image, there is only the slightest barrel distortion at the top edge. This would be impressive for a 50mm lens. At 14mm, it's amazing. (Roll the mouse over to see the Rokinon/Samyang for comparison.)

Personally, I think the 14mm would be absolutely killer for ultrawide landscape photographs, and for extreme sports. In those situations, I'm going to crank the 16-35 full wide to 16mm without thinking, so you don't lose anything by using a prime over a zoom.

On the other hand, a zoom is the better narrative lens. For instance, when shooting in a car, phone booth, elevator, or some other tight space, you can pull the camera back as far as the space allows, then zoom in or out to give the best framing. This is ideal. You could never have enough primes to solve all tight-space problems as effectively. Besides, aside from a 24/1.4 lens, all ultrawide primes are f/2.8 anyway, so going to an f/2.8 zoom doesn't really cost you anything.

FWIW, here are links to compare vignetting and sharpness of the Canon and Rokinon/Samyang. The Canon 14 is really a sweet piece of glass.

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Vignetting Test Results

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Image Quality

[Paul Cronin]

Jon you always have great info.

I only use the 14mm in tight spots, landscape, or for extreme wide effects and it MUST be level. Which is nice that the MKIII has a digital level.

Would never use for narrative. For that I would pull out my 24-105 or 70-200 if needed.