Looking for sharp wide angle

[hocus_focus]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Canon 24-70/2.8, although having great color and contrast, seems soft at the wide end. I had the same experience with Canon 28/1.8, even when stopped down to f/2.8. Is this inherent to wide lenses?</p>

<p>Which wide angle is sharp <strong>wide open</strong>? How does Canon 16-35/2.8 II perform compared to 24-70/2.8 (in particular around 20-28mm at f/2.8) ?</p>

<p>PS: I use Canon 5D2 and shoot indoors.</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I use and like the 24/2.8 and the 35/1.4 - both sharp lenses and the former very reasonably priced. The 24/1.4 has a good reputation although the tests I have read suggest it is not so great wide open, but at f2.8-8 it's really good (but the 24/2.8 only just trails-it if at all). The 16-35mm is good for a wide-angle zoom and is good from 20-28mm, relatively poorer at 35mm and at 16mm. and I don't think as good as the 24-70mm in the equivalent range. I rarely carry the 24-70mm around as it is so heavy, although nothing can beat it for people and event photography.</p>

[hocus_focus]

<blockquote>

<p>The 24/1.4 has a good reputation although the tests I have read suggest it is not so great wide open, but at f2.8-8 it's really good</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, 24/1.4 is a bit too expensive for a single focal length. I don't mind putting that money in a high quality zoom, that's why I consider the 16-35/2.8.</p>

<p>But if 16-35/2.8 performs worse than 24-70/2.8 <strong>(in terms of sharpness, color, contrast)</strong>, I'll stick to 24-70/2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

[zml]

<p>You may want to rent the 16-35 and see for yourself in real life. Most people who talk about this lens know it only from web reviews which sport a lot of resolution chart photography but not much real life experience and, often, even less knowledge of the subject matter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, 24/1.4 is a bit too expensive for a single focal length. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>But might be worth it :-)<br>

IMO zooms should be used when <strong>needed </strong>which is not often. Yes, you may <strong>want </strong>to use a zoom for the sake of "convenience" but why bother if you are not satisfied with the results..? </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Are you using the lens correction profiles in software like LightRoom or DxO's Optics Pro?</p>

<p>I had the same concerns about my 24-105mm until I started running every image through DxO's Lens Correction module. The module corrects for geometric distortions, contrast, chomatic aberration, vignetting, etc. at every aperture and every focal length of your zoom. The programs are particularly effective at the wide ends of zooms. I suggest that you try this if you haven't already.</p>

<p>If you still want a new, sharp lens, then we need to know if you're shooting full-frame or crop sensor. With your coment about price, you've ruled out Ziess and the Canon TS-E fixed focal length, which are known, sharp w-a lenses, but they still require correction, just not as much as your current lens.</p>

<p>Other than briefly considering a Ziess or a Canon TS-E, I've decided to stay with Canon zooms and correct the image automatically in RAW conversion.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have both the 16-35 II and the 24-70. Of the two I find that I use the 16-35 more but that is probably related to the subjects I shoot. The 16-35 II is at it's best at the wide angle end so at 24mm the 24-70 is slightly better. Interestingly my experience with the 16-35 II is that it is actually pretty good at 16mm to 20mm. I would not describe the 16-35 II as a great lens - I have heard the Nikon 14-24 is better, but it does a very good job.<br>

If your 24-70 is not sharp enough at the wide end then you only solution is a prime. I find it a pity that Canon dropped the 24 F2 from the FD series as this was (and still is) a great wide angle lens - better than the FD 24 F1.4 unless you needed F1.4. Excluding rangefinder lenses the only lens that I own which is significantly sharper than the two F2.8 zooms is the 17 F4 T/S lens. I tested the 24mm T/S MkII and it was probably even sharper than the 17mm. The Zeiss 21mm has a good reputation but I have never used it. So if you what the best optical quality then you need to look at Canon 24 F1.4 II, Zeiss 21mm and Canon 24mm T/S II. If you want to save money you can look at an older MF lens (Nikon, Olympus, Leica and Contax) and an adaptor.<br>

