Feedback on large apeture, wide angle lens

[Scott Brady]

Well, I bit the bullet and purchased a 20D Canon this week, along with a very Scotty colored (flat green, with no shiny or chrome stuff) Manfrotto tripod.

This allows me to use all of the lenses I had aquired while shooting with my EOS 3, which includes a 21-35mm 3.5:1, 28-300 3.5-6.3:1 and 200-400 5.6:1. These are all great lenses for outside shooting and prevent many of the frequent lense changes that dirty the CMOS.

The challenges I have are now two fold

1. I love shooting landscape, so now with the 1.6 factor of the 22.5x15.0mm CMOS, even my 21mm will be shooting like a 34mm lens equiv.

2. I want a FAST lens for indoor shooting at shows like SEMA and in low light, etc.

So I am considering one of the following:

14mm 2.8 Canon L (BIG coin)
24mm 1.4 Canon L
20mm 1.8 Sigma EX
24mm 1.8 Sigma EX (I like the 1.2:1 macro on this one)
14mm 2.8 Tamron (good flat field image depiction)

I am really favoring the 24mm 1.4 Canon L for the speed, but also see the wide angle value of the 20mm 1.8 Sigma

[Jonathan Hanson]

Scott, your challenges are similar to mine. I've got a Canon L 18-35mm, an L 70-200, an L 300, and an L 1.4 converter, plus a 50mm macro. With 35mm film I had a versatile system, but I really felt the loss of the ultra-wide-angle capability when using a digital body (although getting the equivalent of a 650-plus-mm lens with the 300 and 1.4 converter was sure fun!).

Looking back over my magazine assignments I realized that a good portion of photos I've published professionally were dramatic wide angle shots. So I want that capability back. The lens I'm looking at is the Tamron 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 aspherical zoom. I've always bought Canon L-series lenses before, and always fast apertures, so this is a real change. My reasoning is:

The 11mm setting will move me back into the 17 to 18mm equivalent range--where really pronounced wide angle effects can be noticed and exploited for composition--but the zoom feature will increase versatility.

Tamron is producing some very high-quality optics these days, and since my need is for magazine and book work, where ultimate gallery definition is superfluous, any quality difference between Tamron and the MUCH more expensive Canon will be unnoticeable.

Regarding speed: I finally forced myself to experiment with the ISO setting on the digital camera on our last trip. I set it at 800 for some dawn telephoto shots to gain a faster shutter speed, and the difference in quality in RAW images between the 800 and 100 ISO settings was amazingly small, and would again probably not be noticeable in a magazine or book (or web) reproduction. so the idea of an F4.5 to 5.6 aperture doesn't scare me as it used to.

So, at the very least, if you still demand the extra speed I wouldn't hesitate to go with the Tamron 14mm. I don't see what the 20 or 21mm lenses would gain you over your current 21-35 zoom except a bit of speed.

[Scott Brady]

Good point on the ISO setting. I experimented with that yesterday, and yielded good results. With 8.2 mp, it provides some flexibility.

I think the 11-18 Tamron would make for a nice lense, then snag a 1.4 50mm canon USM for the indoor stuff. My only concern with the Tamron is the limitation to a 22mm CMOS. It cannot be used with 35mm or full frame digitals like the 1n, etc. I guess that isnt too big of a deal though, as I could just sell it.

[droppdwn]

Buy some water pipe insulation (the grey, foam stuff) and wrap your manfrotto legs with it. The first time you go hiking with it your shoulder will thank you. ;)

I think the new Tamron and Sigma lenses are nice as well (and a fraction of the cost of the Canon L glass). I don't know how wide you want, but the Canon 17-40L looks good too and IMHO a very reasonable 28mm converted. I'm sure shooting landscapes though 20-24 would be better.

[Scott Brady]

Hi Chad,

Thanks for the great feedback. The Manfrotto model I purchased came with foam padding on the legs already, which is nice. You are right though, that sucker is HEAVY! I need to buy a padded shoulder strap for it. That 17-40 L is really nice, but a little out of the price range with the recent body purchase. I think they are close to $2000 street price :Wow1:

[Jonathan Hanson]

I just found the Canon 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 zoom for $639, not much more than the Tamron. Still only works with digital cameras, but. . .

We're seriously considering selling our Eos 3 bodies and going all digital.

[Scott Brady]

Jonathan,

I have also owned an EOS 3, and it was such a fantastic piece. Now that I am shooting with the 20D, the experience is similar.

I really like the 10-22mm you found, though I wonder about image distortion (like a fish eye) at 10mm.

Even though I favor the speed of some of the fixed focal length units, I have found in the outback, a zoom is needed frequently. for example, standing on a cliff, and you want to zoom in a little, just past an ugly tree. No other option with the exception of some rope and ascenders... :arabia:

[Jonathan Hanson]

Since the 10-22 is designed for the reduced image area of the Canon CMOS sensor, I expect the image distortion would be no greater than with the 17-35 on 35mm film, in other words essentially nonexistent. The one report I read on this lens supports that theory--there was no mention of distortion.

