Best flare resistant ultra-wide lens

[yakim_peled1]

Dear Photo nutters :-)

 

I have a 1D (1.3X) and want to buy a wide angle lens for it. Ideally

the lens would be rectilinear, FF compatible and have AF. However,

all these are of less importance. What fears me most is flare. I live

in Israel and it is very sunny. For example, the typical noon

temperatures in the past week were ~25 degrees Celsius. Therefore,

the sun is shining brightly and that makes flare a major problem.

 

1. The lens must be 15mm to 17mm.

 

2. It must have a Canon EF mount but adapters are O.K. by me. That

means that a Nikon MF lens (for example) will do just fine. That also

means that Canon FD (for example) are off the scope.

 

3. If it's an MF lens then I must be able to meter at Av or M. That

means that Nikon G lenses (for example) are off the scope either.

 

4. It can't be too pricey (~700$ max) so all the east German exotic

stuff is also off the scope.

 

5. If it will be a fish-eye, the images will be straightened later in

software. I understand that this will decrease resolution in the

edges. Pity but I can live with that.

 

6. Original lens hood will be used at all times.

 

7. Aperture will typically be f/8-11 so sharpness wide open is not a

consideration.

 

8. I also consider APS-C lenses as know they will work without

vignetting at these focal lengths. EF-ing the 10-22 USM is also

considered. I know that it will work well from 12mm and up. The same

goes for the Sigma 10-20. Tokina's 12-24 is good from ~15mm.

 

9. The prime/zoom issue is not important. I suppose primes will be

better in that regard but if someone will suggest with a zoom with

great flare resistance I won't mind :-)

 

I talked with Mark Welsh and he recommended the Tokina 17/3.5. That

surprised me a bit because I was under the impression that Tokina

lenses are not that great in that regard but as he has a lot of

experience, I respect his opinion. BTW, do you know what is the

difference between the old ATX version and the new ATX PRO version?

 

So, what do you think? Which is the most flare resistant ultra-wide

lens?

 

TIA.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[mike_smith2]

Lens aperture setting and angle to sun are the main critical factors generating flare after that the number of elements/groups will dictate just how bad the flare track is. Decent lens hoods or hand shading technique will obviate a lot, however for the record from what I can gather the listing table based on elements and groups would be

 

Sigma 15mm f2.8 EX - 7 elements in 6 groups ( 7 / 6)(fisheye)

Zeiss Distagon 18mm F4 - 10 / 9 (suffers some flare in my experience)

Oly Zuiko 18mm F3.5 - 11 / 9

Tokina 17mm F3.5 ATX - 11 / 9

Canon 17/40 F4 L - 12 / 9

Canon EF 14mm F2.8 L - 13 / 10

Sigma 20mm F1.8 EX - 13 / 11

Canon EF 16-35 F2.8 L - 14 / 10

Canon Ef 17 / 35 F2.8 L (old model) - 15 / 10 (suffers awful flare handling in my experience and sold as a result)

Sigma 17-35 EX F2.8/4 - 16 / 13

 

Length of lens and spacing between the groups will also affect flare reflection/refraction track, the diminutive Oly Zuiko is extremely compact, the EF 17-35 L is about 2 times longer so has greater group seperation. The latter is more likley to have obvious flare tracks as a result

 

Note the fisheye used as comparison has considerably fewer elements/groups compared to rectilinear (as you would expect)

 

So the Tokina is up in the smaller number of lens/groups compared to the Canon zooms which seems to re-enforce the theory that it has good flare handling.

 

Mike

[howard_slavitt2]

