need to buy wide angle lens for canon 5d2

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pshaw@emmet.com, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. Guest

    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
    , Nov 29, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MC Guest

    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
    MC, Nov 29, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce Guest

    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.
    Bruce, Nov 29, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce Guest

    "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/albums/userpics/19106/Samy14_080_small-1.jpg
    >After correction:
    >http://www.dpgr.gr/usergalleries/albums/userpics/19106/Samy14_080_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.
    Bruce, Nov 29, 2010
    #4
  5. otter Guest

    On Nov 28, 11:09 pm, 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.
    otter, Nov 29, 2010
    #5
  6. <> 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
    David Ruether, Nov 29, 2010
    #6
  7. 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/albums/userpics/19106/Samy14_080_small-1.jpg
    >> After correction:
    >> http://www.dpgr.gr/usergalleries/albums/userpics/19106/Samy14_080_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
    John McWilliams, Nov 29, 2010
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jahg
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    358
    Jim Townsend
    Sep 25, 2003
  2. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    717
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  3. Einst Stein

    Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter

    Einst Stein, Oct 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,602
    Bo-Ming Tong
    Dec 13, 2006
  4. Einst Stein

    Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter

    Einst Stein, Oct 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    438
    Einst Stein
    Oct 29, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    834
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page