[jeffryscott]

Scott,

I have been using Canon's 17-40 4L and it is fabulous. It is a sub-$600 lens and well worth it for the quality you get. Also, size and weight (as well as price) is much reduced compared to the 2.8 big brother. I heartily recommend it. In addition, build quality is a major factor. At work when we first went digital we had a couple of the Sigma 14mm lenses. For light duty they are fine, but heavy use they turn ugly real fast.

In the environments you are using your equipment, build quality is at least as much of a consideration as optical quality.

The 10-22 is also a FANTASTIC lens from what I understand. A co-worker has a copy and absolutely raves about it.

I have access to the 14 2.8 Canon, and frankly, it isn't a big enough difference on the 20D between it and the much less expensive and versatile 17-40.

I also own the 70-200 4L, also around $600 and it is also stunning. Now to get the 100 2.8 Macro ...

Jeff

[Scott Brady]

Scott,

In the environments you are using your equipment, build quality is at least as much of a consideration as optical quality.

Jeff

Jeff,

Very good point!

Thank you so much for the real-world feedback. The 17-40 sounds very solid and the price point is great. I am going to try and pick a lens up before Baja.

[JMyerz]

Scott,

before I switched back to nikon I had a 20D, I also had the 16-35 f2.8 I would highly recommend this lense. Its sharpness and autofocus speed is excellent and the 2.8 will allow better low light shooting.

For ultimate sharpness however you may want to look into investing into primes. While they require more space and weight the results are usually worth it.

The BOKEH on the 16-35 was good as well, not the best I've seen but still pleasent.

I'm a little biased though, I have to rely on the sharpness of lenses on a day to day basis in my line of work. Hence why I returned to nikon...but thats a whole other story in itself.

-Justin

[Scott Brady]

Thank you so much for the detailed feedback Justin. I am going to take the advice of several here (yourself included) and get the 16-36. I am just going to need to clear a few goodies out of the garage, etc. to make the additional cost happen.

With the environments I operate in, and the issues with CCD's and dust, I am very cautious about having multiple lenses with me on the trail/adventure. But is looks like the 16-36 coupled with my 28-300 and 200-400 will work great.

I could not be happier with the 20D so far, and look forward to adding the new lens to give me back the landscape capabilities.

[JMyerz]

good choice Scott.

carry a large ziploc to change lenses in if your in super dusty conditions. Just put your camera and lense combo inside and change away. It does help a little...

also try this company:

http://www.visibledust.com/sensor_cleaning_products.html

Justin

[pangaea]

I also own the 70-200 4L, also around $600 and it is also stunning. Now to get the 100 2.8 Macro ...

Jeff,

I just picked up a 100mm 2.8 macro a couple of months ago. While its a REALLY fun lens, I was kind of disappointed with the sharpness from the lens. My camera bag looks pretty similar to yours (17-35 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, etc), and maybe I've been spoiled by shooting L series lenses, but I haven't been as impressed as I hoped I would be.

However, if you haven't picked one up yet, a 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens to add to your kit. Really fast, really sharp and only $75

[JMyerz]

I'd suggest the 50 1.4 the glass in both canon and nikon is simply amazing. With the magnification of the 20D CCD it turns into a nice portrait lense as well.

Its by far the sharpest lense I have ever seen from both parties.

Justin

[jeffryscott]

That's interesting Nathan, I've not heard too much about the 100 2.8 - just a few reviews that raved about it. One thing I've seen with Canon, though, is it seems certain lenses don't match up with certain bodies well: for example my 20d the 100 may look fabulous on and your 20d my 17-40 may not. People complain a lot in some forums (dpreview) about having to have their camera and lenses calibrated by Canon because they can't get sharp pics.

People at work (newspaper) have the 16-35 and some of them aren't that impressed by it. One guy much prefers his 10-22 that he bought for himself. Again, it could be that magical camera/lens combo that gets it just right.

Justin, I'm interested in why you'd go back to Nikon? Everybody and their mother in the newspaper industry has been running away from Nikon and I'd love to hear why you went back?

Scott, some food for thought about the one stop difference - with a wide angle, that one stop difference isn't real dramatic. You probably wouldn't notice a big difference, whearas at the 200mm range, the stop can be a big difference.

[JMyerz]

Jeffery,

First it was ergonomics, I had been shooting nikon for years and simply could not adapt to the canon ways. I missed shots because I would go for something that was not there and it was very frustrating.

2nd, nikon glass IMHO is sharper and has a more pleasing contrast to it.

3rd, durability while nikon does have the most MP currently it does have a fantastic image prcesssor, AF system, an unbeatable strobe system and the durability of a toyota.

4th I got wind of this littel guy (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25235) before it was announced and it looks to be a very nice camera at only $1699.

Finally while canon does seem to push the technology with their cameras, they don't get things 100% right before they release their cameras. Nikon while slower has a much higher QC.