I've read Mark Welsh's posts and he hates the Canon 17-40mm f4L. I respect his tests; they seem very thorough and he's willing to have his hypotheses disproven. However, I also think that Welsh may have gotten the world's worst copy of the 17-40mm f4L lens. For my part, I have a very good copy of the 17-40mm f4L, though it's not perfect. I would try a copy of the 17-40mm f4L, assuming you can buy from a store that will let you return it if you're not pleased. Michael Reichman compared the 17-40mm f4L to the 16-35mm f2.8L and scored the 17-40mm very high in terms of controlling flare. I've also read several other posts that rate this lens as having very low amounts of flare. From my use of the 17-40mm f4L, my "user experience" summary is: (1) Generally very sharp at all focal lengths even at f4; (2) The extreme corners are soft until f8, and with the extremely wide fls until f11. At f11 and f16 the corners are acceptably sharp although not perfect -- but frankly, I don't even notice the corner softness even at f8 on a 13" x 19" print unless I know to look for it, and then examine the print at about 6" or less distanct. Although not in Mark Welsh's tests, what some people claim is corner softness is often probably a lack of depth of field -- usually the extreme corners are at a different distance (often much closer to the lens). Whereas all the test charts show that diffraction starts to limit sharpness above f8, I don't see a difference in sharpness comparing f8 to f16 looking at 100% in Photoshop in field uses. I'm fairly sure I wouldn't notice it in prints. (3) Color and contrast is excellent in all field conditions I've used the lens in. (4) Bokeh is surprisingly good for a wide angle zoom.

[m.l]

I have a Tokina 17/3.5 ATX Pro that I use with my Minolta 7D, with very acceptable results. I can really recommend you this lens. It is sharp, solid and compact.

[ryanjoseph]

I too have a Tokina 17/3.5 ATX Pro, for my EOS camera. It is an excellent lens and quite flare resistant.

[lee_carruthers]

I use a Tokina 17/3.5. It is quite flare resistant, but will flare just fine with the right angle of sunlight.<div></div>

[lee_carruthers]

I should add that I do like the lens. It also has a fair bit of C aberation that shows up as a greenish fringe on some pictures. Nice and sharp though and far more flare resistant than my 16-35 Canon.

[melresnick]

One more vote for the Tokina 17/3.5 ATX-Pro, on a Maxxum 7D.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

As an Israeli though currently in the UK...

 

From what I remember, the sun climbs very fast, and sets also very fast, almost the whole day the sun is so high in the sky that it is give or take directly above your head. I used to manage a lab in Bet Shemesh, a 2 year nightmare ;-), for all the faults that most pictures had, I can't remember flare being a problem except in a very few cases and this was with horrible taken photos on cheap P&S's. I'm not saying that your fear is undoubted, but midday, you would be trying hard to get the sun in the picture enough to flare. The other side of the coin is that my 70-200L, certainly not a cheap or ultra wide zoom, will flare nastily when any sun is in the frame, ditto my 24-70L and 17-40L. If there was a sun in the frame then I didn't bother if I had only zooms.

 

If you are referring to the general lack of contrast across the frame type of flare (shoot in RAW up the shadows drastically in ACR and viola! great when you need to recover a lost shot).... to be honest, nothing will help much with the midday sun, especially in Israel where it's a sunny f32 rule :-). I had a new canon A1 and was experiencing this problem at the beginning of my photographic odessey. I was standing forlorly outside the lab wondering why my photos lacked any kind of saturation or crispness when an American PJ wandered past, he was covering the large American Aliya that year. He had two 1D's on his shoulder with 16-35's on both. I stopped him and asked him as an expert why my photos with this camera were so lifeless. He took one look and said 'do you think mine are any better at this time of day!'. Lesson learnt.

 

I hope you find something that works for you but wouldn't count on you being incredibly happy with any lens solution for midday photography, it ain't kind to your pictures!

 

Good Luck,

 

Beni

[awindsor]

Petteri has review at his site. You should like the review and the new site name, "Prime-Junta". At the end of the review are some full frame slide shots so you can check the edge performance. <P>

 

<A HREF="http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html">A Pontification from another card carrying member.</A>

[nick_3d]

17-40L is very strong in term of flare control -- some die hard prime maybe slightly better but for Zoom this is it.

[thierry_fortier]

Hey ben... its Voilࡠviola mean rape! ;P

[John Crowe]

Even in worst conditions my Canon FD 17mm f4 never flared like the Tokina shown above. I know you can't use that lens but I am now using a Nikon 14mm f2.8 ED AF on my 10D and Elan IIe and it is rated very well for flare but distortion in architectural subjects can be noticeable. You can get well used Nikon 14mm's in your price range but I would also call your attention to the Tamron 14mm f2.8 which sells for a bit more (currently $900 with rebate, US only?) as I have read that the Nikon is close if not identical. Excellent condition used Tamron's sell in your price range.

