Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
FireGryphon wrote:Personally, I have the Canon 17-40L and that suffices for all my wide angle needs.
Voldenuit wrote:The Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6 does very well in tests
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc
It's not constant aperture, either, but unless you're shooting telephoto zoom or movies, that's not a big deal in a UWAZ. Ultra wide angles don't need a fast shutter speed to avoid camera shake, and I find myself using my m4/3 7-14/4 on a tripod more often than not.
My only concern would be Sigma's infamous variation in guild and optical quality, so if you were going to buy, I'd recommend testing said lens on your camera before pulling the trigger.
Beomagi wrote:At these levels, the notorious sigma AF quirks become less of an issue. At 8mm, DOF is insane.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19942094@N00/5091803021/
Voldenuit wrote:Beomagi wrote:At these levels, the notorious sigma AF quirks become less of an issue. At 8mm, DOF is insane.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19942094@N00/5091803021/
Oooo. Nice pic .
JustAnEngineer wrote:The thing is that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the Tamron Di-II 17-50mm f/2.8 are better wide-normal zoom lenses than the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM for APS-C cameras. The 17-40 is there to provide an ultra-wide zoom for full frame.
Voldenuit wrote:The biggest thing wrong with the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM is its insanely-high price.Sadly, Canon doesn't make any fast, wide primes for EF-S, but Samyang's 14/2.8 is surprisingly good at only $300. They've made a number of really good manual lenses at unbeatable prices lately.
Voldenuit wrote:http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... p?t=957554It has that enticing "red strip", which means it must be bettar!
Voldenuit wrote:Not really, especially not since they came out with the 17-55 IS. Which point did you really find fault with in the comparison between the Canon 10-22 and Sigma? MTF is better for the Sigma in the middle, but similar or worse at the edges. Both are quite high and well enough. Canon has lower vignetting, but looses to the Sigma in CA measurments, but is still low for an UW lense.The sigma is definitely one tick better than the 10-22. As for the 17-40/4L, I was always a bit disappointed by it, especially for an L lens. The numbers don't lie, either - edge performance is pretty poor at wide angle, where the edges are more important than on, say a fast portrait lens.
I guess there's a reason the 17-40 is priced relatively cheap for a L lens. It's more for APS-C users who want a better normal zoom than the kit lens than it is for a pro shooter on FF.
Aphasia wrote:Which point did you really find fault with in the comparison between the Canon 10-22 and Sigma? MTF is better for the Sigma in the middle, but similar or worse at the edges. Both are quite high and well enough. Canon has lower vignetting, but looses to the Sigma in CA measurments, but is still low for an UW lense.
Voldenuit wrote:PS If you want low light, you might want to consider a prime. Sadly, Canon doesn't make any fast, wide primes for EF-S, but Samyang's 14/2.8 is surprisingly good at only $300. They've made a number of really good manual lenses at unbeatable prices lately.