Ultra Wide Lens.


Status
Not open for further replies.
May 18, 2008
66
0
0
38
West area
#1
Dear Members of CS,

I would like to seek suggestion from the board on what is the most recommended ultra wide lens to buy? Im was looking at 10-20mm canon one, but the aperture is not fixed. I got a fren who have bought tokina 11-16mm fixed 2.8. Confused now, which to buy? And is it good to shoot portrait using ultra wide?


Thanks.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#2
Dear Members of CS,

I would like to seek suggestion from the board on what is the most recommended ultra wide lens to buy? Im was looking at 10-20mm canon one, but the aperture is not fixed. I got a fren who have bought tokina 11-16mm fixed 2.8. Confused now, which to buy? And is it good to shoot portrait using ultra wide?


Thanks.
Those u mentioned are very gd UWAs. If u're shooting portraits on UWA, u'll only get environmental portraits. Else, a 50mm or 85mm prime will be a much better choice.

If u're using it for landscapes, whether constant or non-constant aperture doesn't matter as usually u'll stop down to at least f/8.
 

PrimePhotog

Deregistered
Oct 25, 2007
1,736
0
0
www.flickr.com
#3
Get Canon 10-22 if you are only using for landscape.Get the Tokina if you want it to double up as a wide lens for events and night.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#4
You mean the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM right? Because the only non-fixed aperture 10-20mm that's commercially available now is the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM.

Anyway, it'd be an interesting lens for portraiture, but I do not recommend its use as a standard portrait lens. Use it for a couple of shots at best. It certainly would not be ideal if an entire series is shot with an UWA, unless you are adhering to a specific theme or otherwise.

Perhaps you can explain why is the fixed aperture impt to you? I honestly do not understand the need for it.
 

PrimePhotog

Deregistered
Oct 25, 2007
1,736
0
0
www.flickr.com
#5
Perhaps you can explain why is the fixed aperture impt to you? I honestly do not understand the need for it.
Usually fixed aperture means pro lens with excellent IQ...
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#6
Usually fixed aperture means pro lens with excellent IQ...
Hmm... I dare postulate that the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM has great IQ, at a standard comparable to the fixed aperture UWA lenses. Of course, there are also a lot of factors that determine IQ.
 

shunzi

New Member
Nov 14, 2008
925
0
0
#7
why there is still people who think that a fix aperture delivers better IQ.. :think:
 

Draken413o

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2009
4,296
12
0
32
Singapore.
www.facebook.com
#8
my experience with the tokina 11-16 f2.8 has been rather delightful. It's an amazing lens for all kinds of shots but some may differ. I love it alot and it's been an eye opening experience on how I see things now.

to add some value, I tried the canon 10-22 and the tokina side by side at f4.0 and the tokina was sharper obviously.. so if you need that speed at low light the tokina is wonderful. However the range is quite miserable for the tokina though it doesn't really bother me anyway.

Try both before buying.

Additional info at john 3:16, tokina is $950 and canon is $1100

The build on the tokina is wow..
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#9
why there is still people who think that a fix aperture delivers better IQ.. :think:
because a lot of people here advocate buying fixed aperture lens

if got more fixed aperture lens better, easier to fit into signature,

e.g. canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 looks a lot less impressive than canon 17-55 f/2.8 :bsmilie:

use less characters as well. btw, for uwa, all the iq are pretty good, distortion control and all that can easily be corrected, i would only care more about HOW WIDE, and that's really about the major difference between all the uwa available in the market.

how often are you going to use uwa to shoot moving things in the night? not very often for sure, since it is not flattering for almost any living subject wtih regards to distortion.
 

shunzi

New Member
Nov 14, 2008
925
0
0
#10
because a lot of people here advocate buying fixed aperture lens

if got more fixed aperture lens better, easier to fit into signature,

e.g. canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 looks a lot less impressive than canon 17-55 f/2.8 :bsmilie:

use less characters as well. btw, for uwa, all the iq are pretty good, distortion control and all that can easily be corrected, i would only care more about HOW WIDE, and that's really about the major difference between all the uwa available in the market.

how often are you going to use uwa to shoot moving things in the night? not very often for sure, since it is not flattering for almost any living subject wtih regards to distortion.
the culture that made the mind think otherwise..

they bought a wide angle but end up with un-wanted stuff in it.. :dunno::dunno:
 

2evans

New Member
Nov 8, 2007
1,862
0
0
#11
After using Canon's 10-22, it's a really good lens for when I need UWA. Pretty much when I'm shooting in very low light, even using 2.8 isn't fast enough and I'll end up putting on 50 1.8 if I need more light.
 

Shen siung

Senior Member
May 21, 2008
2,597
0
0
#12
IMO,

people go for Tokina 11-16 probably because the price is lower then Canon yet with F2.8, though 1 mm lost in angle (it is a noticeable lost, though)
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#15
I understand what you mean, but I believe most UWA lens users find themselves at the wider end most of the time.
Well i agree, even 1mm is quite an obvious difference. I just can't wait to get my Sigma 12-24 in july cos now without my 17-40 is quite hard. :(
 

KY1977

New Member
Jan 3, 2008
947
0
0
#16
Well i agree, even 1mm is quite an obvious difference. I just can't wait to get my Sigma 12-24 in july cos now without my 17-40 is quite hard. :(
Finally sold your 17-40. :) Going Sigma all the way?
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#17
Finally sold your 17-40. :) Going Sigma all the way?
Cos i find that having what suits u is better than spending just on Ls. I'm keeping my 50L though. The Sigma 12-24 is very wide for a FF and for me the wider the better on FF cos i'm a wide shooter. But it costs more than the 17-40.
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#18
Usually fixed aperture means pro lens with excellent IQ...
Explain the occurrence of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L, the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L, the Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR, or the Micro-Nikkor AF 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. These are considered pro lenses, but all don't have constant maximum aperture.

It is wrong to assume that just because you have a constant aperture, your image quality automatically goes up.
 

PrimePhotog

Deregistered
Oct 25, 2007
1,736
0
0
www.flickr.com
#19
It is wrong to assume that just because you have a constant aperture, your image quality automatically goes up./QUOTE]What I meant is that most lenses with good IQ have constant apertures.I did not say that ALL fixed aperture lenses are good and ALL variable max aperture lenses are bad.There are some(excellent) variable max aperture lenses around and the 10-22 and the 80-400/100-400
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#20
It is wrong to assume that just because you have a constant aperture, your image quality automatically goes up./QUOTE]What I meant is that most lenses with good IQ have constant apertures.I did not say that ALL fixed aperture lenses are good and ALL variable max aperture lenses are bad.There are some(excellent) variable max aperture lenses around and the 10-22 and the 80-400/100-400
I agree with calebk. Constant aperture throughout the whole zoom range has got nothing to do with better IQ. The main reason why constant aperture is that in both the wider and tele end, the exposure will not be affected when used in aperture priority mode especially.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom