Wide Angle lens suggestions

[TL88]

Im back and with more knowledge than last time I was here :)

Im really loving my landscapes but finding the 15-85mm lacks sharpness and scope for the wider shots so im wanting to invest in a wide angle lens but which one?

I would LOVE to get my hands on the Canon 11-24!! But I just dont have $3000.

My question is what is my next best alternative?

The new Tokina 11-20mm has been suggested to me but I want to do my research before buying.

Its for a 7D

[arthurking83]

Canon 11-24 would be 'wasted' on a crop sensor!
Of course it'd work, but you lose the entire reason to use such a lens on only a crop sensor.

If you want ultra wide(and rectilinear) on a crop sensor .. try Sigma's 8-16mm lens.
It's hard to get filters on it(but doable) and gives a 12mm full frame equivalent FOV.

For the price tho, I don't thing anything beats the Sigma 10-20(f4-5.6 tho!). New they can be had for about $400-500 or so.
I've had mine since day dot('06) .. and wouldn't be without it when shooting on a crop sensor.

After I got a full frame camera, I still used it for a year or so till I eventually decided on the Sigma 12-24(you just can't beat ultra ultra wide! :D).
For the money they retail for(~$800) it's a good lens. Not a great lens in the sense that the Canon 11-24 is, as the edges need a lot of aperture to give decent results if you're really picky!
But I don't shoot landscapes to view images at 100% zoom view or to crop and only to capture an entire image.
When viewed in this manner the loss of sharpness at the far edges is meaningless.
But central sharpness is immensely high!

So(ie. summary) .. if you have any inkling to get yerself a full frame camera one day, the Sigma 12-24 could be a good option.
On an APS-C camera the edges don't even come into it as they're cropped out of the frame, 12mm isn't as wide as the numbers indicate, but still wide.
but having this lens now, and if you switch to full frame later .. you're good to go and then the wide nature of the Sigma will make your head spin!

.. oh and you'd have to watch your feet and/or tripod feet getting in the frame :p

[ameerat42]

I don't know about the Tokina. Certainly do some research on it.

AK has given you a pretty good summary for the three Σ wides.
From what I know, the older Σ 10-20 f4 - 5.6 IS the one to get rather than the later f/3.5.
I have the Σ 8-16, and it is quite sharp all over.

But these are ULTRA-wides, and being rectilinear in output, they come with the cost of some distortion.
You have to use them judiciously, and not get people too far from the centre of the field of view. The
distortion is that objects stretch as you get further away from the centre of the lens. Mostly, it is not a
problem, but with people and other know shapes it can be.

Anyway, the Σ8-18 and the 10-20s are for crop sensor cameras, while the Σ12-24 also covers full frame.

[William W]

Have a close look at: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

***


. . . Im really loving my landscapes but finding the 15-85mm lacks sharpness

Assuming - that you're pulling the shots around F/8; using a suitable shutter speed to arrest Subject Movement; using a tripod; using a remote release; employing 'mirror up'; having IS 'off' . . .

Are you absolutely certain that the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens - 'lacks sharpness'?

WW

[Hamster]

Not sure what your budget is, but you could also consider the Canon 10-18 (I believe it often gets better IQ reviews than the 10-22 and is cheaper, but you'd need to check that one out as I may be mistaken)

As William W suggested, make sure you're absolutely sure you cannot cure the lack of sharpness in your current lens with better technique and understanding its sweet spot. Otherwise you could end up with similar issues with a new lens.

[ameerat42]

...

As William W suggested, make sure you're absolutely sure you cannot cure the lack of sharpness in your current lens with better technique and understanding its sweet spot...

^This bit, yes, I was surprised to read in one of the reviews that the reviewer considered this lens to be [fairly modest in its IQ].
(Ie, the idea I got.)

[xaiya]

I have no complaints about my Tokina 17-35 f4 purchased new for about $500 it has an 82mm thread so can use filters too. It's not for crops though.
Although I would love to test the sigma 10-20 to compare!

[arthurking83]

I've used the 'old' :confused: Tokina 11-16/2.8 and compared it briefly to my Sigma 10-20.
The faster aperture of the Tokina would have been handy to have, as it allowed 1 stop more at the wide end and 2 stops more at the longer end of the focal length range.
This could be handy in low light situations .. eg. music performances or whatever .. but my primary use for the Sigma was landscapey stuff. About 99.9%.
Very rarely (0.1%) I may have used it indoors at a gathering of some type, and then usually at more like 14-17mm(where the aperture closes down a fair amount).

