DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 10D and W-I-D-E angle lenses
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 30, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/22/2004 08:41:38 PM · #1
Since buying my EOS 10D, I find my 35-135 lens 'aint wide enough any more. I also have the shits with stepping back 5 paces to take a portait.

I have 2 lenses in my short list:

Canon EOS 17-40 "L" lens.
Sigma 12-24 Aspherical.
---any other suggestions?

Has anyone had any experiences with one, the other, or both?
04/22/2004 08:44:40 PM · #2
Originally posted by wimbello:

Since buying my EOS 10D, I find my 35-135 lens 'aint wide enough any more. I also have the shits with stepping back 5 paces to take a portait.

I have 2 lenses in my short list:

Canon EOS 17-40 "L" lens.
Sigma 12-24 Aspherical.
---any other suggestions?

Has anyone had any experiences with one, the other, or both?


Get the Canon 17-40mm f/4.0L Fantastic lens, Bargain price. Check the review:
//www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
04/22/2004 08:47:00 PM · #3
Ever used the Sigma?

I know that if i buy canon, (and pay well for it), i will get quality,

but just at the moment, waying up pros/cons.
04/22/2004 08:48:46 PM · #4
I use Sigma 24-135 F2.8-4.5 ,paid $ 311 ,very good lens but not as wide,16 or 17 mm would be very nice to have !
04/22/2004 08:54:14 PM · #5
you said something about portraits, why not get that 50mm lens canon makes for liek 80 bucks.
04/22/2004 08:57:09 PM · #6
The 17-40L, and the 12-24 are both awesome lenses. Quality is similar between the two. The (canon) 16-35L is also great, but alot more expensive.

You can check out ratings and user reviews on all of them over at
//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Message edited by author 2004-04-22 20:57:40.
04/22/2004 09:03:02 PM · #7
I got a Sigma 15mm f2.8 fish last week and have been really happy w/ the result. You can de-fish it in photoshop and end up w/ a wider angle of view than any of the listed lenses above and still have a flat image. If you are interested I'll post some samples.
04/22/2004 09:05:13 PM · #8
Originally posted by WebHorn:

I got a Sigma 15mm f2.8 fish last week and have been really happy w/ the result. You can de-fish it in photoshop and end up w/ a wider angle of view than any of the listed lenses above and still have a flat image. If you are interested I'll post some samples.


Yes, post the url. I like to see samples.
04/22/2004 09:09:07 PM · #9
I have the 12-24 Sigma amd I really like it. I considered the 17-40L, but it just was not wide enough on the wide end for me. I would suggest that you try them both out and buy the one you like best.

The 12-24 is not at its best wide open, but if you want that, get one of the L lenses and take a few steps back. Most of the WA stuff I shoot, I'm stopped down to the "sweet spot" on the lens anyway, and the Sigma is quite sharp there.

' . substr('//www.pbase.com/image/28020923.jpg', strrpos('//www.pbase.com/image/28020923.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

' . substr('//www.pbase.com/image/27318481.jpg', strrpos('//www.pbase.com/image/27318481.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Both of these are with the sigma @ 12mm the first one is @ 5.6, the second @f11

Message edited by author 2004-04-22 21:31:55.
04/22/2004 09:12:15 PM · #10
The 17-40 f/4L is an amazing piece of glass. At the edges this lens is generally sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8L which costs over twice as much. Sure it is not as wide as the Sigma, but I believe you will find it optically superior. It has my whole hearted reccomendation :)
04/22/2004 09:15:42 PM · #11
I bought the Sigma 12-24 and while I LOVE the ability to go down to 12mm, I was less than thrilled with the sharpness of the lens, both at 12mm and 24mm. I've owned a Zenitar 16mm fisheye for more than 5 years and I have to say that at $150, it's one of the best deals in photography. Yes, at 2.8 the Zenitar's performance is mediocre, but in my opinion, it equals the 12-24 at f/4.5 (it's fastest aperture) and costs $500 less.

I sent the 12-24 back and kept my Zenitar.

Just my 2 cents.
04/22/2004 09:18:09 PM · #12
I'd also recommend the Canon 17-40. I haven't shot the Sigma or the 16-35 but I'm sure you can get detailed and accurate descriptions from people who have both over at FredMiranda.com (where I like to check reviews before I buy -- by the way, when are we going to get a review section here).

I like the 17-40 but I tend to shoot much closer portraits than the 17-40 allows. I use it more for group work or architecture shots. You can see some of the portrait work I've done in either the PBase or OMP links in my signature below.

Kev

EDIT: by the way, the 17-40 tends to go for around $600 USD for a used on in the FredMiranda forums.

Message edited by author 2004-04-22 21:19:14.
04/22/2004 09:21:03 PM · #13
I already have a 35-135, which converts to 56-216.

At the moment, I don't think i need a Prime portrait lens, as my work will be more varied than that.