On the 16-35 zoom I looked at the Mk I and ended up buying the 17-40 F4 as I found the 16-35 Mk I examples I tested were not great performers. I always found the 17-40 at bit soft at the edges - especially on full frame (I shoot film and 5DII, 7D and 1DIIN). I replaced the 17-40 with the 16-35 II a few years ago - soon after it came out (about 3 years ago). I have been very happy with my copy and use it a lot. It is significantly smaller and lighter than the 24-70 and the lens hood is much smaller. I find it makes a great general lens on the 7D and I rarely use the 24-70 on this 1.6x body. The 82mm filter is a bit of a pain but I do use a thin UV filter to seal / protect the lens. When I use a polarizer I have to replace one filter with another if I go any wider than about 21mm. For ND grads etc... you will need to go with a 4" system as the Cokin P size will vignette badly from about 22mm - even with the wide angle holder. With a Cokin Z holder (rebuilt for only 1 filter) things work fine - although the filters in this size (lee, Cokin) are much more expensive. The only other thing to be aware of with this lens is it does suffer from flare easily.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>The tilt-shift lenses that Philip mentions are probably the sharpest.</p>

<p>Some folks use Nikon 14-24/2.8 with an adapter. This lens has a reputation for being exceedingly sharp.</p>

<p>Tokina has a new 16-28/2.8. It competes with Canon 16-35/2.8 L.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Haven't we been here before?</p>

<p>All lenses are compromises. Wide lenses more than long lenses. Few lenses are as sharp wide open as they are stopped down a little. You just have to live with it.</p>

<p>You pay your money and you takes yer choice.</p>

[hocus_focus]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you using the lens correction profiles in software like LightRoom or DxO's Optics Pro?<br>

I had the same concerns about my 24-105mm until I started running every image through DxO's Lens Correction module.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>When I return from a wedding with 1000 images, I don't have time to correct them all.<br>

Can you explain how to correct automatically in cs5 camera raw? Does the program recognize the lens automatically or do I need to select each pic separately?</p>

<p>Anyone have experience with <strong>Sigma 20/1.8 and 24/1.8</strong>? How do they compare to Canon 16-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 ?</p>

<p>Does <strong>Zeiss </strong>autofocus?</p>

<p>Does Canon 5D2 support <strong>peripheral illumination correction </strong>for 3rd party lenses like Sigma and Zeiss?</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>When I return from a wedding with 1000 images, I don't have time to correct them all. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Use batch processing: Canon's own DPP does a great job batch processing, including lens corrections. There are other batch options, including DxO Optics, etc. No idea about the Adobe options but I find the Canon's RAW converter much superior to CR. 1000 images from a wedding is no that many but you may need a computer with a very fast hard drive, processor and lotsa RAM to speed things up a little.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Shoot in RAW and turn off PIC and let your processor correct in RAW conversion.</p>

<p>Zeiss is MF.</p>

<p>If you're going to process 1000 pictures regularly you need a fast card reader, a fast processor, 4 to 8 gig of memory and a 64-bit OS. Otherwise you'll spend too many hours at the computer.<br>

Learn to batch process with whatever converters you're using, but you still may want to look at each image before you push the button to process the batch, to straighten, crop and make minor adjustments. I have two or three presets that I use pretty constantly. If, for instance, room lighting throws me an ugly curve I'll take a few seconds to build a preset for that room. I'm using DxO, but DPP, LR and others allow you to develop presets or templates.</p>

[hocus_focus]

<p>I already use RAW and I do have a good computer, that's not the problem. But I still need to view every pic. 1000 pics is more than enough. A good album consists of 200 images.</p>

<p>How do you batch process lens correction in CR without viewing every image separately?</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Sorry, I don't know CR batch operations. Someone should help you momentarially. I can't believe there wouldn't be a provision for that, as in LR, DPP and DxO.</p>

<p>When you learn how, you could auto-process, then make corrections. I shoot RAW plus jpeg, so that I can review the images quickly as jpeg and only process the ones that I want to go further with and I go ahead an do the straightening, cropping and global adjustments at the time of RAW conversion. You could do your autoprocess and then make further corrections in PS, it's just a matter of developing your own work flow.</p>

[lilly_w]

<p>I strongly suggest the Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon. It is a MF lens, although AF is not critical at this FL.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>There is conflicting info:<br>

Do you want a lens which is sharp "wide open" - or sharp (and good colour, contrast etc) at F/2.8?</p>

<p>WW</p>

[brano_k]

I use Tokina AT-X 124 PRO DX II, not only that it is sharp but the distortion is very low. It is built far more solidly than

my small APS Canon, reasonably fast at constant f4, regardless of zoom position. Do not take it unless it is type II,

even if you can get it at a much better price.

