what do u recommend for WA on FF?

[Oooooze76]

Hi All

I recently acquired a canon FF. I will need a WA lens but not sure which is better. Will you all able to advice me.

Currently im considering the 17-40L but hope to have more choices.

My budget is around 17-40L so the 16-35 f2.8 is out. I also not considering prime lens as i prefer flexibility. I need the WA lens mainly for landscape shot. Is there anything in other brands which I can consider and give me more perks in term of bigger aperture, better IQ..etc

Hope to hear from your experience. Thank you.

 

[henry soh]

Hi, Sigma 12-24mm on FF gives 122 degree FOV

 

[ManWearPants]

My budget is around 17-40L

17-40 seems like your only option if this is the FL you are looking at. As mentioned Sigma 12-24 is a UWA option. Rumour has it that there will be a new 17-40 and Sigma will also be releasing a 16-28 f2.8, that is if you believe in rumours.

 

[dracolee]

Hi All

I recently acquired a canon FF. I will need a WA lens but not sure which is better. Will you all able to advice me.

Currently im considering the 17-40L but hope to have more choices.

My budget is around 17-40L so the 16-35 f2.8 is out. I also not considering prime lens as i prefer flexibility. I need the WA lens mainly for landscape shot. Is there anything in other brands which I can consider and give me more perks in term of bigger aperture, better IQ..etc

Hope to hear from your experience. Thank you.

IMO 17-40L is the best value for performance landscape lens at that price for FF because (1) usually stop down to f/11 or above for landscape, (2) colours are nice, (3) everything else that is better is significantly expensive, (4) flat lens allowing the use of filters, (5) 77mm filters not that expensive against 82mm options.

 

[Oooooze76]

Hi, Sigma 12-24mm on FF gives 122 degree FOV

Thanks henry.. reading up online on this lens. its very wide.

17-40 seems like your only option if this is the FL you are looking at. As mentioned Sigma 12-24 is a UWA option. Rumour has it that there will be a new 17-40 and Sigma will also be releasing a 16-28 f2.8, that is if you believe in rumours.

Hi Man.. there is always new things coming up.. people are talking abt 5DMKIII but i decide to take the plunge into 5DMKII.. price is much affordable now.
Back to your advice, 12-24 seem to be more technical to use compare to the 17-40L. Do u know the market price now? I got equote from MS Colour at $1145. Do u think its ok?

IMO 17-40L is the best value for performance landscape lens at that price for FF because (1) usually stop down to f/11 or above for landscape, (2) colours are nice, (3) everything else that is better is significantly expensive, (4) flat lens allowing the use of filters, (5) 77mm filters not that expensive against 82mm options.

Hi Draco, i love your pics in your website. I presume those lanscape pix are either 17-40L or fisheye, right?

 

[sinned79]

i like my 17-40 on my 5D

bought in dec for $1150 with gst at ms color.

 

[dracolee]

Hi Draco, i love your pics in your website. I presume those lanscape pix are either 17-40L or fisheye, right?

Thanks. Yup, you are right, the majority are either 17-40 or fishy; some on my other lens.

 

[Snoweagle]

If u want the ultimate wideness for FF, just get the Sigma 12-24 and nothing else. But it's personal prefs so go try out yrself first and see if u like the perspective before spending yr hard-earned money.

 

[ManWearPants]

Back to your advice, 12-24 seem to be more technical to use compare to the 17-40L. Do u know the market price now? I got equote from MS Colour at $1145. Do u think its ok?

It depends on your usage. If you don't already have a normal zoom, then 17-40 will come in more useful. I would rate the 12-24 more fun to use for landscape and architecture, as a second lens. I like the wide end of this lens but find the 24mm end a bit weak and prone to flare.

Is $1145 local or grey set? before GST or after? with 30 months warranty? If all yes, then it is a good price.

I also find that for 12mm, I tend to either slap the subject in the middle or to the side (see examples below), which sort of become predictable (read boring) after a while. But nevertheless, these 2 shots would not have been possible without 12mm. This is an amazing restaurant in a shopping mall in Dubai.

 

[Oooooze76]

If u want the ultimate wideness for FF, just get the Sigma 12-24 and nothing else. But it's personal prefs so go try out yrself first and see if u like the perspective before spending yr hard-earned money.

Hi snoweagle, thks for your advice. definitely i will test out before i decide which is best for myself.

