35mm Wides

[bob_palmieri]

<p>Folks - <br>

I've been shooting for almost 40 years, and have a very specific question.<br>

For my Canon 7D I have adapters for Nikon, Leica ® and M42. I've been able to find primes in the range of 50 to 400mm that produce very fine files. It's on the Wide Side that I haven't been able to get happy enough.<br>

Believe me, I live in the real world, and believe strongly that Perfect is the Enemy of Good. <br>

And so, I ask the assembled body of experienced users of 35mm optics, what do you really think are the Great Lenses in the 14 to 18 mm range (edge performance isn't important on my APS-C camera.) I'm a bit allergic to distortion, and CA is obviously an issue in this case. I'm not allergic to doing some level of correction for both in post-processing, but the less needed the better. I also do believe in bokeh...<br>

Bob Palmieri</p>

[sking]

<p>Bob,<br>

A wide that has a sterling reputation is the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS. Mine, which I shoot with an F3 from time to time, is sharp and has no distortion. A bonus is that it has close-range-correction and focuses to about seven inches!<br>

Steven</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The best ultrawide prime I've ever used is the Samyang 14/2.8. It's resolution is nothing short of astounding, though it does suffer from "moustache" distortion, which renders it less than ideal for architectural photography.</p>

<p>As for bokeh, that's a tall order for an ultrawide, given their inherently large depths-of-field.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Best ultrawide between 14 and 18, by a long way, that I have ever seen is the 17mm TS-E. Bokeh on ultrawides is not generally a talking point as getting anything truly blurred is often impractical.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Your 14 to 18mm range is a tough one. My Nikon 14/2.8 is sharp but does have moustache distortion. I am just starting to experiment with my new Canon 17 TS-E but it seems to have far less CA than my 14 (never noticed it until now), no distortion (that I have found yet), and when used properly appears to be much sharper than the 14. This of course is an extremely expensive lens due to the tilt/shift feature.</p>

<p>The other option I have been looking into myself is possibly replacing my 14/2.8 with the Nikon AF-S G 14-24mm f2.8. You can get an affordable Nikon G to Canon Eos adapter now. This lens is supposed to be incredible, beating out Canon and Nikon 14mm lenses at a good price. Certainly something to look into. </p>

<p>I know there are some exotic 21mm lenses out there but that may not be wide enough for you. I believe there is also a 15mm Voightlander, but I do not know much about it. The Nikon 15mm AI and 18mm AI are quite likely also beaten by the 14-24. There is also the Sigma 12-24 which seems to be okay, but I suspect that there must be a catch somewhere, like maybe flare, or CA.</p>

<p>Then there are the typical Canon lenses, 16-35/2.8 L, 17-40/4 L, and older 17-35/2.8 L, and I believe Nikon has the 17-35/2.8 ED.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Check out Contax Zeiss and Leica R lenses too. Leica has a 19 and Contax has an 18. There may be others too. I had a Contax Ziess T* 85/1.4 and it was incredible. I wish I had it back now that I have a Canon full frame. </p>

<p>This is off track but the Nikon 8/2.8 circular fisheye is astonishing. It is sharper than it's reputation and control over flare, with the sun in the frame, is just insane. I forgot to test the 17 TS-E for flare today. I'll do that tomorrow if the sun is out! My 14/2.8 flares badly in some situations due to a very poor front element, that I have often thought of replacing.</p>

[charles_tuthill]

<p>So... 14 to 18mm, APS-C body. So, you're not really looking for a 14mm perspective on on a 35mm body but more like a 20mm perspective.<br />In that case, the canon 10-22mm does an excellent job as does the Tokina 11-16 (though I only know about the canon from experience). The tamron 10-24 lens that I used for a few months also looks very nice at 14mm (stopped down). I'm sure others will suggest more options that I have neglected. But then again, none of these are made for 35mm.</p>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>Folks - <br>

Thanks so much for the quick & detailed responses!<br>

Yes, I am looking for a 24 to 28 style perspective. On SLRs I often like to get really close to small subjects and try to throw the background out of focus, hence the bokeh business.<br>

I use my 28 f/2 Nikkor AI for "just a little wide" and like its imaging a lot.<br>

I really like my 21 Voigt on my Leica M's.<br>

I use 50, 60, 90 & 400 Leica lenses and they look very good to me. Also really like my 85 1.8 Canon EF. And the 180 2.8 Nikkor ED.<br>

Can't afford the tilt-shift lens at the moment.<br>

It is certainly likely that a wide designed for the small sensor could outperform most of the primes out there; haven't yet given them a try. Mostly this is because I see a full frame body in the near future and don't want to invest in crop-field-only glass.</p>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>Also, you guys have some really, really nice pictures up here!</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I just sold my 28/2 AIS to help pay for the 17 TS-E....did not like doing that. I have a real fetish for shift now so will be looking to replace it with the 28/3.5 PC. I am glad you are considering full frame since all that expensive glass in full frame lenses seems wasted on a crop body. Of course then you have to prepare yourself for the challenge of superwideangle composition, if you chose to keep this lens.</p>

