Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 960 times:
Myself, I'm considering one of two offered by Sigma, either the 15-30 DG (which apparently has had pretty good reviews), or maybe the 17-35 EX. Haven't made up my mind yet - I'd appreciate the shorter length of the 15-30, but it is the more pricey of the 2, and because of the extreme wide angle, it won't accept front-mounted filters. Given the conversion factor of the D30, the choice between these two boils down to a consideration of whether I want a wide angle of 24mm or 28mm. I'm not prepared to pay more than this amount for genuine Canon glass, because whatever wide angle I buy will only get a very limited amount of use.
I'm thinking of splashing out on one or the other on my trip to New York next week, so if I do, I'll let you know what I think of it Gary!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 950 times:
I've got the 17-35mm Canon, but even this does not provide what I would call true wide angle coverage on the D30 ( for me the starting point is 24mm). Certainly I will be hanging on to my EOS 3 for wide angle use for the forseeable future. The new Sigma DX range looks interesting, and at some later date I'd be looking at the 14mm fixed focal length - but who knows what Canon may introduce in the next year?
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 948 times:
At 1.6x (for the digital) you'd want at most 20/1.6 = 12.5mm focal length. You're treading into ultrawides and fisheyes here, extremely expensive stuff. 15 will do to give you 24mm equivalent.
Those lenses cost, they cost a lot (certainly the good ones do, and the bad ones you won't use more then once or twice because you'll be disappointed. A mediocre tele can give reasonable results, a mediocre wideangle is useless).
Some prices (all in Euros including tax):
Sigma EX 2.8/14 HSM €1303
Sigma EX 2.8/15 Fisheys €664
Canon EF-L USM 2,8/14 CPS €2541
Canon EF 2,8/15 €945
those are your options yielding a focal length (equivalent) of 25mm or less at the lower end...
Best lens of the bunch is the Canon 14mm prime, worst choice the Sigma 15-30mm (slower, worse optical quality).
A good tradeoff between cost, quality and functionality would be the Sigma 14mm f/2.8. Of these, it's the only one I would really recommend. From my own experience I don't use 24mm (15mm for you) very much, it's either 20 or 35, then on to 70 or so.
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5550 posts, RR: 65 Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 913 times:
Thanks for the info so far.
I didn't think they would be so expensive. Taking this into account I am in no immediate rush. I might think of getting something before my next long haul journey. Not sure if it's worth getting something before an ABZ-LGW trip
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 864 times:
Gary - lucky b******
Thinking a bit about Jwenting's comments - which I agree with entirely with relation to film SLRs - I'm wondering if a different set of rules apply to DSLRs.
1 - Fristly, the reason we get a multiplier effect on a DSLR is that the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame. In effect, the sensor is only using the central portion of the image formed by the lens. Given that the problem with most wide-angles is edge definition and distortion towards the edge of the frame, it could be that faults which would condemn a lens in tests based on a 35mm frame might not even appear in a DSLR based shot - I can't think of any case of a lens not being better towards the center of the image than the edge
2 - Resolution - lens resolving power is a fixed, measurable qualtity ... film is more variable as the emulsion, processing, exposure all affect the ability to resolve fine detail. The DSLR sensor, however, has a known theoretical max resolution - still significantly less than the theoretical max of film. Hence a lens which does less well than others on a bench test may still be capable of providing as good an image as a DSLR can use.
Point is, all lenses are still tested and measured based on 35mm film use. These results may not be entirely useful in relation to the DSLR - it could be very worth while investigating some of the bargain models. It should be possible to go into any decent dealer with your camera and try some shots with top end and lesser lenses on a test target, pop home, check the results on the computer, and make your decision.
It would be interesting to see lens testing done both for the 35mm format and an arbitrary sensor format (say 1.5x).
Lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3557 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 864 times:
ckw: If you have access for the apron, wideangle is very useful. I was in a situation like that a month ago and it was very special because I went to shoot an Olympic 747 before it left the airport. I had a 28-135mm lens but in some shots I needed much less than 28mm. An example is the following photograph (which I hope that gets accepted). As you can see the aircraft couldn't fit in the frame and I didn't have the time to move that far away from the aircraft:
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 847 times:
Jwenting - I realise you took the multiplier effect into account in terms of focal length, but what I don't think you were considering (nor any other lens review I've read to date) is that a lenses optical performance will differ in terms of overall quality on 35mm and sub-35mm size digi sensors ... and, I believe for the better, simply because the sensor only records the centrally formed portion of the image and can't "see" the information towards the edge of the image (where all the really bad stuff hangs out).
In other words, edge definition/distortion which might make a wide angle unnaccetable on 35mm MIGHT not be a factor on a DSLR, simply because this part of the lens "output" is not recorded.