Of course, this is just my opinion :)

[jeffryscott]

Jeffery,

First it was ergonomics, I had been shooting nikon for years and simply could not adapt to the canon ways. I missed shots because I would go for something that was not there and it was very frustrating.

2nd, nikon glass IMHO is sharper and has a more pleasing contrast to it.

3rd, durability while nikon does have the most MP currently it does have a fantastic image prcesssor, AF system, an unbeatable strobe system and the durability of a toyota.

4th I got wind of this littel guy (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25235) before it was announced and it looks to be a very nice camera at only $1699.

Finally while canon does seem to push the technology with their cameras, they don't get things 100% right before they release their cameras. Nikon while slower has a much higher QC.

Of course, this is just my opinion :)

Interesting experience of Nikon versus Canon. Mine is completely different (thus a good reason why there are several systems out there). The D200 looks very nice, if it is anything like the F100 is should be a great camera. I, however, have always felt Nikon's AF is way, way behind Canons and my experience with their quality control is extremely negative, that and their professional repair service - things routinely came back either not fixed or with more problems. I have had Nikon's (cameras and lenses) just fall apart since the F4.

I have also preferred Canon's glass, much more akin to Leica and Contax in my opinion.

It's a matter of what you are used to - both systems have pluses and negatives.

My personal favorite, which I just sold because we went all Canon at work, is the Olympus E1. While it is a bit slower, it has dust-shaker technology so no dust on the CCD, photos look more like Kodachrome than any digital I've seen, body sealed against water and dust like high-end Nikon's and Canon's and very affordable. The glass is outstanding. And the ergonomics were fantastic. If I was independently wealthy I'd have kept the system and bought the 300 2.8 and 150 2 plus some of the new superfast zooms they just introduced. Alas, I sold it for my Canon, which I'm extremely happy with but I don't think the build quality of the 20d is as good as the E1.

[articulate]

I'm bringing this one back to the top to ask this: Anyone have some sample images you can share here? Samples of these wide angle lenses at work on thier digital camera body counterparts? I'd love that.

I like my wide angle lens so much I wish she were wider - 19mm (but on a traditional film SLR) and I'd rather be at 14mm or so.

So I want to see some examples if anyone has some to share...:wavey:

Later,
Mark

[Mike S]

Scott

I am less familiar with the Canon product line than the Nikon, but of the choices you listed I think the 24mm is the deal. This is about as wide as you can go without apparent distortion.

I have a 24mm f2 Nikon fixed focal length lens that is terrific, sharp, nice color, and it gets used more than any other single lens I have. I also have the 35-70 f2.8 which is pretty decent. These are all used on my F2 and F4 bodies.

I know digital is a different game, but beyond a Canon G3, all my stuff is film...

Mike

[Scott Brady]

Well, the decision came down to the following:

Canon 16-35 2.8L

Tamron 17-35 2.8-4

So I went to my favorite camera store Tempe Camera (where I dont mind spending a little more than the NY mail order places) and put them both through the paces. Obviously, the Canon is more stout unit, but clarity and lack of distortion was great with both. So, I went the route of being conservative, and added another Tamron to the bag. Now I have a 17-35, 28-300, 200-400 and 2x doubler. I am happy with the decision and $1,000 I saved...

Now I am all set for wide angle on my Morocco trip :)

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/17_35_Di/1735mm.jpg

[Mlachica]

Well, the decision came down to the following:

Canon 16-35 2.8L

Tamron 17-35 2.8-4

So I went to my favorite camera store Tempe Camera (where I dont mind spending a little more than the NY mail order places) and put them both through the paces. Obviously, the Canon is more stout unit, but clarity and lack of distortion was great with both. So, I went the route of being conservative, and added another Tamron to the bag. Now I have a 17-35, 28-300, 200-400 and 2x doubler. I am happy with the decision and $1,000 I saved...

Now I am all set for wide angle on my Morocco trip :)

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/17_35_Di/1735mm.jpg

Sweeeeeet, Congratulations, I can't wait to see you're results!

I love the range on my canon 17-40L. Here's one of my first pics with it from Inyo Nat'l forest, leaving Death Valley.
Click here cuz I don't know how to post pictures =) (http://www.4wdtrips.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3930&d=1139353865)

I wish I had your 28-300 cha ching!

[Scott Brady]

Thanks :), I am pretty happy, and it allowed me to get more memory (extreme III's) and a sun disc.

I also looked at the 17-40L, which would have been my purchase except for the need I had of shooting indoors (trade shows), where the 2.8 is important.

[bigreen505]

Wow, not sure how I missed this party.

If anyone is interested I have a Canon 17-35/2.8 L that I am selling, as well as probably a whole lot of other Canon gear. All is babied and immaculate. I think I'm going to bite the bullet and try Leica. Shoot me an e-mail if you are interested -- bill at green acres tech dot com (the part between @ and . is all one word).

[Mike S]

Scott

I have been shooting with a 24mm f2 Nikon lens (on the F2 and the F4) for years. It is the one lense that I wouldn't part with. This is about as wide as you can go without visible distortion, and sharp as a tack. Enjoy your new toy.

M