12 to 80?

[gabriel_harding]

<p>Are there any good quality lenses that have a range of more or less 12 to 80?</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I assume you mean millimeters of focal length?</p>

<p>No, since 12mm is ultrawide even on a crop frame camera, I don't know of any lenses that span that whole range.</p>

<p>You might look at the Canon EF-S 15-85. Or explain in more detail what you need.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>That's an awfully broad zoom range! In general, lenses with extreme zoom ratios suffer optically. It is far easier to build a better zoom lens with a lesser zoom ratio, perhaps 1:4 or less. Anyway, I think the 15-85 is probably a good approximation. It's a relatively decent lens. Of course that 3 mm on the wide end will fall considerably short of what you're wanting. You might add a 10-22 if you really care about that last 3mm.</p>

 

[paddler4]

<p>I agree with Sarah--in general, a zoom ratio larger than 3X or 4X is generally at a steep cost in optical quality--except that I would call the 15-85 more than "relatively decent." It's surprisingly good given its zoom range. I used it as a walk-around for a few years on a 50D and was quite pleased. I'm not going to use it any more, but because I am switching to FF, not because of the quality of the lens. If you are shooting a Canon crop sensor and don't need a fast lens, this is probably your best approximation to what you are looking for.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Such lenses do exist for cinema use. For example I think Angenieux make, or made, a 12-120 zoom. But the rear of the lens needs to be close to the sensor, so they can't be adapted for use on SLR cameras, though an adaptor for the EF-M is possible.</p>

<p>Otherwise, Canon make a 15-85 which is good...</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>While Angenieux made a 12-120mm lens and even a 9.5-95mm lens they were designed for 16mm film and thus do not have the image circle to cover a 35mm sensor without vignetting. Canon and others also made these 16mm lenses (for example canon made an 11.5 to 138mm F2.5 lens).<br>

I understand that they work week on ⅔" video cameras but they are not really designed for 35mm lenses. Canon made lenses like a 9.5-143 F1.8 and a 7.5 - 90 F1.4 and they will work (with vignetting - especially at the wide end) on M4/3 bodies. The M43 sensor is quite a bit bigger than film being about 18mm vs 13mm compared to super 16 at 12.5 x 7.5mm.<br>

Angeniux makes video lenses with Super 35mm sensor coverage. Super 35 is smaller than 35mm as it shoots across the film not along it so the sensor is about 25mm x 14mm (Canon APS-C is about 25mmx17mm). Of course this lens is just over $60,000 and weighs about 12.5lbs but will cover 4K and 5K Red epic sensors (28mmx15mm). Of course there are large format film camera lenses (65mm / 70mm) but I believe these are almost all primes. Many of these 65 / 70 mm systems are anamorphic but there are quite a few spherical systems. IMAX is shot in 70mm Spherical for example.</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>You could get 12mm from Sigma, they have the 12-24 which gives you the 12mm you are looking for and a second lens like the 15-85 for the additional coverage. I don't think you can do it with one lens. BTW, the 12-24 on FF is a very good lens.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Nothing wrong with the Sigma 12-24! I own it. Still, for a crop camera (which I'm *guessing* the OP has), I'd probably prefer the 10-22 -- smaller, cheaper, wider, and easier to use. FAIW, the 12-24 on a full frame camera is a whole lot of wide! It's really wider than I ever care to use, without going to a 16mm fisheye. I find that for ordinary photographic work, not including architectural photography (the reason I have the Sigma), my 17-40 goes about as wide as I want. A 16-? lens would give a bit more breathing room, and the crop equivalent of that would of course be 10mm.</p>

<p>Here's a rather gritty photo with the 12-24 at 12mm on a crop body:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phastrugglelostsm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[angkordave]

<p>I have used both Sigmas; the 10-20 and 12-24. For APS the 10-20 is excellent all round and takes 77mm filters . The 12-24 is ideal for FF; I use it on both formats; but its large and heavy and cannot practically use filters on APS at the widest end of the range. Its 2x the price of the 10-20.<br>

I used to use the Sigma 8-16, 10-20 and 17-70 F2.8 F4 with Nikon DX and found them all to be excellent.<br>

The 10-20 and 17-70 combination will cost about $1100 for the pair. The image quality of both exceeded my best expectations.<br>

I am waiting for my order of the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 making my total of Sigmas up to 6. I do have a bundle of Canon L series lenses too; the Sigmas are equal and in some ways better.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Philip W, of course you are right that these cine lenses are for a much smaller format, thanks for the correction. I am always confused by the marketing names of 'super 16' and so on, where 'super' means 'smaller than'... I guess the equivalent for 35mm photography would be something like Canon's 28-300.</p>