Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wide Angled Advice  
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5575 posts, RR: 63
Posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

Never been on my shopping list before but looking into getting a wide angle lens for my D30.

Smallest I have at the moment is a Canon 28-105.

Anyone have any thoughts of what is currently on offer at the moment? I have to take into account the 1.6X multiplier of the D30.

Something that would give good views from cabin windows, and maybe to get part of the cabin window in as well like Vasco's pic:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia


Now that's a real nice picture Vasco  Smile

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland


14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

Weh Hay........Sensay (sp?) has returned !!! Big grin

User currently offlineHkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1099 times:

Gary, I think Canon has specially designed some zoom lenses for the D30 to take into account the 1.6x multiplier.

They have the 16-35mm and 17-35mm. Both are F2.8L. The former actually replaces the latter, I think.

If you don't mind a slightly wider angle, you could go for the 30-35mm F3.5-4.5.




See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
User currently offlineJetTrader From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 586 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1092 times:


"16-35mm and 17-35mm. Both are F2.8L"

Gary...if these are Canon 'L' lenses they will be VERY expensive! Best avoided unless you have lots of spare cash to buy what is going to be an infrequently used lens.

I know Tokina do a 19-35mm lens for about 160 GBP...which might do a job for you...

Cheers,
Dean



Life's dangerous. Get a f**king helmet!
User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1098 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!


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 763 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1088 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?

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1086 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):
primes:
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

zooms:
Sigma EX 3,5-4,5/15-30 DG €815
Canon EF-L USM 2,8/16-35 CPS €2138

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.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5575 posts, RR: 63
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

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  Smile

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 763 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1035 times:

Can't imagine anywhere at LGW where 24mm or wider would be much use! If there is, please let me know  Smile

Cheers

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5575 posts, RR: 63
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Colin

There is if you can get airside  Smile

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 763 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1002 times:

Gary - lucky b******  Smile

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).

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

Gary,

thanks for the plug. But who said it was taken with a wide angle lens. I was sitting on seat 10A and used 170mm ......  Big grin Big grin

No seriously, it was taken with a Sigma 17-35mm.

Nice lens, not really that cheap but worth it!

Vasco


User currently offlineLewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3671 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1002 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:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/SX-OAC.jpg

Granite: Look for some wide lenses (stable focal length) like 14mm. Avoid fisheye lenses!!!


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 994 times:

Colin, I did take the multiplyer into account  Smile
15mm becomes about 24mm on a digital, which is why I took only lenses of 15mm or less focal length into account.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 763 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 985 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.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
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...
Need Some Wide Angle Advice... posted Fri Jun 27 2003 09:20:02 by Dazed767
Wide Angled Advice posted Sun Mar 10 2002 14:22:37 by Granite
Wide Angle Lens Advice Please? posted Tue Jan 6 2004 17:26:07 by Manzoori
Advice Needed On Wide Angle Lenses For Canon Dslr posted Mon Sep 29 2003 18:21:17 by FL350
Wide-angle Lens Advice posted Mon Jun 2 2003 16:53:01 by Jarek
Need Advice On Editing posted Tue Jun 26 2007 00:24:54 by Mgoran
Need Advice On A Lens Choice posted Mon Jun 25 2007 18:38:39 by IL62M
Seeking Some Advice On Photo Editing posted Sat Jun 23 2007 07:42:13 by Shutterbug
A380 - Pre-Screening Advice posted Mon Jun 18 2007 22:47:36 by Bottie
Centering Rejection And Pre-Screening Advice posted Sat Jun 16 2007 17:42:01 by ANITIX87