Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Non canon uwa ?
  
 
h00ligan
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · Non canon uwa ?


There was a lens that was both highly regarded and inexpensive and I cannot for the life of me remember what it was ..

How do you lot rate the non canon uwa zooms?

Any of them any good o don't need the speed of 16-35, just wondering what's in the range of 17-40 that should be considered?

Thanks for the help

Edited on Aug 14, 2013 at 01:19 PM · View previous versions



Aug 13, 2013 at 10:34 PM
omarlyn
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Non canon uwa ?


For use on crop bodies or FF? On crop bodies, I'd highly recommend either the Tokina 11-16/2.8 or the 12-24/4. I've had both (still have the 12-24) and found both to be excellent and great values. The 12-24 is particularly a good 'sleeper' value while I found the 11-16 to have slightly better IQ but with a shorter focal range.

HTH,
Omar



Aug 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · Non canon uwa ?


For about $750 you can get a brand new Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens for full-frame Canon. Great third party alternative for a much lower price. The only caveat is that you can't use filters with it and some say it is flare prone. I personally never tested it.


Aug 13, 2013 at 10:48 PM
h00ligan
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Non canon uwa ?


Thanks Fred

Omarlyn - full frame

Edited on Aug 13, 2013 at 10:59 PM · View previous versions



Aug 13, 2013 at 10:56 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Non canon uwa ?


Fred Miranda wrote:
For about $750 you can get a brand new Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens for full-frame Canon. Great third party alternative for a much lower price. The only caveat is that you can't use filters with it and some say it is flare prone. I personally never tested it.


Just read a review claiming that it's the second sharpest UWA zoom after Nikon's 14-24; but that review also cited it's issues; it's heavy, it doesn't take filters as Fred mentions above, but also that it has a very short (<2x) zoom range, with a slower autofocus than Canon's.

If you need UWA sharpness and can live without conventional filters or intend to use unconventional filters like a Big Stopper, then it's likely the lens to get for the price.

For me, though, I'd rather have the 17-40L. Light, small, takes filters, wide zoom range, inexpensive, and sharp enough for my purposes, such as wide-open indoors and stopped down outside, with Canon's AF; I'd be using it on a 6D, so the loss of a stop doesn't bother me too much, especially considering the primes I have in that range (24/2.8 IS and 40/STM), along with the coverage of the 24-105L.

If the Tokina took conventional filters, it'd be a total win; but without that feature, along with the risks it entails, I'd rather have the slower Canon. Weight and size don't bother me as much (yet).



Aug 13, 2013 at 10:57 PM
h00ligan
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · Non canon uwa ?


The purpose of the lens would be capturing interior design. My 24L isn't wide enough and frankly I d t want to spend a fortune.

17-40 was my first thought but I had a nagging feeling there was a third party that cost less and rated higher

Tripod work and lack of necessity for shallow depth of field omit the need for a 2.8 lens - or associated price tag (at least in canon land)

I probably wouldn't be opposed to a prime, nothing too wide.



Aug 13, 2013 at 10:59 PM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · Non canon uwa ?


Since you're using it for interiors, Fred's suggestion of the Tokina seems to be your best bet.
From what I've seen and heard it looks better than the Canon 17-40 (no personal experience though).
I have the Canon 17-40 and it's one of the best Canon values, but for IQ alone, the Tokina should be better.
I still have the Canon for other reasons - filters, portability, FL.



Aug 14, 2013 at 12:02 AM
Cicopo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Non canon uwa ?


I have the older Sigma 12-24 & am happy with it & have read that the newer version is better. I think they take rear mount filters due to the dome shaped front element. These were shot with it at 12 mm on a 5D2.
































Aug 14, 2013 at 12:45 AM
h00ligan
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Non canon uwa ?


Thanks very much fr the inout ans the samoles


Aug 14, 2013 at 08:13 AM
MintMar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Non canon uwa ?


Sigma 15-30 EX DG can be had for cheap and it's quite good FF UWA zoom in price/performance department.


Aug 14, 2013 at 08:52 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



h00ligan
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · Non canon uwa ?


The sigma was one i was womdering about.

I suppose i could check out the rolinon 14 also, for the price its probably worth trying. Ive seen positive feedback. Whatever i get for me and what i prefer to shoot personalky is not jsually so wide. Hnce keeping the budget diwn



Aug 14, 2013 at 01:18 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · Non canon uwa ?


User's reports here on FM place the Tokina 16-28/2.8 very highly with regard to overall IQ, including very low distortion (barrel/pincushion).

I own the Canon 16-35L II, and am very happy with it and using filters on it. But I'd consider the Tokina if I didn't already own this.

The 17-40L would probably be a worthwhile choice for filters and budget, using a tripod mostly.



Aug 14, 2013 at 02:09 PM
oldrattler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · Non canon uwa ?


I have owned the Tokina and the 17-40. Both are excellent lens but I would go Tokina if I had to choose. Good luck. Jim


Aug 14, 2013 at 02:17 PM
S Richardson
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Non canon uwa ?


I've been very pleased with the Tamron 17-35. You can find them for ~$300 or less and image quality on the 5DII is quite good. I've used mine to photograph interior shots for real estate listing photos.


Aug 14, 2013 at 02:26 PM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Non canon uwa ?


h00ligan wrote:
The sigma was one i was womdering about.

I suppose i could check out the rolinon 14 also, for the price its probably worth trying. Ive seen positive feedback. Whatever i get for me and what i prefer to shoot personalky is not jsually so wide. Hnce keeping the budget diwn


I have a Sigma 12-24 mark 1.

It's VERY wide at 12mm and amazingly undistorted if you keep it upright. I use it for interiors mostly

It needs stopping well down though, or at least mine does.



Aug 14, 2013 at 03:08 PM
danb121
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Non canon uwa ?


I have the MK2 sigma 12-24 for ultra wide interiors and can recommend it, anything wider than 17mm and I use a Canon 17-40


Vertigo by Daniel Borg, on Flickr



Diagonals by Daniel Borg, on Flickr



Sagrada Familia by Daniel Borg, on Flickr



Final Destination by Daniel Borg, on Flickr



Barri Gotic Cathedral by Daniel Borg, on Flickr





Aug 14, 2013 at 04:25 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Non canon uwa ?


Did I miss the part where the OP mentions which camera he's using?

There's a completely different set of lenses for UWA between FF and crop...



Aug 14, 2013 at 04:40 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · Non canon uwa ?


johnctharp wrote:
Did I miss the part where the OP mentions which camera he's using?

There's a completely different set of lenses for UWA between FF and crop...


Yes you did.

Post #4.



Aug 14, 2013 at 05:02 PM
DtEW
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Non canon uwa ?


There is also the Tokina 17-35mm f/4, which unlike the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8, takes 82mm filters and is "sealed". And there is the butt-gasket.

I opted for this instead of the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L because of my friends' complaints about edge softness of that particular lens, and this Tokina was supposed to be better (I still have not had the opportunity to do a direct comparison to confirm), and I was not *that* impressed by my GF's EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, not to mention it not being wide enough for the amount of cash outlay. I am waiting for Canon's answer to the Nikkor 14-24mm.


IMG_0765.jpg by dtewsacrificial, on Flickr

(Wish I could share more and better photos, but it's complicated.)

I can say that this lens really needs to be stopped down to f/8 for good edge sharpness, at least at the wide end where I usually have it.



Aug 15, 2013 at 05:05 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password