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>How does Canon 16-35/2.8 II perform...(in particular around 20-28mm at f/2.8) ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am satisfied with mine.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Here is a hand held uncropped photo.</p><div></div>

[david_lau3]

<p>All lenses are less sharp wide open, and all lenses are less sharp at the corners of the frame.</p>

<p>The sharpest Canon wide angle lens is the 24mm TS-E II. Even wide open it is very sharp at the centre and sharp at the corners also. This lens has the least amount of CA at the corners among all Canon wide angles, and may be among all wide angles too.</p>

<p>The next sharpest Canon wide angle lens is the 17mm TS-E.</p>

[philip_wilson]

Peter I think the OP is trying to compare the 16-35 II to the 24-70. My 24-70 is sharper than my 16-35 II in the 24-

35mm range at F2.8. It is mainly noticeable at the edges on full frame. If you have the 24-70 do you see the same

thing?

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>If you have the 24-70 do you see the same thing?</blockquote>

<p>No, I do not own that lens. Philip, this reviewer's test of the two lenses in question concur with your findings:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

[hocus_focus]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you want a lens which is sharp "wide open" - or sharp (and good colour, contrast etc) at F/2.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sharp with good colour and contrast wide open.<br /> <br /></p>

[dcstep]

<p>The 16-35mm is much sharper at 16mm than at 24mm, which is not unusual for a zoom. (One more reason to have your software correct). If you buy a 16-35mm rather than a 24-70mm it's probably because you want something wider than the 24mm. That test referenced by Peter J. is a great test, but it's uncorrected by software. In the digital real world we now correct for our zoom lenses' imperfection. The 16-35mm is a great lens when used appropriately and especially when corrected with competent software.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Sharp with good colour and contrast wide open.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>. . . Thanks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone have experience with <strong>Sigma 20/1.8 and 24/1.8</strong>? How do they compare to Canon 16-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>. . . Then considering <em>"[when] wide open"</em> I don't think you'd be satisfied with the Sigma 24 F/1.8. I haven't used the Sigma, but have, fist-hand results from it, used wide open, and I use the EF24F/1.4<br /><br />Yours seems a tough ask, especially when there is the layer on top, that the 24/1.4MkII is too expensive, so that rules out the sharper TS-E 17 and TS-E 24. So to fit what you ask, it seems to me the L zooms (16 to 35 and 24 to 70, and even 24 to 105) have an advantage over any Prime like the EF24/1.4, because even though a Wide Prime and Fast and Sharp and a Great Lens: it is an F/1.4 lens - and stuff begins to fall apart at F/1.4, at 24mm.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I agree with William W. You will probably not be happy with the Sigmas. I have the Sigma 24mm f1.8. It is a nice lens--more than decent. But is is short of the Canon 24mm f1.4L--of course it is. Short of L lenses, not many lenses are still sharp, with good color and contrast, wide open. I also have the 16-35mm f2.8L (original). The center is sharp with good contrast and color, wide open. The corners are not.</p>

<p>If you have to have a sharp wide angle which is sharp, wide open, with good color and contrast, you will need to a) further clarify how much you are willing to compromise on sharpness, and for what reasons, and b) save up for it, if necessary. Otherwise, you will not be happy. I purchased the Sigma because I was not sure I'd be using the wide prime a lot, so it was kind of a test lens. I'm still working out how I would use it--I'm giving it a good chance. I may or may not replace it with the 24mm L. In the mean time, it is, as I said above, more than adequate. A nice feature is that it has a slight macro capability as well.</p>

<p>The following sounds like an excuse, but it isn't--clients (talking about wedding clients) do not notice small differences in lens sharpness. One spends the big money on the best lenses to satisfy oneself, not one's clients.</p>