Hello all- Long-winded and probably pointless thinking aloud here. If you aren't patient and don't have some time on your hands, don't bother haha.
I am well aware of the common shortcomings associated with wide lenses. I have owned both versions of the 16-35L, the 17-40L, the 20/2.8 USM, and a handful of Nikkor UW lenses.
I'm now shooting a 6D, and as of now a VERY consumer lens kit. 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM, 75-300 4-5.6 USM III, and a 50/1.8 II on the way. Awesome body, cheap (some would say CRAP) lenses haha. For casual use, it's like shooting a digital Elan 7 kit. Works great for me.
My current lens kit will handle 90% of what I shoot. Family, occaisional travel, some outdoorsy stuff.
Problem is, I'm wanting a nice(enough) wide. I enjoy shooting wide-field astro sometimes (<30 sec exposures on tripod), along with urban/outdoor 'scapes. I have been keeping an eye out for a cheap 20-35 USM- saw one go on here a week ago for $180. Wish I wouldn't have hesitated!
KEH commonly has Tokina/Tamron/Vivitar 19/20-35mm 3.5-4.5 zooms for around $150. I've messed with the Vivitar and Tokina, but it has been YEARS... and I think I was shooting film only then.
I don't have the budget anymore, or at least right now, to get L everything. I'm planning on probably making 1 L purchase in the coming month w/ tax return. Prob a 24-105, POSSIBLY a 17-40. I think the 24-105 will get more use.
Anyways- I guess my question is-
1) Is the 20-35 USM better enough over the 3rd party cheap zooms to be worth an extra ~$100 or so, on average? Keep in mind this is a 40-60% price increase over a Tokina/Vivitar/Tamron.
2) What are the focus speeds like on the 3rd party cheap zooms? I am a fan of ring USM...
3) Would I be better off just getting a Samyang 14/2.8?
I am not looking for ultimate quality. I know what that costs. I shoot medium jpgs, get my exposures "right" in-camera, and upload photos to various places for sharing and backup.
I am doing this for fun. I think the Samyang/etc 14mm would give me something more unique and exciting than the AF zooms.
In the next year, I'll probably be going to Korea for a year, making extra money, and can get an L or two at that point haha. Whatever wide I get now, along with all my current lenses, are probably not going to stick around. They are all temporary.
Did I just answer my own quesion? Am I blowing this all way out of proportion? I've probably got too much time on my hands... haha
If you can find one, the Tamron 17-35 was supposed to be pretty decent and should be cheap. The Samyang is an option, if you don't mind MF. Another option is adapting an Olympus 21mm f/3.5 -- again MF only -- but a very solid wide angle lens.
Paul
Samyang - sure why not. I would probably rather take it over any consumer zoom.. Tho make sure you have distortion profile for that or get PTlens to deal with it.
Olympus is good suggestion too (I like colors from that.. tho not much important with 6D..).
ISO1600 wrote:
... I am not looking for ultimate quality. I know what that costs. I shoot medium jpgs, get my exposures "right" in-camera, and upload photos to various places for sharing and backup. I am doing this for fun. I think the Samyang/etc 14mm would give me something more unique and exciting than the AF zooms. In the next year, I'll probably be going to Korea for a year, making extra money, and can get an L or two at that point haha. Whatever wide I get now, along with all my current lenses, are probably not going to stick around. They are all temporary.
Did I just answer my own question? Am I blowing this all way out of proportion? I've probably got too much time on my hands... haha...Show more →
You're not looking for ultimate quality? You shoot medium JPEGs? You upload "to various places" for sharing and backup? Then why do you shoot with a 6D?
But to answer your question: a Tokina 19-35 in 9+ condition will be the best bet if you want something on the cheap side but also close to be being a great lens. Buy it from KEH.
I shoot with a 6D because it does a good job of getting out of my way, and letting me get the shots I want, in almost any light, even with cheap lenses.
A 5Dc would not let me get shots of my baby indoors, lit by a TV, with a consumer zoom haha.
I had a tamron 17-35. Nice lens. Focus was typical tamron- slow and loud. Nothing wrong with the IQ though. On par with the 1740 but with more vignetting.
You definitely went a route out of the norm. Most people would get a much cheaper ASP-C body and better glass. I'm probably no help in advising you on a cheap UWA for FF <$300 so I have no clue.
I just bought a Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 for $200 in preparation for my approaching upgrade to full frame. I figure what I really want is the 16-35L II, but it will be a couple years before I can save up the cash for it, and for $200 I'll have something decent in the meanwhile. I don't have a FF camera yet, so I can't comment on the corners (which I've read are a bit soft), but center sharpness is very good. Focus speed is decent, similar to other Tamron 'SP' lenses like the 17-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8. Build quality is also about the same as these, not great, but not terrible either. It has a very small MFD, so you can get a pretty shallow depth of field and decent magnification (for the width) if you want to get your lens right next to your subject - of course with pretty big distortion - which is sometimes exactly what you want from an ultra wide.
I'll be in pretty much the same place as you come May or so. Planned kit is: EOS-6D,Tamron17-35, 50 f/1.8 I, 85 f/1.8 (still need to buy that one), and 70-200 f/4L.
I've had a ton of DSLR's, and there isn't a cropper out there that works for me. I'd rather be ever so slightly handicapped by my lenses than not want to even use my camera, due to small finder, infinite DoF (crop sensor), or have limited (native format) lens options at my disposal.
I need a bigger/better finder due to complicated eye problems stemming from LASIK, and I need an AF system that is good/accurate in low light, since I simply can't see as well in poor light anymore. There is no crop camera that I know of that could do either of these things as well as a 6D, even WITH a crappy lens
One thing you should never have to do is justify a purchasing decision to some mystery man behind a computer screen.
I second the samyang/rokinon/whatever the third version is called 14mm. If you can deal with the lack of electronics in the lens that's a fine choice and in the budget. If you want a zoom you may be able to find the old version of the sigma 12-24 for around the budget (maybe a bit more). Not spectacular but well controlled distortion for what it is.
The Tokina AT-X AF Pro 17mm f/3.5 and Samyang UMC 14mm f/2.8 AS are both very good lenses. The AT-X is better in the corners than many other lenses, including the 17-40/4L. The 14mm is truly ultra-wide, and may have less applicatiosn than a 17mm lens. The 17mm would be a fine companion for teh 24-105L, which is a well-regarded lens for walkabouts. The gap between 24mm and 14mm is quite large. I think it makes good sense to take an intermediate step. That would be the AT-X 17/3.5.
Here's some FM threads comparing many wide and very-wide lenses, including the AT-X and 17-40L.
Big +1 for the Tokina 17/3.5, it was very sharp in the center on my old 5Dc. I currently have the Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 and it's pretty darn good for a sub-$300 lens. Neither AF is like USM, maybe half as fast and twice as loud. Sample from Tokina/5Dc. Sample from Sigma/5D2.
I had a Tokina 20-35 II, it was amazing on crop at the wide end. On my 5D it was good until the deep corners. It was metal and built like a tank. Pretty darn nice lens for the price.
14mm and 17mm are ultra-wide. if you just want very wide -- 21mm -- and can deal with manual focus, an OM Zuiko 21mm f3.5 is a very good choice. There's a single coated version for around $300 used, and MC for around $400. Very good glass.
I would probably rather take it over any consumer zoom.. Tho make sure you have distortion profile for that or get PTlens to deal with it.