I need something in the lower range
04/22/2004 09:21:26 PM · #14
I have the Sigma 15-30mm EX. Seems to work real well. haven't had a chance to really paly with it. It gets good reviews too.
04/22/2004 09:31:28 PM · #15
Originally posted by Count:

The 17-40L, and the 12-24 are both awesome lenses. Quality is similar between the two. The (canon) 16-35L is also great, but alot more expensive.

You can check out ratings and user reviews on all of them over at
//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/


Count, Have you had exprerience in both lenses? any views?
04/22/2004 09:37:49 PM · #16
Originally posted by Jacko:

I have the Sigma 15-30mm EX. Seems to work real well. haven't had a chance to really paly with it. It gets good reviews too.


I've considered this lens, it seems like the perfect WA range for me. I'm just holding out for a 10mm or 12mm that's SHARP.
04/22/2004 10:09:06 PM · #17
I have to second the 15-30 Sigma. I use it to do Architectural and have no complaints at all. Seems plenty wide enough, too.
04/22/2004 10:49:41 PM · #18
At the moment, both lenses are looking damn good. Both are fairly similarly priced in the USA, (i live in Australia, i would import).

I checked out both lenses last night, and came across something odd, which the sales guy couldn't answer.

Both lenses are rated at a minimum 28cm focussing distance.

BUT: I was able to focus at 10 or 12 CM!!!

This occured on both lenses, at either 12/17 mm AND 24/40 mm.

Now, it's been 2 years since i've done ANYTHING related to camera/photography theory, and I've only had the digital since Jan.

can someone explain?
04/22/2004 10:52:02 PM · #19
Originally posted by wimbello:

At the moment, both lenses are looking damn good. Both are fairly similarly priced in the USA, (i live in Australia, i would import).

I checked out both lenses last night, and came across something odd, which the sales guy couldn't answer.

Both lenses are rated at a minimum 28cm focussing distance.

BUT: I was able to focus at 10 or 12 CM!!!

This occured on both lenses, at either 12/17 mm AND 24/40 mm.

Now, it's been 2 years since i've done ANYTHING related to camera/photography theory, and I've only had the digital since Jan.

can someone explain?


The minimum focus spec is normally measured from the sensor plane. You were very likely measuring the "working distance", which is from the front element.
04/22/2004 10:54:48 PM · #20
Originally posted by kirbic:

[quote=wimbello]

The minimum focus spec is normally measured from the sensor plane. You were very likely measuring the "working distance", which is from the front element.


Thanks,

explained. my bad.
04/22/2004 11:10:55 PM · #21
Vignetting on the Sigma 12-24:

Has anyone experienced vignetting on this lens at 19mm or above?
If on a film/full frame sensor DSLR, then at what length?

I would hate to get the beast and find I have vignetting when full open!
04/22/2004 11:17:38 PM · #22
Originally posted by wimbello:

Vignetting on the Sigma 12-24:

Has anyone experienced vignetting on this lens at 19mm or above?
If on a film/full frame sensor DSLR, then at what length?

I would hate to get the beast and find I have vignetting when full open!


I imagine, wim, you'll get vignetting, when you use the built-in flash + wide. Only way I can think of to avoid this, is to buy an external flash or not use it at all (or just for fill-flash on bright days).
04/22/2004 11:21:07 PM · #23
yeah, i try not to use the flash as it is, i find it drains colour.
does this happen to you?
but why would the addition of built-flash cause this? is just the way flashes light scenes?? wouldn't any flash do this, tho?
04/22/2004 11:28:02 PM · #24
Originally posted by wimbello:

yeah, i try not to use the flash as it is, i find it drains colour.
does this happen to you?
but why would the addition of built-flash cause this? is just the way flashes light scenes?? wouldn't any flash do this, tho?


You are correct. Any flash will likely do this. I don't think any flash will cover 12mm without some modification.

Aside from flash, there will also be a small amount of corner darkness due to the very wide angle. This is an optical characteristic of all WA lenses, and though it looks like vignetting, it is not the same thing. It is easily corrected in software.
04/23/2004 12:12:27 AM · #25
Originally posted by wimbello:

yeah, i try not to use the flash as it is, i find it drains colour.
does this happen to you?
but why would the addition of built-flash cause this? is just the way flashes light scenes?? wouldn't any flash do this, tho?


I was shooting a seascape tonight, which I have taken many times before. The light appeared the same or similar to the many other times I've taken this shot. When I viewed the images on the computer, however, there was considerably less definition between the varying tones. The shots, at first, seemed unsharp, which they were'nt, really.

When I compared it with other shots (same day, same roll) taken from a slightly different angle - these were fine.

Light's a fickle and complicated thing, at least to me. And it's never the same.

Flash, I guess, is always the same. It's also harsh and ugly in most situations. I use fill- flash on bright days sometimes (when the effect is subtle) and, occasionally, for an intended effect.

Message edited by author 2004-04-23 00:13:13.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/03/2020 03:36:07 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/03/2020 03:36:07 PM EDT.