Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

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

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · wide angle with least distortion?

  
 
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · wide angle with least distortion?


Im looking for a wide angle for my 6d. The 10-22 I modified to fit has some strong distortion from 17mm and up. Outside of the tse lenses (budget concerns) what would be the best bet? Was particularly interested in the new 24 and 28mm IS lenses and how well they do in the distortion department. Any and all better suggestions welcome. Thanks.


Mar 09, 2014 at 04:03 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · wide angle with least distortion?


I suggest you visit some review sites and figure it out for yourself.

Here's two good places to start,

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=788
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1

The PhotoZone hasn't yet reviewed a 24/2.8 IS, but I expect it should be pretty close to the 28/2.8 IS in the link above.

I own the 24/2.8 IS and TS-E 24/3.5L II. The little 24 IS is an excellent lens, regardless of price. Jim Harris (Gunzorro) compared the 24/2.8 IS to TS-E 24/3.5L II, and they both look pretty good. I contributed some images on page 2 of this thread,

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1270343





Mar 09, 2014 at 04:17 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · wide angle with least distortion?


By "distortion", you mean barrel distortion specifically?

The 24 IS is well corrected for barrel distortion and has relatively low CA. A very good lens for the price, nearly rivaling the 24 TSE at smaller apertures of f/5.6 and smaller. 28 IS and 35 IS models are also excellent, especially the 35.

PS -- Thanks Jim!



Mar 09, 2014 at 04:19 PM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · wide angle with least distortion?


Just shoot RAW and correct the distortion in post.

My 17-40 looks great when you do that, indeed so does my Sigma 12-24.



Mar 10, 2014 at 04:31 AM
Guest

Guest
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · wide angle with least distortion?


Guess the rule of thumb would be using wide zooms zoomed in halfway, because they all seem to suck pretty bad WRT the distortion on their respective wide ends.

FWIW the 12-24 II looks pretty decent at 17mm (slight barrel) or 24mm (slight pincushion), and there's got to be an inflection point in between with nearly zero distortion.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/676-sigma1224f4556iiff?start=1



Mar 10, 2014 at 05:00 AM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · wide angle with least distortion?


RogerC11 wrote:
Im looking for a wide angle for my 6d. The 10-22 I modified to fit has some strong distortion from 17mm and up.


You are talking about barrel distortion and not perspective distortion, right? And by 17 mm up you mean from 10 to 17 mm, not from 17 to 22 mm, right? ("up" generally means "increasing" numbers, but you do mean "wider", right?)

The Canon 10-22 mm has very low distortion when used on a crop factor camera. At 10 mm it has less distortion than on crop (about 1.25 %) than the 16-35 L Mark II on full-frame (over 3%). The 10-22mm is not tested for full-frame on all the main test sites because that is not a standard warranty use.

The champion for low distortion for full-frame for ultra wide angle zooms is the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8, which is why I got it, since it is plenty sharp too. It has less optical (barrel) distortion than the 16-35 L II, the Nikon 14-24, and even the vaunted 21 mm Zeiss and much less than the Samyang 14 mm which is really bad. It's cost is more than the 10-22 and less than the 16-35 II.

Are you wanting a zoom that does ultra to strong wide (16-28 or to mild wide 16-35)? If you want really wide there is the Canon 14 mm and the 17 mm TS-E, but they are not cheap. Nor is the Nikon 14-24 zoom or the Zeiss 21mm.

The ultimate budget wide angle is the Canon 28 mm f/2.8 non-IS which is compact and sharp in the confines of an 8x10 aspect ratio (lose the extreme sides wide open) but only available used now (I have a 25 year old one) or possibly a used Zuiko (see Jim Colwell for the lens $ database).

Please confirm the questions at the front of the post so we can clearly understand your goals.



Mar 10, 2014 at 05:28 AM
Shield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · wide angle with least distortion?


Gunzorro wrote:
By "distortion", you mean barrel distortion specifically?

The 24 IS is well corrected for barrel distortion and has relatively low CA. A very good lens for the price, nearly rivaling the 24 TSE at smaller apertures of f/5.6 and smaller. 28 IS and 35 IS models are also excellent, especially the 35.

PS -- Thanks Jim!


Don't ask why, but right now I have the 24/28/35 IS lenses and I can't decide on which one I like the best. I think the 28 might (just barely in the edges) be the sharpest wide open. I have the 24-70/4 as well and trying to whittle down my lenses. IMO the 24 is just a tad too wide for everyday shooting, but the 28 and 35 are almost redundant. I can't decide and it's driving me nuts.



Mar 10, 2014 at 07:11 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · wide angle with least distortion?


Shield -- Okay! Now I see that you have the two thread going, and I've been replying to both, without getting that it's you in both cases!

You got my reply in the other thread about which to keep (all).

I'm sorry you aren't terribly inclined toward the 24 IS. I did a recent comparison against one of my favorites, the 24 TSE II, and it compared very favorably. The 24 IS has very low distortion. I won't be getting rid of either of those lenses!

I love the faster speed and excellent sharpness of the new 35 IS. So I won't be getting rid of that either.

Your apparent favorite, the 28 IS, is probably my most redundant, and that's why I haven't upgraded to the new IS model. That, and I did actually buy one from Adorama a while back on sale, but it wasn't compatible with my bodies for consistent and accurate AF, so it got sent back. So, I've keep the original 28/2.8 for when I want a very compact WA for generally shooting.