<p>You like the 21 on full frame, so it is my gut feeling that you are going to have to get all the way down to 14mm. I had to shoot with my 14/2.8 on a 10D for two years before going full frame and I was very much more pleased with all those images than I thought I would be.</p>

<p>I highly recommend buying a used lens to get the most bang for your buck. There are not too many full frame 14mm lenses out there so it makes my list a bit easier. Here are my choices from top to bottom, and you can find them all used if patient (I bought my 17 TS-E used and saved about $800 USD, and it's only 2 years old!): Nikon 14-24/2.8, Nikon 14/2.8 (only because it is cheaper than Canon's), Canon 14/2.8, Tamron 14/2.8, Sigma 12-24, Sigma 14/2.8.</p>

<p>Considering that budget may be tight, and that you may not even want to keep this lens when you go full frame, and that it is for a crop body for now, I am favouring a used Tamron 14/2.8 that are available for under $500 USD. Check out keh.com. Make sure the front element is in pristine condition, otherwise flare in any of these lenses will be a problem, even to fix in photoshop.</p>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>John - </p>

<p>This is a most useful rundown, and from my limited experience in this area your ranking makes a lot of sense.</p>

<p>The 21 Voigt is more connected with the way I shoot Leica M's.</p>

<p>I'll dig around tomorrow for some examples of the way that I use the 28 Nikkor on film.</p>

<p>Also, I have a 17mm Tamron SP that's real close... actually quite good by f/8.</p>

<p> </p>

[richterjw]

<p>I really enjoy my Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 on my 550D. It does same some distortion which is pretty easily fixed. It isn't Canon's most highly reputed prime, but I like my either on film body or DSLR. It allows for quite close focusing, as you mentioned a desire for in your most recent post; I have attached an example below. JR</p><div></div>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>Thanks, Jeremy! A telling image for distortion & bokeh. Fun to look at, too.</p>

<p>The reason I use a crop camera is that my first application for it was birding, where it packs a lotta pixels into the sweet spot of my 400mm Telyt.</p>

<p>Most of my work for clients is about shooting musicians (onstage & in studio) so it served that function well enough also.</p>

<p>Nowadays when I go hiking in the woods the temptation to leave the film gear behind is starting to take over, both because of weight & bulk considerations and also the convenience of having all the shots in one place.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>What is it about the Tamron 17mm that you don't like, that makes you want to consider something else in the 14-18mm range?</p>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>Basically the answer is... not much. It's a very good lens. It just doesn't quite get up to the overall level of image quality that I see when I'm editing through the results of a day's shooting. Slight levels of flare, loss of contrast & definition with difficult subjects like trees. If they're backlit I do more targeted desaturation around edges. Really, it's quite good when stopped down, and I suspect that there may in fact be something about the nature of these retrofocus ultrawides (with twice as many elements and more radical curvatures compared to the rest of my usual lenses) that may be pretty prevalent across the species.<br>

But, not having owned much else in this category, I don't have much to compare it with...<br>

Again, if I can get access to some backup drives tomorrow I'll put up some examples of a few of the lenses I've mentioned here.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>By the way, when I said "not much" in the above post I meant that there's "not much" in the Tamron that I don't like...</p>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>OK, here are some examples (if I can successfully negotiate the upload & display protocalls here.)<br>

These are from a project contrasting natural & man made color palattes & forms (forgive the somewhat heavy-handed handling of this tedious concept as represented by these three shots.) The first two shots are with my 28mm f/2 Nikkor on film. The tabletop shot illustrates the closeup-wide-open selective focus thing I like to do sometimes with wideangles. The less-than-stellar nature of the bokeh is also on display here.<br>

The hallway illustrates the distortion in this lens, which I consider to be "not too bad."<br>

The third image was shot with the Canon and 17mm Tamron. Although the "soft graphics" are the key element, fine textural detail is a very nice thing to have in these kindof shots. Trees can be somewhat merciless about this quality.</p><div></div>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>OK... I see I get 1 attachment per post, so here's the other 28 Nikkor example:</p><div></div>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>And here's the 17mm Tamron:</p><div></div>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>I understand that there's only so much that's apparent from these hammered-down jpegs (especially in the last example) but if anyone is actually interested enough in the whole business I'll put up two more 100% pixel shots; one of a section of the above Tamron shot and one from one of my longer lenses.</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>I am.</p>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>I'll get a coupla things up by tomorrow</p>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>Here's a 100% section of the 17mm Tamron image. Very unscientific; I seem to recall the camera being on a 'pod with the mirror locked up and using magnified live view for focussing but I could be wrong.</p><div></div>

[bob_palmieri]

<p>Anyone need to see a 100% section of one of my longer lenses?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Bob,</p>

<p>I see what you mean particularly as it is a near centre crop, but at 400iso and at only 1/30 sec exposure your IQ is taking a hit, I know the focal length rule etc but it looks to have a little motion blur to me. Do higher capture speeds look the same?</p>

<p>I would shoot some higher contrast brighter images to give you settings like 100 iso and 1/150 sec before looking elsewhere. I couldn't make out the aperture either, I presume it is stopped down a little?</p>