Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wide Angle Lenses  
User currently offlineVirgin8 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

Hi

I'm looking to buy a good quality wide angle lens,does anybody have any ideas as to which one I should go for.

I have a canon 20D

Thanks in advance.

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVivwatts From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3438 times:

I'd say go for the Canon EF-S 10-22mm or the Sigma 10-20mm. The Sigma is considerably cheaper and gives great results. The problem with the Canon is that it'll only work on 20D, 350D and 30D. If you plan to go full-frame one day, the EF-S will not work (I think). Also, with full-frame one probably wants a 16-35mm so then just go for that now. 16mm is pretty wide even on a 20D.
VW



Canon 20D; 50mm f/1.8 II; 17-40mm f/4 L; 70-200 f/4 L; 1.4x II Extender
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3438 times:

EF-S 10-22mm. Think its Paul Robbins has some great shots on here with that lens. Search it in the remarks field to see what you find.

Regards
Colin  Smile


User currently offlineGVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3429 times:

I have heard nothing but good comments on the EF-S 10-22. Also, you might have a look at the new EF-S 17-55 2.8...

Personally I'm looking for a wide-angle as well, but one that can be used on a film and FF digital body, so it crosses out the EF-S lenses. I'm stuck between the 16-35L and 17-40L... It's mainly for non-aviation photography and yes, I make good use of f/2.8. The only thing that's holding me off is the rather mixed reviews on the 16-35. Anyone here who actually uses/used the 16-35?

Giovanni


User currently offlineHighguy76 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

I've used the 16-35 on first my 300D and then my 5D for over a year now with spectacular results. Mostly landscape shots, but also good for full airport views (such as the morning line up at Terminal 2 at MAN.)
It can be a bit soft at either extreme, and I've heard others say that their versions are not always sharp. I must have got a good copy. When I put a specialized wide angle circular polarizer on it, I get some amazing colors in the sky.
The 2.8 is also great for low light indoors, especially on the 5D.
I will try to find a few examples to post.
Highguy76


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3388 times:

The Tokina 12-24mm is really good as well. Constant F/4. The latest issue of Popular Photography magazine has an in depth comparison of a few wide angle lenses, check it out, this lens is included and had very high marks.

User currently offlineDreamflight From Belgium, joined Jan 2005, 153 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3360 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 5):
The Tokina 12-24mm is really good as well. Constant F/4. The latest issue of Popular Photography magazine has an in depth comparison of a few wide angle lenses, check it out, this lens is included and had very high marks.

I agree with this comment. In a short time this one will be part of my equipment  veryhappy  .

Rgds,



I feel the need for airspeed
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Quoting Vivwatts (Reply 1):
the Sigma 10-20mm. The Sigma is considerably cheaper and gives great results. The problem with the Canon is that it'll only work on 20D, 350D and 30D. If you plan to go full-frame one day, the EF-S will not work (I think).

The Sigma 10-20 is a DC lens meaning it will only fit a APS/c camera but is not like the Canon counterpart limited to 300, 350 and 20D.
The Sigma 12-24 is the only full frame lens in this segment.

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineRG828 From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 582 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3346 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 3):
The only thing that's holding me off is the rather mixed reviews on the 16-35.

Dont believe everything you hear, people that have high praise for the 17-40 and give the 16-35 a bad rap have probably never tried the latter. Its a superb lens!

Some samples taken with it:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos A. Morillo Doria
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos A. Morillo Doria



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos A. Morillo Doria
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos A. Morillo Doria



Its a keeper, trust me!



I dont know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone
User currently offlineGVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3340 times:

Thanks for the info guys.

Some great shots you've got there Carlos!

Think I'm going to take the plunge and order a 16-35 and a nice 85mm prime  Wink.

Gio


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12464 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3330 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would recommend the Nikkor 10.5mm DX lens  wink :

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley




Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 9):
Think I'm going to take the plunge and order a 16-35

Did you read this review Giovanni ?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
It seems that the 17-40 is just the better lens in many aspects and about half the price.
Personally I have only experience with the 16-35 predecessor the 17-35/2.8L and did not like it a single bit as soon as I swapped from Analog to Digital.
Having said that I do know the 16-35 has improved a lot.

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineGVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

I know about the review (and all the other ones as well  Smile) Willem; I've been speculating about what lens to get for over a year now. Photozone on the other hand rates the 16-35 as slightly superior. I guess it all boils down to sample-to-sample variation. My dealer reassured me that 16-35 lemons (one in ten!) are a thing of the past; on the internet, there's also the rumour that lenses produced since August last year are of better quality. Strange enough, my CPS-representative doesn't seem to know about any bad QC on this lens.  Wink

With getting my 20D last year, now it's about time to get a WA. I would settle with the 17-40 if I wouldn't need (and use) f/2.8 so often. I've read on numerous occasions that the 16-35, and the 17-40 as well, outperform the Canon primes in this range, so I think I'll go with the versatility and high-speed of the 16-35. But then again, the lower price on the 17-40 would allow me to get a 135L instead of the 85 I'm looking at now.  spin 

Bottom line is that most people think a WA zoom will (and should) be comparable in optical quality to a 70/80-200 f/2.8 telezoom. But I don't think that's achievable...

Giovanni


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3279 times:

G'day Giovanni
Before laying down the cash for the 16-35 i'd be taking a long hard look at the actual lens i am buying.
Having used and then onsold a 16-35/2.8 its qualioty is pretty inconsistent.
Some copies amazing others very poor.
APparantly the QC of the lenses made after mar 2005 have improved quite a bit so check the build date on the lens you are purchasing.
Here is how to determine build date if you dont know.
The first letter, "U", indicates that the lens was made in Canon's Utsunomiya, Japan factory. Prior to 1986, this letter is moved to the last position of the date code.

