«

as my canon 17-40 was 'borrowed' from my suitcase i need to replace it
...
i usually use it only for buildings, both inside and out (ceilings
too)

am considering another 17-40, a 16-35 and a canon 14 mm

any suggestions as to which i should buy ...and why?

tia

steve

wrote:

> as my canon 17-40 was 'borrowed' from my suitcase i need to replace it
> ..
> i usually use it only for buildings, both inside and out (ceilings
> too)
>
> am considering another 17-40, a 16-35 and a canon 14 mm
>
> any suggestions as to which i should buy ...and why?
>
> tia
>
> steve

If you know what you want to use it for and already know the 17-40 why
are you asking. Anybody in this forum who may have had experience
using any of the lenses concerned will offer no better opinions than
those already offered by many other reviewers swarming the internet and
the opinions will be just as varied. Why should the opinions here be
more favourable than those found else where.

MC

wrote:
>as my canon 17-40 was 'borrowed' from my suitcase i need to replace it
>i usually use it only for buildings, both inside and out (ceilings
>too)
>am considering another 17-40, a 16-35 and a canon 14 mm
>any suggestions as to which i should buy ...and why?


Consider a Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM which covers full frame.
The ultra-wide 12mm is great for shooting interiors. Very little
post-processing is needed because distortion is extremely well
corrected. It is sharp across the frame at f/8-f/11 and not at all
bad wide open, where the centre stays sharp. As you would expect,
there is some vignetting but it is surprisingly little for such a wide
lens. Finally, the cost won't break the bank.

I use mine on a Nikon D3 and a Kodak DCS Pro 14n. The vignetting is
worse on the older camera, but still manageable.

Build quality seems reasonable but it is worth buying an extended
warranty for peace of mind. Mine came with a free 3-year Sigma UK
warranty that is available for purchases made by December 31, 2010.

"Dimitris M" <> wrote:
>The lens is ultra sharp from f2.8, but be careful. Not the older versions.
>Buy the new or the previews from the version "Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC
>Aspherical", not earlier, not under other brand name. The lens in US was
>under other brand name with inferior coat quality, so be careful. It suffers
>only by a very noticeable wave-barrel distortion, but very easy correctable
>with the Adobe Camera RAW v.>6.2 or Lightroom >= v3.0. I have build my own
>correction module in less than 30' and you can see the results:
>
>Before correction:
>http://www.dpgr.gr/usergalleries/alb...80_small-1.jpg
>After correction:
>http://www.dpgr.gr/usergalleries/alb...80_small-2.jpg


The distortion this lens produces is a particularly nasty "mustache"
or "wavy line" distortion and is extremely difficult to correct for.
Your images prove this, as there is still noticeable residual
distortion after correction has been made.

However, the result is probably good enough for most amateur use, and
the very low cost of the lens has to be borne in mind.

On Nov 28, 11:09*pm, ps...@emmet.com wrote:
> as my canon 17-40 was 'borrowed' from my suitcase i need to replace it
> ..
> i usually use it only for buildings, both inside and out (ceilings
> too)
>
> am considering another 17-40, a 16-35 and a canon 14 mm
>
> any suggestions as to which i should buy ...and why?
>
> tia
>
> steve

1. Do you have a budget?

2. Does it matter to you if you can't use a protective filter, and the
lens bulges out in front of the hood?

3. Have you considered the tilt-shift lenses? The older models are
pretty reasonable used.

<> wrote in message
news:...

> as my canon 17-40 was 'borrowed' from my suitcase i need to replace it
> ..
> i usually use it only for buildings, both inside and out (ceilings
> too)
>
> am considering another 17-40, a 16-35 and a canon 14 mm
>
> any suggestions as to which i should buy ...and why?
>
> tia
>
> steve

Why not do what many other Canon users "in the know" do, and
bypass the Canon offerings in this range and use the superb Nikkor
14-24mm f2.8 with a Nikkor-to-Canon body adapter? You lose
the auto functions (which is not necessarily a "show stopper"), but
you gain superior optics.
--DR

On 11/29/10 PDT 5:27 AM, Bruce wrote:
> "Dimitris M"<> wrote:
>> The lens is ultra sharp from f2.8, but be careful. Not the older versions.
>> Buy the new or the previews from the version "Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC
>> Aspherical", not earlier, not under other brand name. The lens in US was
>> under other brand name with inferior coat quality, so be careful. It suffers
>> only by a very noticeable wave-barrel distortion, but very easy correctable
>> with the Adobe Camera RAW v.>6.2 or Lightroom>= v3.0. I have build my own
>> correction module in less than 30' and you can see the results:
>>
>> Before correction:
>> http://www.dpgr.gr/usergalleries/alb...80_small-1.jpg
>> After correction:
>> http://www.dpgr.gr/usergalleries/alb...80_small-2.jpg
>
>
> The distortion this lens produces is a particularly nasty "mustache"
> or "wavy line" distortion and is extremely difficult to correct for.
> Your images prove this, as there is still noticeable residual
> distortion after correction has been made.

I just don't see the distortion to which you refer. There is still
perspective that could be adjusted, but where are the noticeably wavy
lines? What do you mean by "mustache" in this photo?

--
john mcwilliams