So I can see the value in having the wider aperture value for faster shutter speeds(if ever required).

Otherwise, there was really no advantage in having the Tokina 11-16 over the Sigma 10-20 back then. I thought about it tho, and luckily I had the chance to try one for a few hours back then to assure myself that it wasn't worth the expense. That money went onto other gear :th3:

Anyhow, the point of the above is to be sure of your usage patterns with the lens you do decide on.

If 12mm is wide enough for 'ya, I'd say get the Sigma 12-24. The crop sensor will primarily use the better portion of that lens's FOV.
Advantage is that it's full frame ready for when you are :p

If Landscapes are your primary concern, I'd say get the Sigma 10-20(4-5.6 .. not the f/3.5 version).

If you do the occasional wide aspect, big-family shots routines at late night family parties ... under dubious lighting conditions(as everyone in your family depends on you as the photographer .. and you really want high quality images) .. get the faster Tokina(11-16 or 11-20mm). The aperture will be an advantage.

People often reiterate the same nonsense about the use of polarisers on ultra wide lenses .. and I can tell 'ya it's garbage.
I've used 10mm (15mm FOV equiv) and polarisers basically the entire time I've used the Sigma 10-20mm and usually fairly effectively.
Yes! .... you do need to watch out for strange quarter blue skies in specific situations but it's not a reason not to contemplate the use of filters on an UWA lens.
So keep that in mind too.

work out your usage .. helps decide which lens is the best way to go.

[ameerat42]

...It's not for crops though...

Xaiya. What does this mean? You are giving advice. This bit's not clear.

- - - Updated - - -


...
If you do the occasional wide aspect, big-family shots routines at late night family parties ...
under dubious lighting conditions(as everyone in your family depends on you as the photographer ..
and you really want high quality images)...

...then remember this...


...
But these are ULTRA-wides, and being rectilinear in output, they come with the cost of some distortion.
You have to use them judiciously, and not get people too far from the centre of the field of view. The
distortion is that objects stretch as you get further away from the centre of the lens. Mostly, it is not a
problem, but with people and other known shapes it can be.
...

[arthurking83]

That's why I generally used about 14-17mm on my Siggy.
At least it distorted less at that range, than at the 10mm setting.
Of course it's always preferable to shoot with a longer focal length(the Tammy 28-75 was always a fave of mine) but when you're limited with space and you have to get everyone in the shot sometimes there's no other way around it.

[William W]

. . . you could also consider the Canon 10-18 (I believe it often gets better IQ reviews than the 10-22 and is cheaper, but you'd need to check that one out as I may be mistaken) . . .

Good to look at both those Canon lenses, I agree.

I have used both: the 10 to 22 extensively -the 10 to 18 only a 30~60 minute play, but my experience was the 10 to 22 has overall (combined all factors) better IQ and generally better flare resistance, but for 'landscapes at F/8' I think you'd be pixel peeping in the corners to see a difference.

Some other (main) differences (probably for general photography) you might consider are:

> The 10 to 18 has IS
> The 10 to 18 is less expensive
> The 10 to 18 has seven blades (10 to 22 has 6 - even number of blades is attractive to some Photographers)
> The 10 to 18 has slower maximum apertures across the Zoom Compass
> The 10 to 18 only goes to FL = 18mm
> The 10 to 18 feels "less robust' and is lighter and smaller, and (for me) not as well balanced for hand holding on a 7D/7DMkII, especially if using a battery grip

The conclusion and the contrasts and comparison between the 10 to 18 and 10 to 22 HERE (see the end of the review for the C/C (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-18mm-f-4.5-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx)) of the two lenses is pretty much my experience of the two lenses.

WW

[ameerat42]

I read elsewhere about a program (Free) called ShiftN.

It is designed to correct some of the unwanted features that are produced
by WIDE angle lenses. Thought I'd mention it here for now.

NOTE: I haven't tried it yet!!

There are Windows and Mac versions, and here's the link:

http://download.cnet.com/ShiftN/3000-12511_4-10575063.html