WIDE ANGLE PRIME LENS

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

I am looking for a wide angle lens for shooting scenics with my Canon 7D. I am considering a prime lens .I have been reviewing Canon

20 2.8 and 24 2.8. While researching i came across Sigma 24 , 1.8 with some decent reviews. I would appreciate suggestions , pros and

cons of these lenses or a comparable wide angle lens . My main priority is image sharpness and i would sacrifice the flexibility of a zoom

lens for that. Thanks.

[brad_trostad]

The Canon 17t/s, the Canon 24L II and the Zeiss 21mm come to mind first - but pricey - yet perfect for future full frame upgrade.. I'm

not sure about crop only lenses - perhaps the tokina 11-16 f2.8 would be a good overall choice as it's quite sharp and gets you even

wider if needed.

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have found the EF 24/1.4 L II to be exceedingly sharp on both my 5DII and 7D. The 24-70/2.8 L II is also very sharp, and it gives you the flexibility of a zoom. Neither lens is cheap, however.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>I am very happy with Canon 24 mm 2.8 IS. I like the Tokina 11-16 suggestion, I use it on 7D and it delivers prime-like results</p>

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

<p>Any experience with canon 10-20.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Brad 17T/S is very good but rather specialized (and like the Zeiss manual focus). The 17T?S also is not great with the 7Ds prism - it is easier to use on bodies without a flash built into the prism. Both of the new Canon IS zooms are quite sharp but they are also expensive. I would suggest that you should decide on focal length first - 20mm, 24mm, 28mm or 35mm as this will help. It would also be useful if the OP could let us know whet other lenses he has.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>My main priority is image sharpness and i would sacrifice the flexibility of a zoom lens for that. Thanks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair enough. Do you also care about chromatic aberration? Most lenses of any reasonable quality, stopped down just a bit (e.g. f/8, f/11) are going to look about as sharp (zoom, prime, all the same), but they will often differ greatly in chromatic aberration, and that's not a problem that necessarily goes away with smaller aperture. Some CA can be corrected in post, and some cannot, depending on the type. Often CA results from quality control issues (e.g. misalignment of the elements). This can be more serious in a more complicated lens (e.g. a wide angle, which is retrofocal), and Sigma (a manufacturer whose lenses I sometimes use) is not known for the most stellar quality control.</p>

<p>Also 24mm is barely wide at all on a crop camera. "Normal" would be about 30mm.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>There's no need to sacrifice sharpness with good zooms, if you use Digital Lens Optimization ("DLO") in your Raw conversion. DLO corrects for vignetting, chromatic aberration, geometric distortion, etc. at every focal length and every aperture. Even if you only have a kit zoom lens, try using DLO included in Digital Photo Professional, included with all Canon dslr. The improvement, particularly when used in Raw conversion, is stunning.</p>

<p>Besides DPP, Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro and other Raw converters have DLO modules.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with primes (I own a 15mm and 40mm and a 500mm), but shots taken with my 24-105mm on my 5Ds stand up extremely well as 48 and 60" prints.</p>

[dkemphoto]

Anis, you would be extremely hard pressed to find improvement over the Canon EF-S 10 - 22. I have owned it and it was

just great. Highly recommended.

Derek.

[dcstep]

<p>Don't invest in S-glass if you're going to move to FF.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>24 is really not that wide on a 7D. </p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>There's also the new 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom from Sigma, said to be very good. 18mm is not super-wide on a 7D but might be wide enough.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>You need something in the 13-16mm range given your 1.6x crop factor. As Tommy said the 24mm is not that wide - it's a 38mm equivilent , almost a FF normal lens.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I remember when 35mm focal length on a 35mm film camera was considered "wide" and 28mm was wider. Seldom did we see 24mm or 17mm. 50mm used to be considered "normal" on 35mm film cameras. Now I've got 24mm and 15mm in my full-frame's bag. (15mm is surely ultra-wide).</p>

[JeffOwen]

<p>I use the Canon 10-22mm and just love it. I have had for several years now and would not be without it. I know it is not a prime lens as you first indicated you wanted but from my experience this lens is equivalent to an L lens.</p>

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

Thank you guys for such a knowledgeable discussion. I would care about anything that would affect image quality and

which cant be rectified easily at post processing. i am not adept at PP. I have just had better experience with prime

lens's, for example my 400 5.6 is sharper and provides me more keepers than 70-200 2.8. I have rented 10-20 in the past

and was fairly satisfied with it but i get an impression that Tokina 11-16 may offer better built and quality. As a rule i have

stayed away from Non canon lens's but am not averse to it. I would want to stay with 20 or 24 focal lenghth for the

aforementioned reasons.

My theory is that even if the sceen is cropped , i would have gotten better quality images of what i do capture.The same

happens with 400 5.6 , i miss quite a few birds in flight images , but what i do get tend to be better quality.If i decide on 20

or 24 will there be any downsides , how good is the lens quality. Both sell for $ 500 approx.

