Wide Angle Choices for Full Frame

[lilserenity]

<p>Hello,

 

<p>I've done a bit of searching around and on these forums before posing this

question as I appreciate that asking the same thing twice when the answer is

there just waiting to be searched for!

 

<p>My problem is that my old Sigma 24mm f/2.8 seems to have given up the ghost

with being unable to auto focus and the aperture blades being stopped right

down permanently. Also observing it when set to f/2.8 and firing the shutter

the aperture blades don't budge. I've opened it up and manually cranking the

cogs that open and close the blades works but as soon as I start shooting at a

smaller aperture the blades just get locked again. Sigma quote that repairing

the lens would be about ?60 or so. Of course the EOS 3 which this was used on

was not fully compatible with it so maybe this was the contributing factor, but

I don't think the drizzle on Sunday night helped...

 

<p>So, rather than spend ?60 on repairing it, I'm thinking of replacing the

lens entirely as it was quite old, I should look for something new(er) that

won't have problems with my EOS 3.

 

<p>I don't have a lot of money so in an ideal world I'd get a 17-40mm f4/L and

that would be it, but I'm someone who shoots every weekend and only now having

a 50mm f/1.8 II (great lens for the money) - not having a wide angle lens is

going to become frustrating very quick.

 

<p>I've narrowed down my options to Canon lenses as I'm not sure of the 3rd

party options:-

 

<ul>

<li>EF 24mm f/2.8</li>

 

<li>EF 28mm f/2.8</li>

 

<li>EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM</li>

 

<li>/perhaps/ EF 35mm f/2</li>

</ul>

 

<p>I'm particularly interested in about the 20-35mm in terms of sharpness. I'm

not bothered about wide apertures for low light as I find my 50mm is great for

gigs. I'm not expecting L series quality, but how does the 20-35mm perform at

(say f/8-11 on all focal lengths):

 

<ul><li>20mm</li>

<li>24mm</li>

<li>28mm</li>

<li>35mm</li>

</ul>

 

<p>I'm a bit wary of the 24 and 28mm EF lenses as I heard the quality wasn't

great as they are quite old lenses in terms of design and have heard different

things about them -- the 35mm seems to be quite good though. How is colour

reproduction in general on them?

 

<p>Generally a prime should be sharper than a wide-angle zoom lens but if

anyone has any real life experience of how these perform that would be great.

 

<p>Sorry if I sound like I'm going around in circles, I just want to get a lens

that will take good landscape shots with good colour reproduction and some

environmental portraiture.

 

<p>Also hows the build quality on the 20-35mm? Does anyone know of comparison

shots of the 17-40mm f/4L and the 20-35mm at the same focal lengths?

 

<p>Thanks in advance for everyone's time and thoughts,

 

<p>Vicky

[mjferron]

According to Photozone the L zooms 24-70 and 24-105 are as good or even better @24 then the 24 prime is. The 24-105 will show more distortion though.

[kerry_grim]

I own the 24 and 35 and the quality is excellent on an EOS3 body.

 

However, I would go with the 17-40 over the 20-35, expecting the new design of the 17-40 to be much better. In addition, should you eventually go to a crop body digital, you may find the 20-35 not wide enough. The 17-40 a little better on the wide end, but not a whole lot.

 

I am sure others will have links to comparative tests. I would be very surprised if the 17-40 wasn't a lot better than the 20-35. The 16-35 is excellent and generally about equal in quality to the 17-40, but, for landscape work, it may be hard to justify the extra expense of the 16-35 except for the pros.

[wayne_campbell]

Try the Sigma 15-30mm on a full frame. Now there's a fantastically sharp and wide lens!

[chris_mills1]

In terms of image quality, I would not worry about either the 24/2.8 or the 35/2. Both are plenty sharp, and both are significantly sharper than the 20-35/3.5-4.5 (or, for that matter, the 20-35/2.8).

 

I was in a similar situation about two years ago. At that time I was in the market for wides on a full-frame (a 1v). I rented all of the above plus the 20/2.8, 24/1.4, 24/3.5 TS, 28/2.8, 35/2, 35/1.4, and the 16-35/2.8. I tried them out head-to-head over a three day weekend and ended up buying two of them. One was the 35/1.4 and the other was the 24/2.8.

