Hi folks -
I've been using a Sigma 12-24 for some time on my 5D, and I really enjoy the results, especially at 12mm. The problem is that corner sharpness on this lens leaves a heck of a lot to be desired (not surprising since it was designed for APS-C sensors).
I've accepted that as the price of getting such dramatic perspective, but lately I've been wondering if there are any alternative lenses out there that could offer the same (or close) wide angles while retaining decent corner sharpness?
Examples of the Sigma at 12mm:
[url=http://www.petercox.ie/gallery/111]
[/url]
Edit: Yes, I know about the NIkon 14-24, and that is indeed a lovely looking lens. But any primes out there? Anything in the sub-1k price bracket?
Your Sigma at 12mm is as wide as you're going to get on a full frame camera (incidentally, the Sigma was designed for full frame not cropped sensors). The next widest would be 14 mm -- Canon's own prime and the new Nikon 14-24 beast. At 15mm you have the other Sigma, the 15-30, & Canon fisheye. I think there is a Leica or Zeiss at 15mm, but I can't remember. There are more choices as you get longer, but for the super wide that is about it. With the shots you posted as examples (nice, by the way) it looks like you would be better served by taking about 3 shots and stitching them together, which should give you better corners since you could use a longer focal length -- just a thought, but not always the best solution.
Paul -
Thanks for the response. I knew the 12mm was as wide as it gets with current offerings, was hoping there might be some hidden gem from years past.
Re stitching: I do use it every now and then, but on most occasions I'm photographing under conditions that are less than ideal for it (moving water/clouds/rapidly changing light etc.).
ovredal73: Thanks for the comment =) I've admired your images during my lurking on these forums.
why are these impediments to stitching? i have done some under all these conditions. hand held stitched panoramas with no parallal problems are no big deal if you use decent software. neither is movement. parallax when you have subjects really close is about the only one that technology can't deal with easily.
Herb...
petercox wrote:
Re stitching: I do use it every now and then, but on most occasions I'm photographing under conditions that are less than ideal for it (moving water/clouds/rapidly changing light etc.).
Herb:
In fairness I haven't investigated it thoroughly. I don't particularly enjoy the process of shooting for stitching - I would rather get the image in one frame. Not for any philosophical reason, that's just the way I'd rather work.
the reason stitching exists is to get images that can't be gotten any other way. you could buy a dedicated scanning digital head, but the price is really up there.
The posted images are enhanced by the exagerated perspected from the SWA. While a stitched image can cover the same field of view, it won't have the same foreground/background perspective.
Respectfully pdmphoto, perspective is only a function of the camera position. Take a photo at the same position as with a SWA and stitch instead, you get the same perspective.
There is something about the distorted perspectives and the scenes and color combinations that's appealing. Nice work.
I don't know what exact FL you're looking for (I'm assuming <= 24mm) and while I can't vouch for any of the following, some lenses in that snack bracket that get good press for value/performance are:
Nikon 18/3.5 Ais (5 stars from CDI)
CZ 18/4
Leica 19/2.8 - first version (2nd is a stunner but outside the price range)
Leica 16/2.8 (the 15mms START at $1800 used and run to $5000+)
1-2 or two of the Nikkor 20s (F2.8, 3.5, 4) might bear closure scrutiny
petercox wrote:
Herb:
In fairness I haven't investigated it thoroughly. I don't particularly enjoy the process of shooting for stitching - I would rather get the image in one frame. Not for any philosophical reason, that's just the way I'd rather work.
Cheers,
Peter
I know what you mean. There's something about shooting for stitch that I find... I dunno...
I'm photographing under conditions that are less than ideal for it (moving water/clouds/rapidly changing light etc.).
After leveling the camera in portrait orientation on my tripod, checking manual exposure, and loosening the panning base of my ball head, I can shoot a 3 frame pano in two seconds.
Don Clary wrote:
After leveling the camera in portrait orientation on my tripod, checking manual exposure, and loosening the panning base of my ball head, I can shoot a 3 frame pano in two seconds.
And how much can waves and clouds change in windy Irish seascapes, in two seconds? If this doesn't pose a problem, then I'd love to hear any feedback on why not.
for me, process is irrelevant. i get the image using any tool i can get my hands on that does the job when i need it done. i shoot hand held panoramas, single frame fisheyes and defish. sometimes, i use multirow panorama heads, shoot HDRs and use GNDs.
the only lenses i know of wider than a 12 on a FF body are all fisheyes, but defish them and the effective FOV is not that much different from the 12-24 you already own. might there be some exotic rectilinear wide angle wider than 12mm for a FF body? i haven't heard of one. none of the 14mm primes that cover FF i know of are that much better, nor the 15mm ones.
Conner999 wrote:
There is something about the distorted perspectives and the scenes and color combinations that's appealing. Nice work.
I don't know what exact FL you're looking for (I'm assuming <= 24mm) and while I can't vouch for any of the following, some lenses in that snack bracket that get good press for value/performance are:
Nikon 18/3.5 Ais (5 stars from CDI)
CZ 18/4
Leica 19/2.8 - first version (2nd is a stunner but outside the price range)
Leica 16/2.8 (the 15mms START at $1800 used and run to $5000+)
1-2 or two of the Nikkor 20s (F2.8, 3.5, 4) might bear closure scrutiny
+1 for not stitching for the type of photos that you take (lovely BTW )
Stitched panos do have their uses but IMO there's nothing like the stretched clouds that a UWA+FF gives you. Panos look a little more... scientific, and it seems to me your style is different. Only my opinion though.
I'm also searching for a UWA for my 5D and I have also looked at the ones Conner mentioned. Without personal experience (I'm just reporting other peoples opinions here) this is what else I have on my list for further research:
The converted Contax 17-35, great resolving abilities that some say creates the biggest files a 5D can produce.
Good comments on the Pentax 15 F3.5 SMC. Hard to find, I think Keh has one at the moment for about $600-$700.
A budget solution is the Tamron 17mm f3.5 I've heard good and bad things about it, mostly regarding sample variation but I have seen some images that were sharp corner to corner. Hard to find too but it comes with native Canon mount, hence AF and auto apperture. Cant go too wrong for $200, might want to try your luck before you spend top $?
Another one is the Contax 18mm f4 distagon T*, reportedly not the best Contax lens but still a Contax. Around $700 last time I checked.
So for my benefit as well, any further opinions on the above would be greatly appreciated
BTW out of curiosity what's the story with costums duties/GST when ordering from overseas in Ireland? And where are these beutiful landscapes? They bring back memories but its been so long since I was an exchange student at the University of Limerick that I cant remember names...
Cheers,
Spyro
Edit: Forgot the OM 18mm & 21mm, another 2 that dont come up very often...
Edited by Spyro P. on Jul 04, 2008 at 03:12 AM GMT
Edited by Spyro P. on Jul 04, 2008 at 03:21 AM GMT
Herb, your first panorama of the river in the woods there, it does NOT have the distorted edge perspective that a UWA with a similar field of view would give. It just doesn't. In that sense, it lacks the feel that a single UWA lens would produce. Panoramas are nice, but they are NOT UWA shots. So...
Real photographers don't need no stinkin' panorama head and software.
But seriously, what program, Herb? I do a fair amount of cityscape night photography, so naturally lining up the headlight trails is a ginormous pain in the butt, and frankly it just looks obvious (read: terrible). I've tied photomatix(?). Is that the best there is?