 

 

As mentioned above asking for flare resistant superwides is like wanting your cake and eating it too, but their are things you can do to limit or eliminate flare. It really has nothing to do with living in a sunny neighbourhood, you just have to learn to manage your compositions and timing, and patience is of the essence. One more thing, the hoods for these lenses are always very limited in coverage, so don't be afraid to use your hand as a hood. You must position it perfectly for each shot but it is definitely worth doing. My hand often assists the hood in doing it's job.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I've been impressed with the flare resistance of my 17-40/4L USM. It is certainly possible to get it to flare, as of course no lens will be completely free of flare in all situations. But it is very resistant to flare if the sun is outside its field of view, and I think it does a creditable job of flare suppression even with the sun in the field of view.</p>

 

<p>Not having any other lenses in the range of focal lengths you're looking at, I can't compare it to any other candidates.</p>

[jcolwell]

Depending on how wide you really want to go, you might want to consider the manual focus SMC Pentax or SMC Takumar 15mm f/3.5. The SMC coating is still one of the best ever made (better than anything Canon has on the market), and it is known for remarkably low distortion and high sharpness. They are not common, but do turn up a few times a year on eBay, where you could expect to pay from about $600 to $900 (US). The SMC Tak has a M42 mount which is readily adapted to an EF mount. The SMC Pentax can be modified by performing a simple aperture leverectomy, and using the now readily-available Pentax K to EF mount adapter. If you don't need to go that wide (it's a big lens, slightly larger than the EF 14mm f/2.8 L), then I highly recommend the SMC Pentax 18mm f/3.5, which is quite rare and very excellent (I have one). It will cost about the same as the 15/3.5, but is much smaller and lighter, and also has internal filters. You can find out more about these lenses and links to review sites at <a href="http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/">B. Dimitrov Pentax K-mount site</a>.

[istvan_sandor]

Yakim,

 

I have the Canon 17-40 and the Tokina 12-24. Without filter, both of them are excellent in terms of flair control.

Happy shooting,

Istvan

[istvan_sandor]

......and both of them are waaaay better than my Canon EF 24/2.8.

I know you have this lens, Yakim, so, you have an idea...

Istvan

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>Length of lens and spacing between the groups will also affect flare reflection/refraction track, the diminutive Oly Zuiko is extremely compact, the EF 17-35 L is about 2 times longer so has greater group seperation. The latter is more likley to have obvious flare tracks as a result </i> </p>

<p> I had the 17-35/2.8 L. Indeed it flared badly. </p>

<p> <i> Michael Reichman compared the 17-40mm f4L to the 16-35mm f2.8L and scored the 17-40mm very high in terms of controlling flare.</i> </p>

<p> YMMV but I seen the images and I don't call this very good flare resistance.</p>

<p> <i>I use a Tokina 17/3.5. It is quite flare resistant, but will flare just fine with the right angle of sunlight. </i> </p>

<p> Ouch. Another one bites the dust :-(</p>

<p> <i>From what I remember, the sun climbs very fast, and sets also very fast, almost the whole day the sun is so high in the sky that it is give or take directly above your head. </i> </p>

<p> Correct but I do shoot occasionally sunsets and sunrises.</p>

<p> <i>I am now using a Nikon 14mm f2.8 ED AF on my 10D and Elan IIe and it is rated very well for flare </i> </p>

<p> A friend of mine has it as well. <a href="http://www.kramery.com/DUarticles/detail.asp?iArt=296&iType=32">Not bad for a 14/2.8 lens but not so good either</a>. It is also very pricey. <b></b> </p>

<p> <i>I have the Canon 17-40 and the Tokina 12-24. Without filter, both of them are excellent in terms of flair control. </i> </p>

<p> I don't use filters. A CPL when needed but not more. </p>

<p> <i>......and both of them are waaaay better than my Canon EF 24/2.8. I know you have this lens, Yakim, so, you have an idea... </i> </p>

<p> I sold mine to a friend but I do remember it was very flare resistant. I once deliberately put the sun in the frame and only got a slight loss of resolution. Non of these ugly spots. Looking at LL I wonder if sample variation plays a role here as well.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>