Wide angle upgrade

[herma]

<p>When shooting an event, with my 7d and old 5d, I borrow a 16-35 2.8 from a dear friend. But this practice has to stop at some point. So I sold my 10-22 after 4 years of use. I hardly lost any money, making me believer in lenses, not cameras. Anyway, I am ready to invest in something wide, such as a used 16-35mm 2.8. But then I got to read about the Canon Fisheye 8-15mm. I know it's gimmicky but it's also dramatic. The $$ between a used 16-35 and the 8-15mm is about the same. My next range is a 28-75mm. So I would miss out on some range... What do you think? Choices drive me crazy, so input is appreciated. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Don't do it. I have the 15mm fisheye and am happy to defish it, but only for fun and the very occasional image. I could quite happily work without the fisheye, but not without a 16-35 f2.8. If you want wild distortion you can always put it in afterwards.</p>

<p>Get the 16-35, the MkI is comparatively cheap and on a 5D is fine, the 5D MkII sensor is a bit more demanding so I'd recommend the 16-35 MkII for that.</p>

[iangillett]

I was fortunate enough to try out the Fisheye 8-15mm lens at a recent Canon event (using it on a 5D

Mk III - which I really liked). Although I only used the lens for a short while I did feel that it was more of

a two focal length lens rather than a zoom - in the way I would use it. Either at the 8mm end for a full-

circle (on full frame) fisheye, or at the 15mm end for a full-frame fisheye image. Optically it has very

good reviews (see the www.fredmiranda.com website) but I think the fisheye effect would quickly

become jaded - I have a 15mm fisheye that I only use occasionally.

 

I only shot on JPEG - didn't have much time to become familiar with the setting on the 5D Mk III - and

so I don't have the capability of using the DPP lens correction settings to compensate for chromatic

aberration at the edges. I do like the image I got but won't be getting the fisheye zoom just yet.

 

You have borrowed a 16-35 from a friend and so you are familiar with its performance. I had a Mk I but

upgraded to a Mk II, which is much better. I needed to be able to use the lens at f2.8 but the

performance of the 17-40 is also rated highly so you may consider that as an alternate to the more

expensive 16-35.

 

Ian<div></div>

[John Crowe]

<p>A fisheye lens is secondary to a superwideangle lens. My primary superwide is the 17 TS-E, and my fisheye is a Nikon 8mm f2.8. I use both on a 5D II. Start with the 16-35 and add the 8-15 when you can afford it.</p>

<p>There are a couple of alternatives if you want the best of both worlds now. You could get a used Canon EF 17-40/4 L and used Canon 15/2.8 for less than a used Canon 16-35/2.8 L. If you are patient, and don't mind using eBay, you could get both the 15 and the original 16-35 for a little more. Another option for the wideangle zoom is a used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L or even the previous 20-35/2.8 L. All of these lenses would be excellent on even a 5D II.</p>

[philip_wilson]

The old15mm fisheye is quite a good lens and I use a Sigma 8mm fisheye but they would not replace my 16-35 F2.8 II.

As others have said the MkII is better than the first version- especially on full frame. The 17-40 is a good lens and when I

bought one i found it performed almost as well as the 16-35 MkI. The best wide angle lens I have is the 17 F4 which

could replace my 16-35 II. However this lens is less versatile ( no filters and MF) and can be fiddly on a body like the 7D

where the prism overhang can get in the way due to the built in flash.

[stephan_matthies]

<p>I second John's view and would add another aspect: The 17-40mm is a fanstastic lens, loses out almost only on the aperture (see tests on <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com">www.the-digital-picture.com</a>) and it is a lot lighter than the 16-35. Jujst in case you should be walking about a lot ... And I find that 17 mm is already pretty dramatic!<br>

Cheers, Stephan</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>The Canon 17-40 has a lot of positives, comparing to the Canon 16-35II: a lot cheaper, 77mm filter size, more compact, and same L quality.</p>

