| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/23/2006 05:42:03 PM · #1 |
OK, I dont' have a FF camera yet, but maybe some day. I am, however, probably going to buy a WA lens next since I even miss the 17-23 difference between the 17-40L (now owned by PeeCee) and my currently 24-105L.
I did notice the 14mm/2.8L, but with it in the neighborhood of $1500 is this even an option? I was surprised a prime would be so much money. Does anybody have any experience with this thing? I see that only 4 DPC users claim to own one.
I was thinking of buying the 10-22 and then selling it when I got my FF, but what are my other options? I tend to be skittish of third party lenses (perhaps to my detriment) and crave sharpness over nearly everything else.
Looking forward to some sage advice... |
|
|
|
05/23/2006 05:51:08 PM · #2 |
The 14/2.8L is not that well thought of. It's certainly not a good value at the price.
If you want to get into something wider than 24mm, there are not that many options that are compatible with FF, and are any good. The flip side is, with FF, 24mm is very wide indeed, about the same as 16mm on a 1.6-crop cam.
So I guess, either stick it out until you upgrade to FF, or don't worry about compatibility. |
|
|
|
05/23/2006 05:52:36 PM · #3 |
| If you don't want to spend too much money, you should look into the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6. It's super wide, but on the slow side. I'm looking into it as well. |
|
|
|
05/23/2006 05:54:35 PM · #4 |
I was going to say, but with Kirbic echoing what I already thought.... I think that 17-40L Would be a mighty fine aspherical wide angle.
24mm is pretty wide, but I freaking LOVE the 15mm that I get from my sigma 10-20.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2006 06:02:26 PM · #5 |
I got to play with the 15mm fisheye over the weekend. I've rented and used it on the 20D before, but this was my first time using it on a FF camera. It almost loses the effect on the 20D but it was pretty wild on the 5D. Funny part was that my flash (mounted on a flash bracket and high above the camera) was in the field of view!
I can't think of many reasons to use a fisheye lens - so I don't know that I'll ever buy one. But they're definitely fun to play with.
I've used the 14mm lens on my 20D and thought it was pretty good. Still would like to get the 10-22mm on the 20D though! |
|
|
|
05/23/2006 06:12:01 PM · #6 |
Just as you plan, I did buy the 10-22 when I had my 20D and also planned to sell it when I upgraded to FF. As it turns out I upgraded only a month later and bought the 16-35 f/2.8L.
I still have the 10-22 since I bought my wife a 350D which now serves as my real-estate photog back-up (just don't tell my wife!) :)
If I were you and if you are determined to upgrade to FF sooner than later I would just jump for the 16-35 right away and call it a day. |
|
|
|
05/23/2006 06:15:05 PM · #7 |
I'll second the 16-35, its the sharpest lens I've ever used.
Plenty wide enough on the 10D, but now I have stuck it onto the front of a 5d all I can say is WOW - so thats what wide is ;-))
|
|
|
|
05/23/2006 08:18:00 PM · #8 |
The 17-40 on the 5D is really nice, but the 10-22 on the 350D is a hair wider and does a great job too.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2006 08:34:45 PM · #9 |
5D with 16-35mm/2.8 or 5D with 17-40mm/4 great combo!
Really happy with it.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2006 08:36:24 PM · #10 |
I like my Sigma 12-24a lot, but I have yet to do any FF work with it.
You won't find anything FF from Canon that wide. |
|
|
|
05/23/2006 09:00:28 PM · #11 |
Showing my ignorance, again, what's 'FF'? Full frame - but what does that actually mean in real life, that your're not getting now?
Message edited by author 2006-05-23 21:02:14. |
|
|
|
05/23/2006 09:00:57 PM · #12 |
canon 15mm fisheye
Fisheye you say? Yes. My friend has one on a 1Dn (1.3 crop) and and you can undistort it in software, just click. he has CS2.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2006 09:25:38 PM · #13 |
| Every time you want the wide angle, take 5 steps back. |
|
|
|
05/23/2006 11:33:41 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Falc:
I'll second the 16-35, its the sharpest lens I've ever used.
Plenty wide enough on the 10D, but now I have stuck it onto the front of a 5d all I can say is WOW - so thats what wide is ;-)) |
Yup, I concur. The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L is up there in the must have list if you want wide angle coverage. There is some barrel distortion at the 16mm end but nothing that's not correctable in PS.
edit typos.
Message edited by author 2006-05-23 23:34:31. |
|
|
|
05/23/2006 11:43:49 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by amber:
Showing my ignorance, again, what's 'FF'? Full frame - but what does that actually mean in real life, that your're not getting now? |
Amber, the ful frame sensor is desireable because the size of the frame determines also the light sensitivity. Basically, each pixel on that camera can be a bit bigger than the 20d sensor, but you can pack 12million of them in there. This leads to lower noise, because the electronic output does not have to be amplified as much to achieve the same equivalency of film ISO's.
Also, because of the frame being wider, you also get a wider lens on every lens you use. Currently, you multiply the lens mm on your camera by 1.6 on your camera. So that those wide angles are actually not very wide any more. With a full frame sensor, 35mm eqivalency gives legacy film photogs the abiliy to shoot how they are used to shooting, and with the lenses they are used to shooting with.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2006 07:22:32 AM · #16 |
| I can recommend 16-35mm or 17-40mm for FF, i am planning to buy 16-35mm later and i can use it with my 350D even not that much wide, i am still using sigma 12-24mm which is superb wide angle not so sharp but it is ok on 350D, so think of 16-35 or 17-40, they are great on FF bodies for sure. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/01/2026 01:18:55 PM EST.