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

Thanks David for info on DLO. Thats totally new to me , in fact i dont even know if PE10 offers it. T/S would be too

complex for me handle it seems.

[tdigi]

<p>I am with you, I generally prefer primes. I have some great primes along with full frame and APS-C bodies and the 24LII gets the most use on my 60D. I just love the combo.</p>

<p>If your budget is $500 I assume your looking at the 24 2.8 IS which I hear is very nice but getting a 2.8 prime seems a little strange unless the small size is your main interest.</p>

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

<p>Tommy,I see that's your lens is L type 1.4 and obviously better glass than what I have been looking at . What would be your concerns with 2.8 ? What do you think I should be looking for ? My budget can be extended beyond 500 , its was just what prices showed up as.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Anis, what sort of lens you should get depends greatly on the apertures you will be using. If you will be using the lens mostly for landscapes (a common use for wide lenses), you will probably be trying to maximize your depth of field (the most common landscape style), and you will therefore be shooting at smaller apertures. If you're using smaller apertures, differences in <em>sharpness</em> between primes and zooms, and even sharpness differences between stellar lenses and good-enough lenses, are really quite insignificant. There may of course be certain differences in chromatic aberration, flare, ghosting, distortion, build, or features that matter to you.</p>

<p>If you want to shoot with larger apertures, then you may indeed want a <em>fast</em> prime, as it will give you a larger possible aperture, and it will be better optimized (generally) for wider apertures.</p>

<p>I would generally not pay too much attention to the "L" designation with prime lenses. The "L" designation depends on a short laundry list of features, some of which are unnecessary to many of the prime lenses. So you can have a non-L prime with incredible image quality, e.g. the 40mm pancake, if the lens design is not particularly demanding.</p>

<p>BTW, I think Tommy's concern with the f/2.8 prime is that it's only f/2.8 (sort of a slow prime). If you're going to suffer the disadvantages of a prime (not being a zoom), you might as well enjoy the greatest benefit of a prime, namely that it can be FAST. ;-)</p>

<p>I'll offer up a resource to you that I like. Search for prospective lenses on the slrgear.com site. You can then open up interactive charts to examine sharpness, distortion, and chromatic aberration at different combinations of aperture and focal length.</p>

<p>Good luck with your lens shopping!</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>@Sarah Fox: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma (a manufacturer whose lenses I sometimes use) is not known for the most stellar quality control.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order">they are now</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>About 5 years ago, I wrote a blog post explaining that quality control problems and horrid repair service meant we would probably stop carrying Sigma products entirely. I spent the next several months manning the ramparts and pouring hot oil on the Sigma Fanboys who assaulted the Lensrentals Walls.<br>

Since then, the most amazing thing happened. They got better. The repair center sprouted an efficient and intuitive web page, real people started answering the phones and knew where your stuff was, repair times went from months to weeks, to often days. Quality control seemed to improve, too, except for the large telephoto zooms. Recently they announced ( making announcements – what a concept, Nikon) quality control improvements, redesign of some problematic lenses (OK, they didn’t use the word problematic lens, that’s me. They just said redesign), and are going to offer the gearheads among us unprecedented ability to fine tune their lenses to our cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6804364">Ed Avis</a>, I was going to suggest the same thing: if the OP is looking at somewhat expensive primes in the 20 – 28mm range, he'll probably be better served by 18 – 35mm 1.8.</p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>24/2.8 IS on FF is really good. But it's not really wide on APS-C. I'd check out the Sigma zoom mentioned above too. Also consider the 35f2 IS - again not wide on crop, though. I don't think the 24/1.8 Sigma is a good choice if you are after sharpness.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Sarah pretty much said it. Nowadays there are some great 2.8 zooms so the only reason I can see for getting a 2.8 prime is size/weight. If you can up you budget I see the 24LII used a lot for around $1200. IMO its your best choice at 24 because it is very sharp even at 1.4 and 1.4 makes a prime more worthwhile to me.</p>

<p>From what I have seen the 24 2.8 IS lens is very sharp and it is small and affordable and if your shooting video or without a tripod the IS will come in handy. 2.0 would be more appealing to me, the 35 2.0 IS looks nice but on crop that is not at all wide.</p>

<p>The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is worth a look too but I sort of feel the same way about non Canon lenses. Since I like 24 on my 60D so much I have been thinking of adding a 35 and the Sigma 35 is very popular but I feel more comfortable with Canon even though the Sigma is supposed to be better. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Tom Elessar, I missed that! It's great news that Sigma has woken up and smelled the coffee. The company's engineers have long been on the bleeding edge of optical technology, and it's been a crying pity that their manufacturing hasn't been up to the task of executing effectively on their revolutionary designs. Here's hoping for great things from the company! :-)</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I love using my EF 35/1.4 L on my 5DII, and it was Tommy who turned me on to using my EF 24/1.4 L II on my 7D to yield approximately the same field of view. And I have to agree with him that the latter is a great combo. So if you can swing the cost of a used copy of the 24/1.4, that's the lens I'd recommend.</p>