 

I seriously considered the 16-35/2.8, but I absolutely loved the perspective and the low-light capability of the 35/1.4 -- so there went most of my budget. I still needed something wider than 35mm, and of the options the 24/2.8 was my pick.

 

The 35/2 and the 24/2.8 are on your list, and I liked both of them. They are both small, light, relatively cheap, and sharp. The 20/2.8, 28/2.8 and the 20-35/3.5-4.5 were noticeably less sharp, and even if you tend not to shoot in limited light, the zoom's smaller maximum aperture makes the view during composition much dimmer. The 20-35/2.8 is sharper and brighter, but still not as sharp as the primes.

 

If you can, rent them first and see which you prefer. If you can't rent them first and you know you want a wide perspective, I'd go with the 24/2.8.

 

cheers,

 

Chris

[g dan mitchell]

Have you priced used 17-40 f/4 L lenses?

 

Dan

[phule]

I don't have any real data to add, just an opinion: I love the 24 f/2.8 and 35 f/2 on both my Elan 7 and my Rebel XT.

 

I don't pixel peep and rarely print larger than 8x12 which might provide context. :)

[mark u]

A lot depends on how much you require AF and auto aperture. You will find a lot of 24mm choices reviewed here:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

 

The OM Zuiko f/2.8 really looks like a bargain alongside the Canon f/1.4 L, and it is a big step up optically from the Canon or Sigma f/2.8 which are not that far apart. Of course, it is auto aperture on an OM body, which is a feasible alternative to an OM-EOS adaptor since you are shooting film.

[lilserenity]

Wow some great information there, I'm so happy you have been able to help me out. The bottom line is that if I had the money, I'd get the 17-40mm in a heartbeat; as I know anything else will be a compromise. The question is how long can I go with just the 50mm lens. I'm just very short right now as I'm trying to get some savings together this year and the car its yearly service, MOT and taxing...

 

Taking this in, it's unlikely I'll be able to afford tyhe 17-40mm for about a year but second hand could be a good place to start and I am keeping my eyes peeled. Basically I acknowledge that I have to spend money to get good quality so I'm not expecting a wonderful ?150 lens to cure all ills as it were :) So the 17-40L isn't out, but it's lagging a bit budget wise.

 

The 24-70 whilst interesting sounds like it'll be too expensive for my budget, although I notice Sigma has a 24-70mm f/2.8 macro lens, does anyone have any experience with that?

 

I'm also glad to hear the Canon 24mm f/2.8 is good; the Sigma I have is or was very good all things considered, its AF performance was very lethargic but as a sharp wide angle with minimal flare it wasn't too bad, 16 years old this year... So that's one I can also bear in mind.

 

The 35mm focal length is possible as like that focal length and enjoy shooting a Olympus Trip 35 which has a Zuiko 40mm lens and that is very useful, so the 35mm f/2 might be a good idea as I admit sometimes I have found at <28mm you need to work at foreground interest as well as mid to background. May also be good for gig work with an f/2 focal length. Unfortunately as much as I love the 35mm f/1.4L -- it's out of reach too :( I have used that lens over a weekend with an EOS 5D a couple of years ago on a weekend rental and whilst the results were great, the lens is quite pricy (for my budget.)

 

I'd also be interested in seeing examples of the Sigma 15-30mm lens, I see it's not a HSM (USM?) variant but this isn't for wildlife shots so... If there are good (ie: unresized) shots for me to look at this would be a lens I'd be interested in.

 

In all, it would appear the 20-35mm isn't recommend as highly as other lenses. I'm not too woried about focal length on future APS-C upgrades, as that is unlikely since I enjoy shooting film - particularly as I like developing my own black and white films. But as you say, always good to keep half your eye on the ball in the future.

 

So from this I have the following lenses that seem to fit the bill:

 

- 17-40mm f4/L -- we all knew that anyway :)

 

- 24mm f/2.8

 

- 35mm f/2

 

- Sigma 15-30mm

 

My next investment was to be a 70-200mm f/4 but that will have to go on hold as the wide angle end is something that matters much more to me, but a decent modern wide angle prime or zoom was the next on the list.

 

I do have myself a lot to think about here!