U = Utsunomiya, Japan
F = Fukushima, Japan
O = Oita, Japan

The second letter, "R", is a year code that indicates the year of manufacture. Canon increments this letter each year starting with A in 1986 and prior to that, A in 1960 without the leading factory code. Here is a table to make things simple:

A = 1986, 1960
B = 1987, 1961
C = 1988, 1962
D = 1989, 1963
E = 1990, 1964
F = 1991, 1965
G = 1992, 1966
H = 1993, 1967
I = 1994, 1968
J = 1995, 1969
K = 1996, 1970
L = 1997, 1972
M = 1998, 1973
N = 1999, 1974
O = 2000, 1975
P = 2001, 1976
Q = 2002, 1977
R = 2003, 1978
S = 2004, 1979
T = 2005, 1980
U = 2006, 1981
V = 2007, 1982
W = 2008, 1983
X = 2009, 1984
Y = 2010, 1985
Z = 2011, 1986

* assumption of continuation being made for future years.

The first two numbers, "09", is the month number the lens was manufactured in. Month 02 is February, month 11 = November. The leading zero of the month code is sometimes omitted.

The next two numbers, "02", are meaningless in determining how old a Canon lens is. This is a Canon internal code (that is occasionally omitted).

You now know the manufacture date for your lens - But - You cannot know how long the lens was in inventory, in shipping transit and on a shelf until it was originally purchased (without having the original receipt or a reputable person accurately informing you).

The Canon lens date code in the sample picture indicates that this Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L Lens (I know because I took the picture - not from the date code) was made in Utsunomiya, Japan in September 2003.

The 17-40 seems to have much more consistent quality but no F2.8
The good copies of the 16-35 from shots around the net are outstanding but just make sure you do some solid looking at the lens you will buy before parting with cash.
The 10-22 is an excellent lens giving excellent results if you dont need the 2.8.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Howie


Cheers
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineGVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3250 times:

Thanks Darren,
I know about the manufacturing codes. I'm looking for a UT08 and higher or ideally an UU 16-35. I'll do some testing on the lens and if it fails to impress, I'll return it or send it to CPS...

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 13):
The 10-22 is an excellent lens giving excellent results if you dont need the 2.8.

Yes, that's what I've read/seen of it as well. I just don't want to get an EF-S as I'm planning on using the lens on my Eos film bodies.

Giovanni


User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

Ever thought of the 14mm 2.8F L prime? I bought it some 4 weeks ago - only thing I can say is: Awesome! Dont have any pics sofar on A.net as I am not uploading right now ... , but believe me .... , its really a cracker ...

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

Quoting Rotate (Reply 15):
I am not uploading right now

Robin how long have you banned yourself for ?
Looking forward to seeing you back uploading.
If you want a cracker of a lens i think the 17-40 L f4 is one of the best out there.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3222 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 16):
Robin how long have you banned yourself for ?

I think I will stop at least for a month or so ... , I want to find the fun again, shooting for me rather than for A.net. Things have changed the recent months, with me taking rejects personally and so I decided to bann myself for some time ... Hope to get the best out of it again: I am going to be in MUC, NCE and FRA the next weeks, so plenty of chances there.

cheerio

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineGVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

Thanks all for the suggestions.

Robin, the 14mm would be nice, but I like the versatility of a zoom. It's also a lot more expensive. But I'd love to see some of your 14mm shots here on A.net.  Smile

Giovanni


User currently offlineDRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3185 times:

EF 10-22mm is a great lens!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nick de Jonge


and

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nick de Jonge



cheers
Nick



cheers
User currently offlineChrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2092 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3156 times:

Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 3):
Anyone here who actually uses/used the 16-35?

I have one, and it's by far the best short lens I've used. I've never experienced soft pictures other than a handfull out of focus ones where the camera grabs something else. The lens does have a tendancy to wrap a little bit on the outer edges of the frame (almost a fisheye effect), but it's not really that big of a deal unless you completely fill the frame at 16mm. I've also dropped my lens onto a concrete curb, and the jammed the filter on--but it's still giving me sharp images. I use it on a Mk2n.

I've used a 17-40 as well, though I need the constant 2.8. If you want some samples, send me a message with your e-mail. I'll reply with some pix.

I'm looking into that 14 f/2.8 as well.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Advice Needed On Wide Angle Lenses For Canon Dslr posted Mon Sep 29 2003 18:21:17 by FL350
Wide Angle Lenses And "badcameraangle" posted Mon Oct 7 2002 17:40:14 by Clickhappy
What Wide Angle/standard Zoom Lenses Do You Use? posted Sat Feb 18 2006 23:03:44 by LGW
Wide Angle Lens Question! posted Mon Jul 31 2006 11:48:18 by Halcyon
S1 Is Users, What Wide Angle Converter To Get? posted Fri Apr 15 2005 07:51:27 by LHB727230Adv
Wide-angle = Badlevel? posted Sun Feb 20 2005 18:25:37 by AirbusfanYYZ
Super Wide Angle. Sigma 12-24 posted Sat Dec 4 2004 22:14:19 by Aviopic
In Search Of A Good Wide Angle Zoom! posted Wed Nov 24 2004 07:43:41 by Tu154m
Choosing A Wide Angle Lens - Some Links... posted Sun Nov 14 2004 14:53:02 by Maiznblu_757
Wide Angle Vs. Mega Wide Angle posted Wed Aug 4 2004 23:20:02 by Clickhappy