<p>The niggling difference: the not insignificant 1mm from 17 to 16.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>I tend to use a fisheye more than an ultrawide. Odd, I know, but I still do. I think it's more of a personal decision of what you like as long as you're shooting for yourself. That said, fisheye's are not very practical.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>My experience is that a fisheye is cool once in a while, but an UWA is almost a neccesity (and used a LOT more). Of course how you use it is going to be far more important to you than my opinion. I'd say get what you want, but remember that if you buy an 8-15 new you'll be unlikely to be able to sell it for what you paid (unlike a 16-35 (I or II) which are much more readily available used).</p>

[herma]

<p>I am taking another look at the 17-40. Thanks to Lightroom, I have been able to isolate all my images taken with the 16-35 at Av 2.8, 3.2 and 3.5. I also reviewed all images taken with the 10-22 at 3.5 (which is it's lowest settings) In reviewing all those my settings, more often than not, I could have increased my ISO. Now I am getting excited about saving $800, carrying a lighter lens, owing (vs borrowing) another L-lens and spending just a bit more than what I sold my 10-22 for. I think I might have a winner here....</p>

[mbkissel]

<blockquote>

<p>The niggling difference: the not insignificant 1mm from 17 to 16.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there's that, AND the full stop difference; f/4 for the 17-40 vs f/2.8 for the 16-35.</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>From viewing your portfolio I would say that a maximum aperture of f4 will not be a problem.</p>

<p>I do not know why you are ending up using large apertures for wideangle images. I can understand that you may be using wideopen apertures for creative wideangle portraits but I recommend stopping down at least a stop or two for landscapes/architecture. Wideangles are generally used at very small apertures, f8-f22, to acheive maximum depth of field. Don't forget that you can likely handhold a 17-40mm at 1/20 to 1/40 for still subjects. Consider the possibility of using a tripod instead of increasing ISO, again for still subjects. For instance, as an alternative, your shot of a dining table with place settings on/near the beach could have been taken with a small aperture to provide more depth of field to place all the settings in sharp focus as well as perhaps the horizon in the distance. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Herma, you take quite a few architectural shots, so you definitely don't want to defish fisheye shots for those! Although the results are sometimes "acceptable," they require a lot of fine tuning, and they're really not all that wide when you get finished cropping out everything that falls outside of the largest possible rectangle.</p>

<p>The 17-40 is a wonderful and affordable lens. It distorts a bit, but you can easily correct that. You also need to stop down a bit to get rid of softness in the corners. I usually use mine between f/8 and f/16 on my 5D.</p>

<p>The extra 1 mm on the wide end of the 16-36 is somewhat significant, so it might be something you'd want/miss.</p>

<p>I'll mention that I bought a Sigma 12-24 for extreme WA interior photography, but I tend not to use it any wider than 17mm for fine art work. Wider than 17mm, I tend to switch to my <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/Zenitar16.htm">16mm f/2.8 MC Zenitar diagonal fisheye </a>(which you can pick up for around $200). That's because the edges on a rectilinear image just get too swoopy and stretched to be particularly useful or appealing (to me). I usually choose to preserve the shape/size of objects in the margins, even though straight lines get bent. (Something has to get distorted on the super-wide end when you're mapping a hemispherical world onto a flat focal plane.)</p>

[herma]

<p>Thanks John/Sarah, sadly, my PN portfolio is old. I do a lot more people/wedding/family. (while we are at it, this is bit more up-to-date: <a href="http://www.hermaornes.com">www.hermaornes.com</a>) So I have party shots, evening shots, indoor chapel and lots of low light situations. I have other fast lenses, 28-75 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, etc. I might regret having sold my ef-s 10-22 if I don't significantly upgrade. I want the lens to fit my FF and apc-c camera.</p>

<p>Even when borrowing the 16-35, I had to significantly use lens correction, which I don't mind. </p>

<p>On Sigma and Tokina, what indicates its a aps-c lens vs FF lens?</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Herma, Sigma's "DC" designation is for APS-C. </p>

<p>I thought Tokina's FX designation meant full frame, and their DX designation meant APS-C. However, they say their AT-X 107 DX AF 10-17 f/3.5-4.5 is a full frame lens. Perhaps a typo? I admittedly don't know the Tokina line very well.</p>