It depends on your usage. If you don't already have a normal zoom, then 17-40 will come in more useful. I would rate the 12-24 more fun to use for landscape and architecture, as a second lens. I like the wide end of this lens but find the 24mm end a bit weak and prone to flare.

Is $1145 local or grey set? before GST or after? with 30 months warranty? If all yes, then it is a good price.

I also find that for 12mm, I tend to either slap the subject in the middle or to the side (see examples below), which sort of become predictable (read boring) after a while. But nevertheless, these 2 shots would not have been possible without 12mm. This is an amazing restaurant in a shopping mall in Dubai.

Hi Man - yes its local set as its from MS colour. Price include GST. I dont think lens and body comes with 30mths. Canon only provide 12+3mths warranty.

Nice picture.. really tempted to get the 12-24 but i may not be that creative.

 

[egnaro]

will suggest Sigma 12-24 too...

a very layman comparison.

If u own 24-??? lens, then 17-40 will only be useful for u from 17-24mmm range.

and it will not go anything wider then 17mm

Sigma has more range, 12-24 mm... anything wider might have to consider FE lens

 

[Snoweagle]

Hi snoweagle, thks for your advice. definitely i will test out before i decide which is best for myself.

No probs! I used to own the 17-40 before replacing it with 12-24 and never looked back. Perhaps it's becos i'm a WA shooter most of the time.

 

[ManWearPants]

Hi Man - yes its local set as its from MS colour. Price include GST. I dont think lens and body comes with 30mths. Canon only provide 12+3mths warranty.

Local set used to come with 30 months warranty but for much higher price. If there is no 30 month warranty, you might as well source from overseas (may be cheaper) as all Sigma lenses comes with 12 months International warranty.

 

[giantcanopy]

12-24 is great wide fun , but note that it does perform rather poorly on the corners even up to f16. i got it used at a great price so i did not need too much persuasion to get one.

i used to contemplate the 16-35 but i did not require the larger aperture that commanded a premium. since most of my shots are static / landscapes, i figure the 12-24 was a great option.

more perks in term of bigger aperture, better IQ , then the 12-24 is out.

ryan

 

[Oooooze76]

Dear all, I really appreciate so many of you giving very good advice. Can you all advice me the pricing for this sigma 12-24? And where is best place to get?

 

[giantcanopy]

Dear all, I really appreciate so many of you giving very good advice. Can you all advice me the pricing for this sigma 12-24? And where is best place to get?

something ard 990+ to 1100+. u might want to call up the shops for the latest quotes or if they have the item.

ryan

 

[Snoweagle]

When i got mine last year, was $1312 inclusive of GST.

 

[night86mare]

Hi All

I recently acquired a canon FF. I will need a WA lens but not sure which is better. Will you all able to advice me.

Currently im considering the 17-40L but hope to have more choices.

My budget is around 17-40L so the 16-35 f2.8 is out. I also not considering prime lens as i prefer flexibility. I need the WA lens mainly for landscape shot. Is there anything in other brands which I can consider and give me more perks in term of bigger aperture, better IQ..etc

Hope to hear from your experience. Thank you.

it really depends on your budget.

the 17-40 isn't half bad, but it has its problems. what i keep seeing on naturescapes with FF users and the 17-40 is the wonderful, wonderful barrel distortion - i think it is significant enough to be a problem.

naturally the 16-35 should be better in this aspect, not to mention slightly wider.

the sigma 12-24, you can ask all the FF users, either they love it or hate it. i guess it depends on your tolerances for corner softness and vignetting. the field of view is the widest corrected one that you'll even get though!

there are also other third party options, e.g. tamron 17-35, cosina/vivitar 19-35.. some of these are mf, some of these are af.

 

[sinned79]

the 17-40 isn't half bad, but it has its problems. what i keep seeing on naturescapes with FF users and the 17-40 is the wonderful, wonderful barrel distortion - i think it is significant enough to be a problem.

Here's some example for my recent trip to Kota Kinabalu for my Mt Kinabalu climb.

The distortion comes when u shoot at 17mm on FF bodies. But at 40mm... you will not have this problem.

For me it is still quite bearable for now

 

[night86mare]

The distortion comes when u shoot at 17mm on FF bodies. But at 40mm... you will not have this problem.

For me it is still quite bearable for now

well, it's correctable, so it's not so much of a problem, especially with things like ptlens.

previously though, you would either have to liquify, or lose pixels.