Mar 10, 2014 at 09:47 AM
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · wide angle with least distortion?


Thanks for all the suggestions and sorry for the delayed response. By distortion I mean things getting stretched out on the edges.


Mar 10, 2014 at 02:10 PM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · wide angle with least distortion?


RogerC11 wrote:
By distortion I mean things getting stretched out on the edges.


That is not distortion, that is perspective. No lens will be able to defeat geometry. None.

Perspective is controlled by two distances: 1) the distance to the objects in the scene and 2) the distance of the eye to the final image.

If you put your eye in the position of the camera when taking a photo at 12 mm, and swivel it around, no individual part of any object will look distorted. But if you make the photo and then view a usual size print (8x10) from a usual viewing distance (seated at a table), then things at the edge of the frame will look distorted. But put your eye near the print and swivel it around and voila! The objects in the print will look undistorted and rather like the view you saw at the camera position.

Similarly, if you take a long focal length picture (say 200 mm) and look at from about 15 feet away, it will not look "compressed".



Mar 10, 2014 at 02:43 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · wide angle with least distortion?


Roger, all ultrawide rectolinear lenses will stretch out objects toward the edge. in fact, as you correct the barrel distortion, that stretching becomes even worse.
What is ultrawide to you? at 24 mm, I dont think this is much of a problem.
Also, as for Barrel distortion goes, its worth noting most zoom lens, have it only on their wide end, and switch to neutral and pin cushin farily quickly. so both the 17-40 and 16-35, dont show barrel distortion at 24.



Mar 10, 2014 at 02:44 PM
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · wide angle with least distortion?


This has been a very educational thread for me, thank you guys for the knowledge and extra things to now be considered. For me, 24mm is plenty wide and definitely want to stay wider than 35mm. I think the 24mm and 28mm IS primes are looking like a good choice so far.


Mar 10, 2014 at 09:05 PM
AnthonyRay
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · wide angle with least distortion?


I'm really hoping that Sigma comes out with a new version of the 12-24. That would be a perfect lens for my uses. I almost got one, but that one really seems to be luck of the draw.

The Tokina 16-28 was tempting too - but the weight and spotty repair record gave me pause. I was feeling cheap when I got the 6D, and had been using the Sigma 10-20 for years on my crops.

Since I shoot interiors (a lot) I had to have something if I wanted to use my shiny new camera! I decided what the heck, and got the 17-40. I know this lens finds little to no love but I'm really impressed. Maybe I got a golden copy? But I think it's better than my 24-105 in terms of sharpness and distortion on the short end (but I think that's obvious for both of those things! ). Very little correction is necessary when I process. Good old lens profiles solves the problem 100%.

http://www.icophos.com/junk/stratford-4432.jpg

http://www.icophos.com/junk/stratford-4657.jpg


I think if you're shooting landscapes, 24 is plenty wide enough. I'd love a TS-E, but have survived a long time without one. And, for 90% of my work, I don't have time to use a TS. I'm surviving with my 24-70 f2.8 II right now - but it's cherry blossom and apple peach blossoms time. Good weather tomorrow I hope!

[edit] Anyway, I think I strayed from my original intended goal of stating that distortion is so very unimportant. Worst case is you shoot JPEG and you fix the distortion in camera. Better yet, you use your free program DPP to fix distortion from RAW. And bestest of all, you've got Bridge/Photoshop or Lightroom and again, push a button. It's magic! Depending on the lens, a lot of them have less vertical distortion than horizontal, which is what shows up in a lot of the architectural stuff. I could shoot with my Sigma 10-20 and not correct at all.

Or, if it's like others have pointed out - and I'm way off base - and you're talking about the forced perspective and effects present in ultra wide angle lenses - a lot of that is placement. Moving a few inches one way or another can alleviate this issue entirely. With a 24 though, you've already taken care of a lot of the problem as this effect is far lessened.



Mar 10, 2014 at 11:19 PM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · wide angle with least distortion?


AnthonyRay wrote:
Since I shoot interiors (a lot) I had to have something if I wanted to use my shiny new camera! I decided what the heck, and got the 17-40. I know this lens finds little to no love but I'm really impressed.



The 17-40 is well liked by most who have actually tried it. It's solid and unexciting but if you keep it upright and stop it down it is a very good lens and the IQ is essentially the same as the 16-35's.

I have the 12-24 mark 1 and although it's quite an awkward lens to use (I always use live view and at least f8-f11) it's amazingly undistorted for such an incredibly wide lens if you keep it upright.



Mar 11, 2014 at 03:35 AM
dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · wide angle with least distortion?


dhphoto wrote:
The 17-40 is well liked by most who have actually tried it. It's solid and unexciting but if you keep it upright and stop it down it is a very good lens and the IQ is essentially the same as the 16-35's.

I have the 12-24 mark 1 and although it's quite an awkward lens to use (I always use live view and at least f8-f11) it's amazingly undistorted for such an incredibly wide lens if you keep it upright.


the 17-40 is better when it comes to coma which may be an influencing factor. With a star tracker in hand, I decided to purchase this lens over the 16-35mm. And for all other applications, I don't need the f/2.8. If I must use something fast and wide, I have the samyang.



Mar 11, 2014 at 07:55 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.