How wide is WIDE? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/10/2006 01:02:34 PM · #1

Howdy,

I am looking to get a wide angle lense for my canon but am not sure where to go.

I was looking at the Canon 17-40mm F4L but the wide end is only 1mm better than the kit lense I already have (although the quality is obviously much better).

The lense I am looking at at the mo is the Canon 10-22mm but it is very expensive. This lead me to look at various other lenses from Sigma, Tokina etc. The other lense I am considering is the Sigma 12-24mm, which looks good too, but again is quite expensive.

I am now looking at the Sigma 15-30 but my question is, how much wider will this be compared to the 18-55 I have now. Basically, how much difference is there between 10mm wide and 15mm wide, is there a huge amount of width?

Sorry for the length of this post, your expert opinions are much appreciated

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

01/10/2006 01:09:01 PM · #2

Tokina's 12-24mm is pretty nice but you're looking at $600 for a limited use lense...

It's one of the downsides of the 1.6x crop factor.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/10/2006 01:11:39 PM · #3

There will be a really big difference between 10 and 15mm. Yes, good wide lenses are expensive. Choose carefully. On the wide end, there are vast differences in performance. The Canon 10-22 is probably the best-thought-of ultrawide for APS-C sized sensors. It's worth its price.
If you really don't need a 16mm equivalent FoV, then the 17-40 is an excellent choice, it will give much better results than the kit lens, but of course gives very little additional zoom range.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

01/10/2006 01:25:35 PM · #4

Try this link as a picture tell a.... you know.

Edit: Ignore the lense stuff it you like but grab the little blue triange and swizzle back and forth....

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 13:27:17.

01/10/2006 01:28:51 PM · #5

It's a huge difference. With the 10mm lens, if I am pointing the lens down even a little bit I need to be careful not to get my feet (or the tripod legs) in the shot even in horizontal mode. Words can scarcely portray just how "different" these ultra-wides are to work with. Remember, they do this extreme WA with no visible optical distortion. That is, straight lines remain straight. At least with the "good" ones (read "expensive" ones) like the Canon 10-22mm and the Tokina 12-24mm (to name two I know are optically clean).

Optical distortion is not to be confused with "wide angle distortion"; any extreme wide angle lens will show visible distortion of the shapes of objects at the edges of its frame; this is a physical law. Look what happens to shadows when light strikes round objects at a very oblique angle; same principle with a WA lens, as the light reaching the periphery of the sensor is striking it at a much more oblique angle than the light at the center of the sensor. Look at the shapes of the heads and the lobster in this shot â�� it is NOT optical distortion, it's physical distortion:

Robt.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Panasonic DMW-LTZ10 1.5x Teleconverter

01/10/2006 01:30:21 PM · #6

The Canon 10-22mm is a really good lens, but I've heard that the Tokina 12-24mm is just as good, comes with a hood and is much cheaper.

The 17-40L is a great lens as well if you don't need to go much wider then the 18-55mm that you have.

Note, as you go wider the difference in mm makes more of a difference. Example, the 1mm difference between 17mm and 18mm will be noticable. The difference between 300mm and 301mm will not. I had found a chart once that showed the angle of the field of view for a given focal length. If you can dig that up it will help you.

KiwiShotz

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

01/10/2006 01:47:11 PM · #7

Originally posted by theSaj:

It's one of the downsides of the 1.6x crop factor.

I don't really understand the "crop factor". One hears it all the time and used in the "Eqivalent 35mm" calculations.

Anyone able to explain it in plain Swahili?

Brett

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

01/10/2006 01:49:07 PM · #8

Originally posted by KiwiPix:

Originally posted by theSaj:
It's one of the downsides of the 1.6x crop factor.

I don't really understand the "crop factor". One hears it all the time and used in the "Eqivalent 35mm" calculations.

Anyone able to explain it in plain Swahili?

Brett

What is referred to as the crop factor is just the fact that the sensor is smaller than 35mm film and only covers the center portion of a 35mm frame.

riolobo

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/10/2006 01:55:13 PM · #9

Originally posted by kirbic:

There will be a really big difference between 10 and 15mm. ...

Here's a quick pair of pictures at 10mm and 15mm using the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens.

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 13:55:47.

Chiqui

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/10/2006 02:20:51 PM · #10

I have the Canon 10-22 and if that lens broke right now I would buy another one right then and there even if I had to eat ramen noodles for a month. I love that lens.

June

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

01/10/2006 02:23:45 PM · #11

Originally posted by Chiqui:

I have the Canon 10-22 and if that lens broke right now I would buy another one right then and there even if I had to eat ramen noodles for a month. I love that lens.

June

You betcha. If I could only have one lens for my 20D, that would be the one.

R.

Chiqui

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/10/2006 02:23:49 PM · #12

Originally posted by LoudDog:

The Canon 10-22mm is a really good lens, but I've heard that the Tokina 12-24mm is just as good, comes with a hood and is much cheaper.

That may be so but there is a big difference between 10mm and 12mm.

June

Count

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/10/2006 02:29:15 PM · #13

The Sigma 10-20 is a great lens too, and several hundred dollars cheaper than the Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 12-24.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/10/2006 02:32:09 PM · #14

Originally posted by Chiqui:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
The Canon 10-22mm is a really good lens, but I've heard that the Tokina 12-24mm is just as good, comes with a hood and is much cheaper.

