| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2006 12:20:33 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by bruski:
I will be moving up to the full sensor camera and I currently use a 12-24 for my wide angle to make up for the 1.3 conversion factor. That is another reason I am leaning towards the 16-35 because the 12mm on the 1.3 is just wider than 16mm (15.6) and I know that 16mm is wide enough for what I am using the lens for. Money is no object and I know that Canon lenses are the best, I originally went with all my Sigma lenses because money was an issue and I wanted more lenses for the money. Now I need to upgrade to sharper lenses and I know that Canon is about as sharp as it gets. |
I must say, if you have the 12-24 Sigma, and you are upgrading to a full frame sensor, don't ditch the 12-24 until you have tried it full frame.
Since I don't have a full frame sensor I can't comment on how it performs with one, but I do have a 1.6 crop and the 12-24 works darn well with that. (maybe you have not been happy with yours?) For my thinking, to have a lens that wide on a FF would be a charge even if it did suffer a bit of softness in the corners.
The 12-24 is a big lens, admittedly, and heavy, prone to flare, and I have to stop mine down to f8-f11 to be 100 percent happy with the sharpness, but when I look at how wide it goes with so little distortion and think of sticking it on a full frame sensor--well, I'll just have to wait. I expect it'll be lots of fun.
Admittedly, though, I would love to have a good copy of the Sigma 14mm. If for no other reason but so I could see to focus manually. (can't see crap on my 300d with the 12-24).
For the best results, I believe the trick to all great superwide's is getting a good copy of the lens. Beyond that I honestly don't think brand name matters too much. For this reason, if I couldn't shoot with the very lens I was gonna buy before hand, I would be sure and purchase from a retailer with a good reputation for exchanges. There is no point in spending so much on a lens and not being entirely happy with the results. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 12:28:04 PM · #27 |
the 16 35 is sharper wide open, the 17 40 is not. but the the 17 40 is sharper in 40mm than the 16 35 on 35mm
|
|
|
|
11/20/2006 12:55:50 PM · #28 |
Just as an aside, in the OP Bruski said "I would probably never stop a lens this wide down to 2.8 anyway..."
That should be "open up", not "stop down"; f/22 would be stopped down, f/2.8 is wide open or opened up...
R. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 01:06:15 PM · #29 |
I have had both and frankly see no difference in day to day shots, have never taken pictures of newspapers or rulers though so I am just basing this on my eye and the photos both lenses produce. Anyway, had no beef with the 17-40 just sold it cause I wanted the 2.8 aperture and don´t regret it, use it quite often at 2.8.
Don´t know how much this helps though, all I can say is that I personally weren´t so anal about big apertures I would have stuck with the 17-40... |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 01:59:06 PM · #30 |
| I am not a Canon shooter, but I stumbled upon this article just a day ago, which you may find interesting: //nododo.home.comcast.net/ultrawide/ |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 02:01:31 PM · #31 |
Here ya go...
Canon 17-40 vs Canon 16-35
Edit to add: Oops! I see this link has already been posted earlier in this thread!
Message edited by author 2006-11-20 14:02:32. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 02:35:14 PM · #32 |
This website heavily rates the 17-40 over the 16-35.
//www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
Personally, I have no problems recommending the 16-35. It is lovely, and 2.8 is nice for shallow DoF imagery.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/10/2024 04:10:55 PM EDT.
