Superwide Zoom
Jun 27, 2018 07:50:12 #
I am a Canon guy with a 5D4 and 7D2 bodies and 24-70 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100-400 f/4L, 10-18 and Sigma 18-300.
I am looking for an ultrawide zoom for the full framer. I had an evaluation loan of the 12-24 f/2.8L and loved it, except for the weight and (a little) for the price.
Any suggestions for top quality ultrawide zooms? I would like it to be as light as possible and budget isn't a primary issue. I've looked at all the Canons and Sigma lenses and the good, fast ones are all about 30+ ounces (duh)
I am looking for an ultrawide zoom for the full framer. I had an evaluation loan of the 12-24 f/2.8L and loved it, except for the weight and (a little) for the price.
Any suggestions for top quality ultrawide zooms? I would like it to be as light as possible and budget isn't a primary issue. I've looked at all the Canons and Sigma lenses and the good, fast ones are all about 30+ ounces (duh)
Jun 27, 2018 08:14:52 #
Tokina 16-28 f2.8 or Tamron 15-30 f2.8. Just take a look at them and see if that is what you want.
Jun 27, 2018 08:32:51 #
If 16mm is wide enough on the “short” end, either the Canon EF 16-35 f4L (lighter and less expensive) or the EF 16-35 f2.8L (a stop faster, but heavier and more expensive) are excellent choices. I have and like the Canon EF 17-40 f4L, which is an older design but works quite well for me and is the least expensive of the lot. There is currently one just posted in the for sale section of UHH for $375 I believe.
Jun 27, 2018 08:34:25 #
johntaylor333 wrote:
I am a Canon guy with a 5D4 and 7D2 bodies and 24-... (show quote)
What are you using it for?
Jun 27, 2018 08:58:26 #
Mainly travel, particularly city shots where you are too close to a building, etc. to use a longer lens
Jun 27, 2018 09:10:47 #
johntaylor333 wrote:
I am a Canon guy with a 5D4 and 7D2 bodies and 24-... (show quote)
...some people prefer the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III...but have you also considered going prime with the Sigma prime art lens 14mm F1.8 DG HSM | Art... especially if you are considering doing night sky...?
Jun 27, 2018 10:41:41 #
The 16-35 f/4L IS is a wonderful lens. I found the IS makes the lens more useful than the older 17-40L. I haven't used the 12-24L nor anything wider than 16mm.
Jun 27, 2018 11:13:30 #
I really like the 16-35 F4 with the 5D mk iv. I also liked it on my 6D. It is by far my most used lens because of its light weight and amazingly high quality. I find it really good for travel, as it is wide enough for interiors of churches, mosques, temples. The IS in it helps in shooting in really low light (I know some will say it is useless here) when you can't use a tripod or flash. It is also light enough to hike with. I also have the 16-35 2.8 III lens, which I use for astrophotography, but it is a lot heavier, way more expensive, and while very, very sharp, not enough so that I would travel with it instead of the f4 unless I was specifically going to be shooting dark night skies.
Jun 27, 2018 19:39:47 #
Canon's EF 8-15mm f/4L IS USM fisheye zoom is vying for the first spot on my wish list. If it ever shows up as 'in stock' on Canon's refurbished lenses list...
Meanwhile, a refurbished Sigma 8MM f3.5 DG HSM Fisheye handles all calls that suggest something wider than the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM is wanted.
Meanwhile, a refurbished Sigma 8MM f3.5 DG HSM Fisheye handles all calls that suggest something wider than the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM is wanted.
Jun 27, 2018 20:33:39 #
Strodav
Loc: Houston, Tx
Another vote for the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8. A very nice lens, but a bit pricey at about $1000.
Jun 27, 2018 20:55:39 #
johntaylor333 wrote:
Mainly travel, particularly city shots where you are too close to a building, etc. to use a longer lens
The issue with really wide lenses is distortion. First there is keystoning, which isn't really distortion, but it does result in buildings that look like they are falling back, and verticals are converging heavily. There is also volume deformation at the edges - things become elongated and distorted. A perfect sphere becomes a cross between a football and an egg. And lastly, there is perspective extension - where things in the foreground become larger than life, and things in the background look like they are in the next State. This is very typical of really wide lenses, making them very special purpose lenses. I prefer to use a longer focal length and create stitched panoramas wherever possible. I also use Nikon's PC-E lenses when shooting buildings and other subjects which require some degree of rectillinearity.
I do have a 14-24mm F2.8 which I use occaisonally, but it is by far, the least used lens in my collection of lenses.
Jun 28, 2018 07:58:12 #
johntaylor333 wrote:
I am a Canon guy with a 5D4 and 7D2 bodies and 24-... (show quote)
It seems to me that you already have a good ultra-wide in your 10-18 for your crop camera, I would suggest that you look at the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, it is reasonably priced and has excellent image quality, I would also consider the new Sigma Art 14-24, very wide on your 5D but I am afraid that it will be heavy so it does not meet your requirements sadly.
One thing that I will point out to you is that if you ever want to consider using filters such as an ND to erase moving objects or to create a silky water scene the Canon will accept 77mm filters where many of the other ultra wides because of the bubble face need super large filter attachments that are quite costly.
Jun 28, 2018 08:27:03 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
johntaylor333 wrote:
I am a Canon guy with a 5D4 and 7D2 bodies and 24-... (show quote)
Lite weight and super zooms do not play well together. Yes, their are many, many, third party lite super zooms. But you also mentioned budget was not an issue, so why would you waste your money on lite third party super zooms that will not come close to the quality of the Canon 12-24 (by the way is that for a full frame Canon?) Not up on Canon lenses. One of the best super zooms on the market is the Nikon 14-24 mm 2.8. I believe Canon makes a similar one but again I'm not up on Canon. You mention you liked the 12-24 f2.8L (is that full frame) except for the price, and the next thing you mention is that your budget is not a concern. Now I'm confused. You are all over the place except you want this super zoom to be lite. I can tell you that if you want a QUALITY superwide zoom, it ain't goin to be lite. Unless of course their is a mirrorless superzoom out their somewhere but you'll have to go to an adapter which will kill the wide part of the super zoom so that ain't goin to work either. Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
Jun 28, 2018 09:20:02 #
kdogg
Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV
Check out the Tokina 11-16mmF2.8 a very nice lens for the price. Got one off ebay for less then $250.00.
Jun 28, 2018 11:58:55 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The 16-35 f/4L IS is a wonderful lens. I found the IS makes the lens more useful than the older 17-40L. I haven't used the 12-24L nor anything wider than 16mm.
I agree with CHG. You probably don't need an f/2.8 lens for landscapes but if you plan to do night photography of stars or star trails, then invest in the f/2.8 lenses. If not, then I'd probably go for the 17-40 which I've read is very sharp and has a great price point. The 10-18 lens you mentioned (the OP) will not work on a full frame body. That is an EF-s lens made for crop sensor Canon bodies. I don't know about the Sigma 18-300 lens. They usually have a designation in the model number that will tell you if they are compatible with full frame or crop sensor bodies. My guess is that it's designed for the APS-C body.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.