That may be so but there is a big difference between 10mm and 12mm.

June

Agreed, but quality wise they are pretty close for the $$$

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

01/10/2006 02:35:09 PM · #15

I have been looking at these 2 as well (I have some time since I want it for a trip in July).

I am mostly stuck on is (apart from the price difference) the EF-s mount thing. From what I read, the Tokina can work on a FF EF mount from about 15mm up without rounding the edges. Not sure if that is important to you or not....

The other big thing is that 10mm does appear to be a lot different from 12mm. Problem is I have never used something this wide, so not sure how I would react to 10 vs. 12 yet (catch-22 thing really). After Bears comment I might lean towards the 12mm since I have big feet and prefer them not be in the pic :-)

01/10/2006 02:39:38 PM · #16

Originally posted by Count:

The Sigma 10-20 is a great lens too, and several hundred dollars cheaper than the Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 12-24.

The Sigma 10-20mm has significantly more barrel and pincushion distortion issues throughout its range, whereas is the Canon is as close to absolutely pure as any extreme WA I have seen. IMO it's worth the extra money. Also, the Canon is incredibly flare-free, a major plus with such an extreme angle of view. I don't know how the Sigma compares here.

R.

01/10/2006 02:44:20 PM · #17

Originally posted by robs:

After Bears comment I might lean towards the 12mm since I have big feet and prefer them not be in the pic :-)

LOLOL! It's not really a "problem", you just need to be aware of it if you are pointing the camera down any significant amount. In normal shooting it's not going to be an issue, but if you're shooting something like this it's time to be aware of where your feet are:

Robt.

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 14:44:37.

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

01/10/2006 02:51:25 PM · #18

I think one of the problems is the industry holding on to the 35mm crop factor specs. Granted Iâ��ve might have a slightly better understanding of focal length to format ratios than the average photographer since Iâ��ve shot formats from 35mm up to 11x14, but by keeping the arbitrary 35mm figures is preventing a real understanding of something that is really not complicated.

There will be a time in the not too distant future where many will not have had the 35mm film experience to gauge their coverage, so why not give the consumers the actual data. I think lenses should give the coverage in degrees for the format itâ��s designed for. Personally I think it should be given in horizontal instead of diagonal coverage to lessen the discrepancies of different aspect ratios, but I know the industry if they adopted this standard would probably choose diagonal just to make the figure appear larger.

Lenses made to cover several different formats such as the Sigma 12-24 could state xx to xx degrees for 35mm and xx to xx for APS-C sensors.

I remember going to a â��professionalâ�� camera store to buy a 40mm lens for my Bronica ETR (645), and the sales person just kept telling me, â��itâ��s like a 24mm lens on your 35mm cameraâ��. I kept asking him, â��you mean its has 84-degree coverage?â�� He was clueless, and so will a lot of others if the industry keeps it up.

LoveSpuds

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

01/10/2006 04:33:09 PM · #19

Lots of great feedback here folks, its really appreciated.

I think I have narrowed it down to the Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 12-24mm.

The price difference doesn't seem as large as it does with other focal lengths. I am leaning towards paying the extra and getting the Canon.

I now have another problem, do I REALLY need that wide end, or should I plump for the Canon 17-40mm 4L. I do a fair amount of paid work, and a large amount of this is portrait work, so really the 17-40mm would get more usage, so many lenses, so little money!!!!

Any news on a 10 - 200mm Canon L series lense for around the 500 quid price? LOL

Thanks for the help again

Ecce_Signum

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/10/2006 04:49:11 PM · #20

I got the 10-22 for last years trip to Mull (Scotland). I should have played with it for longer before I went, its a great lens but beware buildings etc in the corners. I now find myself using the 17-40 more often but the 10-22 will only leave my bag when I go full frame (then the 17-40 comes into its own).

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/10/2006 05:39:39 PM · #21

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

...but the 10-22 will only leave my bag when I go full frame (then the 17-40 comes into its own).

You might find that the corners on the 17-40 are not that great when used on FF. At smaller apertures, it's not going to represent a big problem, but anywhere near wide open, it's not that great. Full disclosure demands that I state that I don't own the 17-40, but I've seen quite a lot of tests with it on FF.

Ecce_Signum

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM for Canon

01/10/2006 05:43:55 PM · #22

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
...but the 10-22 will only leave my bag when I go full frame (then the 17-40 comes into its own).

You might find that the corners on the 17-40 are not that great when used on FF. At smaller apertures, it's not going to represent a big problem, but anywhere near wide open, it's not that great. Full disclosure demands that I state that I don't own the 17-40, but I've seen quite a lot of tests with it on FF.

txs Kirbic, on ff this would be a landscape lens, tripod, small aperture so hopefully no worries :)

DocendoDiscimus

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/10/2006 05:59:20 PM · #23

The 17-40L will be more usefull for professional use. I still think f4 is quite slow, but for that price tag... only a prime (like canon 20 2.8).

If just want to experiment WIDE, you can try the Sigma 8mm (manual focus) for $200. Is that wide enough?