 

Thanks once again

Vicky

[lilserenity]

I've also read about a 20-40mm Sigma lens. I think its discontinued but seems to go for a good price and most importantly takes front mounted filters which the 15-30mm can't (unless I remove the hood which will cause vignetting on the EOS 3 being well uhh full frame!)

 

Looks to go for a decent price too, my budget - anyone with any experience on this lens?

[ken munn]

Used to have the 28 f2.8. My memory of it it is "OK", but not much more. The 20 f2.8

impressed me much more, but then again I'm a sucker for W-I-D-E wide angles. Can't help

much with image quality questions - for me sharpness comes second place to contrast and

colour and composition and wow! As long as the sharpness doesn't actually suck. After all,

who wants to count the whiskers on granny's chin?

[mark u]

You may want to check my post which you may have missed while writing your long one... it's just above it. The tests I linked to will provide you with a lot of insight into wide angle performance, and cover many of the lenses already discussed as well as other options.

[karl_lehmann]

You asked about comparisons between the 17-40L and the 20-35/3.5-4.5... I've been shooting with both of them for years and I don't see much difference in image quality - the 20-35 is surprisingly good, the 17-40 slightly better, and a good prime easily beats both. At f/8 to f/11 you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two zooms, and I've actually sold more images shot with the 20-35.

 

In real world terms it's a trade off: the 17-40 gives you an extra 3mm, but the 20-35/3.5-4.5 is much lighter and more compact. So in the studio the 17-40 is better but on a long hike the 20-35 is better.

 

If you'd rather go with a prime I'd recommend the 24mm - if I had to shoot with just one wide angle that would be it.

 

I can't imagine why anyone shooting short focal lengths would consider moving to a cropped sensor an "upgrade". So the last thing I'd worry about is compatibility with some hypothetical future APS-C body!

[lilserenity]

I have had a bit of luck today at work as I've found out I can sell some annual leave I would have otherwise carried over (only 4 days worth but still something) -- as such it looks like I have two options after reviewing all the very helpful and excellent advice, thank you also Mark for that superb link, I shall be looking at that website closely tonight but particularly intrigued at the performance of the Zuiko f/2.8. Certainly the 40mm Zuiko f/2.8 on the Trip 35 I have is fantastic and really makes the camera (as ever.)

 

Anyway I think two realistic choices are emerging for me here, as I think apart from an older lens, I'd like to stay with Canon -- particularly seeing as the Sigma did prove to not be entirely compatible with my EOS 3. Granted I got my money's worth out of the Sigma on my defunct EOS 5!

 

So if you had the choice, I would have about ?380 which would enable me to:

 

- Get a brand new 17-40 f/4L from the UK (it's in fact about ?380) so I'd have the warranty etc.

 

- Get a second hand with 1 year warranty 20-35mm USM f/3.5-4.5 in Exc++ condition, with hood and box from a local dealer that I know and trust *and* a brand new 35mm f/2.

 

I'm leaning towards the latter as the 35mm f/2 could be a real boon to my low light and street work; and the 20-35mm gives me lots of wide angle opportunity, no overlap and seemingly good sharpness, contrast and colour reproduction at f/8-11 (which is fine for my landscape needs.)

 

Given the choice - what would you go for? I must admit I have pretty much sold myself on the 20-35 + 35 route.

 

Thanks,

 

Vicky

[karl_lehmann]

Go with the the 20-35 + 35. The 35mm f/2 is better than either zoom at 35mm, plus you get the extra 2 stops - that can come in handy for street scenes, people, etc. It also makes focusing easier and gives you a brighter viewfinder.

[lilserenity]

Hi Karl,

 

Thanks, I already have the 50 f/1.8 II so I know how useful f/2 is to me in my work so I think I've sold myself on this to be sure, with also meaning I can use front mounted filters, use my existing EOS 3 and also have auto-focus.

 

It'll certainly be good to shoot gigs with a wider angle lens than the 50 (which I have to say is just superb for the money, sure the 1.4 is better but, I've been investing time in technique and experience, rather than finances so far in my photography--although I do wish I had the money to just buy L series glass like that!)

