| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2004 12:47:02 PM · #1 |
Hello
Now that I have got my rebel and my 28-135 lense F/3.6. I´d like something faster...
Been browsing and would like to hear what people say about these two:
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM AutoFocus Ultra Wide Angle Lens
Sigma 20mm F1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF AutoFocus Super Wide Angle Lens
The Sigma is faster and cheaper.
Should I stick with Canon or try the Sigma ?
|
|
|
|
01/22/2004 01:32:24 PM · #2 |
Considering the difference in price is so small, you're probably better off with the Canon. The info at photozone indicates the Sigma (probably) has really poor optics, but it's possible Sigma has updated/improved the lens lately.
You may have researched this already, but you might also consider getting the Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye; it's extremely well suited for the rebel sensor. It's also in the same price range as the 20mm you listed. |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 03:53:59 PM · #3 |
hehe, sometimes the search function works.
I'm exactly wondering about the same thing, and since one of my main reasons for super wide lens are the northern lights and so speed is very important. I'd prefer a <20mm F at least 1.8 or faster. I have the fast 50/1.4 but that is too narrow (but fast enough) and my 17-40 F/4L is too slow (but wide enough).
Since most of the distorions in superwides might fall out of the sensorarea (because of the crop factor) maybe the cheaper (and optically more suspect Sigma) could be better because it's faster. Anyway I don't know if distorion is a problem with the nothern lights themselves, but it could make the BG (stars etc) look strange.
Any suggestions for FAST superwide lenses (zooms or primes) less than 20 mm for less than 500 bucks?
|
|
|
|
11/28/2004 04:02:32 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 04:06:52 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Gauti:
...I'm exactly wondering about the same thing, and since one of my main reasons for super wide lens are the northern lights and so speed is very important. I'd prefer a <20mm F at least 1.8 or faster. I have the fast 50/1.4 but that is too narrow (but fast enough) and my 17-40 F/4L is too slow (but wide enough)... |
Been there, recently. I agree that a really fast lens, f/1.8 or f/1.4, makes shooting the auroras really nice, no need to go to higher ISO and shorter shutter speeds so more detail. The trade-off is that focusing becomes critical. One of the 15mm fisheyes is a good compromise. Both the Canon and Sigma versions are f/2.8, not real fast but fast enough.
I shot some aurora pics recently, and used a Peleng 8mm fisheye for most of them. They're posted here. The Peleng is f/3.5, and still wroked fairly well. It does, however, suffer from coma at the periphery of the field.
I just bought the Canon 15mm fisheye, and if we get another good display I am certainly going to try that.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2004 04:12:57 PM · #6 |
@finnur:
All that I've read sez the Sigma is at least the match for the Canon at equal f/stops, and faster, and cheaper. No direct experience tho.
Message edited by author 2004-11-28 16:13:05.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2004 04:21:16 PM · #7 |
I own the 20 mm Canon one because of 3 reasons:
Have less distortions (barel,vigneting,flare)
It is lighter and smaller
Sigma require 82 mm filters which are very expensive ($150 for CPL)
Also Canon is very sharp lens ,even with F2.8....
    |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 04:30:57 PM · #8 |
| I just got my tamron 17-35 di 2.8-4.0 and it's pretty sweet if you ask me. A little more money, but well worth it! |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 04:35:01 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I just got my tamron 17-35 di 2.8-4.0 and it's pretty sweet if you ask me. A little more money, but well worth it! |
Sample photo? And imho you can't compare prime quality with zoom lens,I stoped using zooms until they come up with decent one and you don't have to pay an arm & leg for it.
Message edited by author 2004-11-28 16:42:31. |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 06:41:40 PM · #10 |
here's a sample I shot quickly today
btw: it's semi handheld, half sitting on a book in my window and half held up with my hand. Settings are 6 second shutter, iso 100, F8.
Message edited by author 2004-11-28 18:43:47. |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 07:10:40 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I just got my tamron 17-35 di 2.8-4.0 and it's pretty sweet if you ask me. A little more money, but well worth it! |
Sample photo? And imho you can't compare prime quality with zoom lens,I stoped using zooms until they come up with decent one and you don't have to pay an arm & leg for it. |
for the most part primes are way better, but this is comperable to canon L glass, so it's the next best thing. |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 11:47:42 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
here's a sample I shot quickly today
btw: it's semi handheld, half sitting on a book in my window and half held up with my hand. Settings are 6 second shutter, iso 100, F8. |
If you look at the tree branches in top left corner ,you will see how much blur is there...., I don't like it at all... |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 11:57:35 PM · #13 |
| well it was handheld and then resized and saved with ms paint ;-) |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 12:04:50 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
well it was handheld and then resized and saved with ms paint ;-) |
It is not your hand,doors and windows are sharp...
test
 |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 12:16:45 AM · #15 |
| wind can easily move little branches like that over a six second photo anyway. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 02:06:57 PM · #16 |
| I'll post another, from today if i get the chance. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 03:16:51 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I'll post another, from today if i get the chance. |
I would like to see more example from that lens too when you get the chance - thanks!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 04:42:31 PM · #18 |
a faster shutter shot.
btw the focus is on the building.
ap is 8 shutter was 1/160 iirc.
Message edited by author 2004-11-29 16:43:28. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 06:12:54 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I own the 20 mm Canon one because of 3 reasons:
Have less distortions (barel,vigneting,flare)
It is lighter and smaller
|
Do you have any samples with buildings (ie right angles) close to edge of frame? - so that I can see how much distortion there is -
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I just got my tamron 17-35 di 2.8-4.0 and it's pretty sweet if you ask me. A little more money, but well worth it! |
Yes, I'd like that lens, but I already have the Canon 17-40 F4L so I have that range and a perfect landscape lens, it's my walkaround lens. I'd love to have the 2.8 on the wide end but I'm not gonna buy another lens with the same range just because of speed and I just love my 17-40.
Just for fun, could you post a night shot?
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 06:20:00 PM · #20 |
| Gauti, I wouldn't really suggest that you sell the canon, just for the extra f stops. But you would be able to buy it new, and still have money left over. I guess I can take a night shot if that other one doesn't count. I don't know how soon that will be. Depends if I feel like taking a tripod out with me. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 07:27:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Gauti, I wouldn't really suggest that you sell the canon, just for the extra f stops. But you would be able to buy it new, and still have money left over. I guess I can take a night shot if that other one doesn't count. I don't know how soon that will be. Depends if I feel like taking a tripod out with me. |
heh, no I didn't take it as such anyway.
If, however, I hadn't already got the Canon, the Tamron would be very tempting.
how much does the Tamron cost?
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:04:34 AM · #22 |
| right around $500 in stores, a little less online. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 06:05:09 AM EDT.
