Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Wide angle lens
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Oct 1, 2017 14:58:25   #
MT Shooter Loc: Montana
 
imagemeister wrote:
LOL


Its always amazing when the Canon fanboys refuse to believe or even admit that third party crop sensor lenses mount and work on Canon FF bodies, albeit within certain limitations. Some just cannot read whats clearly printed in front of their faces because it doesn't come directly from their Canon deity.

Reply
Oct 1, 2017 15:18:11   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
MT Shooter wrote:
Its always amazing when the Canon fanboys refuse to believe or even admit that third party crop sensor lenses mount and work on Canon FF bodies, albeit within certain limitations. Some just cannot read whats clearly printed in front of their faces because it doesn't come directly from their Canon deity.


Yes, and some Nikon fanboiz that pretend to be professionals and pretend to give objective advice can't do that either. As such they only diminish their own credibility.

So perhaps you can now return to a professional level of communication assessing different vendors' products in an objective manner.

Reply
Oct 1, 2017 15:47:05   #
Bob Boner
 
I like the Canon 24--70 f/2.8 II lens. It seems to be very good. I always have it with me. Highly recommend it.

Reply
 
 
Oct 1, 2017 16:25:29   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
MT Shooter wrote:
Its always amazing when the Canon fanboys refuse to believe or even admit that third party crop sensor lenses mount and work on Canon FF bodies, albeit within certain limitations. Some just cannot read whats clearly printed in front of their faces because it doesn't come directly from their Canon deity.


One of those “limitations” apparently being undesirable/unacceptable vignetting at the corners at some FLs.

Reply
Oct 1, 2017 17:02:29   #
Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina
 
The Total Depth of Field of a 24mm lens shot at 10 feet is 6.1 feet on a 1.6x crop body. At 24mm on a 1.8 lens at 10 feet it is only 3.6 feet. I think the thing to watch out for is distortion with a really wide lens unless that is what the OP is looking to achieve.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

Reply
Oct 1, 2017 17:40:07   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
Notorious T.O.D. wrote:
The Total Depth of Field of a 24mm lens shot at 10 feet is 6.1 feet on a 1.6x crop body. At 24mm on a 1.8 lens at 10 feet it is only 3.6 feet. I think the thing to watch out for is distortion with a really wide lens unless that is what the OP is looking to achieve.

Best,
Todd Ferguson



Reply
Oct 1, 2017 20:10:23   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
Notorious T.O.D. wrote:
The Total Depth of Field of a 24mm lens shot at 10 feet is 6.1 feet on a 1.6x crop body. At 24mm on a 1.8 lens at 10 feet it is only 3.6 feet. I think the thing to watch out for is distortion with a really wide lens unless that is what the OP is looking to achieve.

Best,
Todd Ferguson


I completely agree. That is why I suggested a 24 or 28mm (or even a 35 on a FF) as being plenty wide enough, and at f8, the DOF should be fine with either on a FF or crop.

Reply
 
 
Oct 3, 2017 17:45:22   #
Metpin777 Loc: Fort Wayne, IN
 
amfoto1 wrote:
With a wide angle lens, you don't need f/2.8... let along f/1.8. In most situations, a large aperture serves no purpose. Short focal lengths are relatively easy to hand hold steady at slower shutter speeds, so a big aperture is less necessary for that. Plus wide angle lenses have great depth of field, most people end up stopping them down for even more most of the time, and it simply isn't possible to blur down backgrounds very much. So there's little reason to want a large aperture lens for that reason, either. One exception is astrophography... folks shooting at night might want a larger aperture for a brighter viewfinder. Photojournalists may want one, too. In fact, very fast, wide lenses often have lower image quality than less extreme designs. Often they are less sharp at the corners and have more chromatic aberrations, coma or other anomalies.

All that said, the best priced wide angle for your camera is the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM that costs under $300. It's a bit plasticky, but for hundreds less than most lenses of this type, what do you expect? It's one of the most compact and lightweight (uses 67mm filters), got very good image quality considering the price and also one of the few with image stabilization (further enhancing it's hand-holdability, though IS probably isn't as important on a wide lens, as it is on a telephoto).

