widest lens for 5d mark II

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by howard b. schwartz, Feb 8, 2010.

  1. i have a canon 5d mark II. what is the widest fixed length lens that i can use, however, not fisheye. it certainly does not have to be a canon brand lens. thanks.
     
  2. The 14mm L lens is great for a fixed length. In a zoom the 16-35 or 17-40 L lenses are also pretty wide on a full frame sensor. All three give excellent images. I personally use a 17-40 on a full frame and have yet to need anything wider for my shooting.
     
  3. Sigma 12-24 but try before you buy, sample variation is horrific. But why not a fisheye? They can be very useful and with high megapixel cameras defishing is easy and loss of IQ minimal.
    http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VOFp
     
  4. Sigma makes a 12-24mm zoom for about $700. Not everyone is crazy about the sharpness of that lens, or the durability, but it's the widest focal length available.
    There's a Voigtländer 12mm f/5.6 made for Leica mount, and it's much sharper, but I think it works on rangefinders only. The widest prime I know of for Canon EF is 14mm, and there are several to choose from. Canon, Sigma, and Tamron all make a 14mm, and I believe the level of quality declines in the same order.
     
  5. Tamron and Sigma both make or used to make 14mm rectlinear lens, I have the Tamron which at least at Fredmiranda.com was rated higher than the Sigma and at that time was rated higher than the Canon. Canon has since come out with a II version that is very highly rated. I don't use zooms at the very wide angles because of the distortion at the edges. Distortion is not as critical in landscape but in architecture a pain in the behind to correct.
     
  6. Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L
     
  7. Canon EF 15mm F2.8 fisheye
     
  8. I have tried both the EF 14mm/2.8L and the sigma 12-24mm (which I own) and would not hesitate recommending the sigma. Stop it down to f13 and avoid direct sunlight and sharpness/contrast is much better that stated by some. Here is a picture I took in Kamchatka at 12mm (I am new to the forum so I hopefully succeed in uploading it from my pc :))
    00VibA-218587684.jpg
     
  9. thanks for the responses. the $2000 cost of the canon 14 mm is just too prohibitive, that is why i was looking for an alternative.
     
  10. My walkaround lens is the 16-35mm and I shoot most everything with it, including my environmental portraits. I also have the 17-40mm, which is less expensive and every bit as good really, just a stop slower. It works great on the 5DII as that camera does much better than the 1dsmkIII at high iso--close to two stops better.
    Most of these lenses, zooms, are not great at the edges when full wide, even stopped down, but the problem corrects itself fairly quickly as you lengthen the focal length. But I have heard that some of the primes get a bit soft at the corners as well. The best I heard was the new 17mm TS lens, but it is over $2000 as well.
     
  11. Since you mentioned widest, I did not mention that Tokina used to make a 17mm prime. I have one of those, I sold my 17-40L after that purchase. The distortion on the 17-40 L is 3.8 at 17mm, while the 17mm prime is 1.78, a large difference. Canon does make a 20mm prime that is a very nice lens. The 16-35L II comes close to the Tokina but still has more distortion. Again, if the subject will be landscape the distortion will not be as much of an issue.
     
  12. “Here is a picture I took in Kamchatka…”​
    Jorgen, this is a beautiful picture. May I ask, where in Kamchatka it was taken?
    I’m interested, since here in Iceland there is a remarkably similar place called Víti , located in the Askja caldera. It’s even safe to go for a swim in Víti, the water’s lovely.
     
  13. More from the Sigma 12-24mm. Fantastic lens and ridiculously wide. Great on the 5D2.
    00VinC-218709584.jpg
     
  14. And another:
    00VinD-218709684.jpg
     
  15. Go on then, you've twisted my arm...
    00VinF-218711584.jpg
     
  16. A none fisheye is also nkown as a rectilinear lens. For 35mm film or full frame digital SLR's the widest the 14mm. However Sigma does tend to push the limits in design. Sometimes with excellent results (Sigma 50 F1.4EX). And sometimes with bad results (more destortion). I have not used the Sigma 12-24. However a friend does have the older 15-30 and it does distort more than I would prefer. However I don't use the very wide end much so 17-40mm is more than good enough for me.
     
  17. Sorry double post.
     
  18. The Sigma 12-24mm has incredibly low distortion for such a stupidly wide lens, in fact it is quite uncanny how straight the verticals stay, even at the edge of the frame. Those 3 shots I posted have had no alteration as far as perspective or distortion are concerned. My copy is quite reasonably sharp at f8-f11.
    Generally I don't like Sigma lenses, their reliability is poor and their QC is terrible. But for 12mm I had no other option and, so far, this lens has been a good one.
     
  19. Consider the option to stitch photos together too. The advantage is less distortion and more pixels.
     
  20. What is your budget?
     
  21. Samyang is going to be selling a 14 f/2.8 lens here pretty soon for about $350.

    It's manual focus, but with such a wide lens you can use hyperfocal technique, even wide open.
     
  22. My second attempt, first time weather knocked out my internet service. To give one an idea of what a 14mm on a full frame can do I have following an image taken this past Christmas. I was standing right below a Christmas tree about 20 feet tall, the image behind it is a city block wide, the two buildings on the far left and right are two blocks over. Canon 5D, Tamron 14mm at f/5.6
    00ViuX-218783584.jpg
     
  23. Martin S: This is the crater of the Gorelij vulcano, some 3 hour driving from Petropavlovsk. The lake is acidic and not to swim in :) Thank you for the Iceland info!
     
  24. canon 17-40 0r 16-35.
     
  25. I think both 17-40 and 16-35 cannot be compared with comparative Nikon or Zeiss (for Sony A900) lenses. Canon has to work harder in this field.
    Arun Gaur
    (site name--tripolia-indianlandscapeimages)
     
  26. 5 D is FF as is my 1Ds. I've noticed a distortion problem when using Canon 17-40 L lens at 17mm, f6.3. I've tried to fix the problem using PS filter-distort-lens correction-remove dist. option without decent result.
     
  27. 5 D is FF as is my 1Ds. I've noticed a distortion problem when using Canon 17-40 L lens at 17mm, f6.3. I've tried to fix the problem using PS filter-distort-lens correction-remove dist. option without decent result.
    00VzeX-228911584.jpg
     
  28. I just discovered this thread and it's old, so maybe I'm wasting my time, but here goes...
    I have or have had the Canon 17-40, 16-35II, and the Samyang 14. I found all to be good. The Samyang needs distortion correction for its images. The PTLens software for $25 works well for that. The Samyang is the lightest and most compact and has no place to attach a filter. Both of the Canons are nice.
    If you're looking for bang for the buck I'd go with the Samyang. I got one for $340. Next would be the 17-40. The 16-35 is the nicest and by far the most expensive of the three and uses 82mm filters. So, I think what you choose, well could be determined by how much you want to spend in this case. All 3 produce good quality images.
     

Share This Page