 

That said though, I do walk a lot (like I walked 25 miles in two days around London, and that's hard going... roughly like walking from one side of London to the other (the equivalent of walking M25/M4 west junction to A13/M25 junction in the east--which is probably nearer 30 miles but it's a hell of long way) and the lighter the better as I often have a heavy back pack and heavy lenses are always a test of my neck!

 

Vicky

 

Thanks again,

Vicky

[alan_myers]

Hi Vicky,

 

How about a used 17-40/4? Here in the US, I see KEH.com is offering one for $569 US.

 

There was also a 17-35/2.8L, predecessor to the 16-35/2.8Ls, that you might find used. KEH.com in Atlanta, Georgia is offering used ones from $849 to $999. Might be an option, if you need the speed and the extra wide angle of view. I have one and it's a good lens. There's a little bit of chromatic aberration at the wide end when it's used wide open. But that's true of most ultra wide lenses, especially zooms.

 

And, prior to the 17-35/2.8, there was a Canon 20-35/2.8L. I haven't used it, but as an L-series lens it should be pretty good. It is smaller than the 17-35/2.8 (uses a 72mm filter instead of a 77mm, and for comparison the current 16-35 II uses an 82mm) I'm also not sure if the 20-35/2.8 has USM (or if you need it, depends on if you manually focus a lot I suppose). KEH.com in Atlanta, Georgia has used ones priced from $569 to $725 US. Is there a problem getting a lens hood for it? I'm not sure.

 

In an ideal world, I'd recommend the 20/2.8 (which I've used a lot), a 24/1.4L and a 35/1.4L... These are probably the three best lenses in the range you are looking at, in all around terms of optical and build quality, plus full function on your camera. However, these three would cost a lot of money! The 20/2.8 alone cost me about $325 US, if memory serves. That was used and 5 years ago, approx., though. The two L-series sell for over $1000 apiece, unfortunately. (IMHO, Canon has a bit of a gap in their 24mm and 35mm primes: There are "entry level" and "premium" lenses, but nothing in between. They do better with other focal lengths, such as the four 50mm lenses we have to choose from.)

 

Instead, if you don't mind manual focusing and manual aperture control, you might look at Nikkor AI/AI-S with an adapter. For example, there are simply wonderful 24/2 and 35/2 Nikkors, both are top quality optics. They can be found on the used market for relatively cheap. I have both these in AI versions (earlier, which some prefer for their longer focus throw that's a little slower to use, but might give slightly more precision) and they are really superb. Built the way lenses used to be built. I haven't yet adapted them for use on Canon, so they only get out occasionally when I'm in a vintage/film mood and take out my FE2 and FM2N for a spin. I bought those lenses used for approx. $100 to $125 each.

 

I'd not necessarily recommend the Nikkor 20mm AI/AI-S, simply because used ones still tend to sell for about as much as the Canon EF 20/2.8 ($310 to $364 US used).

 

Personally, unless you really need the extra width of a 20mm, you might consider only replacing your failing 24mm. Sigma also offers a 24mm f1.8 that's said to be a good lens. I've not used it personally, but reports I've seen are generally positive. I think it sells for about $400 new.

 

Now, I'd not want to be without a 35mm lens, too. But, that's just me. My typical lens kit on full frame/film is or was 20 or 21mm (depending upon system availability), 24mm, 35mm, 85mm or 90mm, 135mm, 180mm or 200mm and - sometimes - 300mm.

 

We each develop our own preferences over time, and those are simply mine. For example, I seldom used 28mm or 50mm lenses on full frame/film. The focal lengths just didn't appeal to me (but I like and use them both a lot on 1.6X crop digital cameras.)

 

Another strong bias I know I have is to use primes, not zooms. Today I use three zooms a lot for my commercial work. They're essential for that purpose. But, given the choice and not needing the conveniences of a zoom, I still opt for primes whenever I can. That probably just comes from the "good/bad" old days of film, when most zooms were marginal, at best. Today's zooms are much, much better performers, but still slower lenses by comparison.

 

Before you buy the EF 35/2, go to a store and put one on your camera. It's not a USM lens, and it's pretty lightly built. That makes it compact and inexpensive, but means no full time manual focus override (you need USM for that) and the focus ring is pretty small. Still, reports are it's a decent performer.