If you want a better built lens, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-5.6 USM sells for around $600 and has some of the best image quality of any ultrawide. It's a bit heavier and larger, but not bad (77mm filters). Note: neither of the Canon lenses come with lens hoods. Those are sold separately for about $20-$25. Highly recommended, though. While the lenses are pretty flare resistant on their own, the hoods make them even more so. The hoods also help protect the front element from bumps and are worth buying.

If you still want a faster lens, the only ultrawide with f/2.8 is the Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 DX. It's sharp and popular for astrophotography, costs about $500. Comes with the hood. Like most (all?) Tokina lenses, it uses a "focus clutch" mechanism where you shift the focus ring forward or backward to switch back and forth between manual and auto focus. Because of this arrangement, the Tokina don't have "full time manual" override, like the Canon do. The Tokina also rotate their focus and zoom rings the opposite direction from Canon (i.e., the same direction as Nikon). I use a Tokina lens and haven't found these things big deals, out in the real world. The 11-20mm is one of the larger and heavier UWA lenses.... uses 82mm filters.

Tokina also offers an excellent AT-X 12-28mm f/4 DX. It's a little smaller, lighter (77mm filters) and less expensive than the 11-20mm. Usually about $450, I see it's on sale at B&H right now for $250. That's a great deal!

Sigma offers a couple ultrawides. The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 DC has come way down in price, to about $450. It used to be one of the most expensive. It's also one of the heaviest and largest (82mm filters). There's also a Sigma 8-16mm DC, which is the widest of the wide angles... interesting lens, but it has a lot of wide angle distortion and cannot be fitted with standard filters (due to a protruding convex front element). Usually costs more than most at $600, too. Sigma 12-24mm DG can also serve as an ultrawide on your APS-C camera, but it's a more expensive, bigger full frame lens that would be largely wasted on a crop camera. $950, some wide angle distortion and can't be fitted with standard filters.

Finally, the Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-5.6 Di II VC has recently been redesigned and had stabilization added. I don't know how it compares but it costs about $500.

All the third party lenses come with matching lens hoods.

I use the Canon 10-22mm and consider it one of the very best from any manufacturer. I've also used earlier Tokina ultrawide models and found them excellent and "L-like" in build quality. When I tested earlier Sigma 10-20mm (variable aperture f/4-5.6 version) and Tamron 10-24mm (non-VC version), I was less impressed with them. But I've seen folks get very good shots with them.

Have fun shopping!
With a wide angle lens, you don't need f/2.8... le... (show quote)



Went with EF-S 18-22mm , got it today, thinking it will work fine, appreciate your opinion!

Reply
Oct 3, 2017 18:03:45   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
Metpin777 wrote:
but need a wider angle lens to have entire bike in pic, with Canon 80D ,want an EF lens, as planning to upgrade to full size sensor someday, does that help?


What happened to the full frame consideration ?? ......

Reply
Oct 3, 2017 19:08:03   #
rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA
 
Peterff wrote:
The OP has a Canon 80D, which is not a DX body. DX is a proprietary Nikon thing!


Oh whatever. On a CROP SENSOR body, the Sigma 18-35 will blow you away.

Obviously, I am a Nikonista, not a Cannonite.

Reply
Oct 3, 2017 20:14:53   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
Metpin777 wrote:
Went with EF-S 18-22mm , got it today, thinking it will work fine, appreciate your opinion!


EF-S 10-22

Reply
 
 
Oct 3, 2017 20:15:23   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
duplicate

Reply
Oct 3, 2017 22:29:55   #
Metpin777 Loc: Fort Wayne, IN
 
TriX wrote:
EF-S 10-22


Yes, thx for the correction

Reply
Oct 3, 2017 22:31:46   #
Metpin777 Loc: Fort Wayne, IN
 
imagemeister wrote:
What happened to the full frame consideration ?? ......


Simple cost, it'll work for now, EF was 3 times cost, still in my thoughts, thx

Reply
Oct 3, 2017 22:38:13   #
Metpin777 Loc: Fort Wayne, IN
 
imagemeister wrote:
What happened to the full frame consideration ?? ......


Just purchased the camera an 2 other EF lenses, need some more overtime , haha, Thank you

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.