moondigger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ? | |
mdvaden wrote:
It's doubtful I'd use anything wider than 24mm in the redwoods where I explore.
Probably not what you want to hear, but none of my in-the-woods shots, including California Redwoods shots, were any good until I started using my tilt-shift lenses in there. (I should clarify that I thought they were fine before I started using the tilt/shift lenses, but now when I look at the old forest shots they look deficient.) I've had the best results with the Canon TS-E 17 f/4L, though the TS-E 24 II is excellent as well.
But that's not really what you were asking about, so...
---------------------------------------------
mawz wrote:
I’d try the RF16/2.8 first, then look at alternatives only if it doesn’t meet your need.
I own this lens, but don't find myself using it much. There's nothing wrong with it, but I prefer the framing flexibility that I get with a zoom.
---------------------------------------------
robstein wrote:
I'd try the Rokinon 14mm - I have the EF one and it's around $280 but they look to now have an RF around $400. I use it for astro every now and then and the odd landscape - I love the lens.
And just after saying I prefer a zoom for this kind of photography, I have to contradict myself and say I also own and love this lens. It's very sharp, even away from the center of the frame. The one thing I would warn the OP about is that it has substantial mustache distortion, which cannot be easily (or completely) fixed in post. It's fine for shots that lack long straight lines, but not a good choice for architecture. That doesn't mean it can't be used in cities -- one of my favorite images was made with this lens on a busy street in Brussels. The composition didn't really show the mustache distortion much, and the corrections I made in post minimized it. So unless you're shooting architecture (for which a tilt/shift lens would be better anyway), this lens is an excellent choice.
---------------------------------------------
melcat wrote:
Manual focus becomes harder the wider you go.
I've found the opposite to be true. When I was walking around Brussels with my Rokinon 14 (mentioned above), I just set it to the hyperfocal distance at f/8. That puts everything in focus from about two feet to infinity, accounting for a reasonable circle of confusion value. I've printed the image mentioned previously at 16x24 inches and it's tack sharp. I'm sure I could print larger.
---------------------------------------------
That said, I'm going to have to agree with the others who recommended the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L. It's probably my most-used ultra wide lens. It's sharp, gives the framing flexibility I prefer, and has image stabilization. Plus, because people are flocking to the RF ultrawides and selling off their EF lenses, it's super cheap for the quality of lens you're getting. The only downside is that attaching it to an RF-mount body means having to use the adapter, which causes it to stick out farther than one would normally expect an ultrawide zoom to stick out.
---------------------------------------------
I know you didn't ask about super-ultra-wides, but at least one other person above suggested one. For that use, my advice would be to check out the 7Artisans 9 mm f/5.6. It's a little bit wider than the Laowa 10 mm lens previously mentioned, cheaper, and it's sharp corner-to-corner. It doesn't get much discussion here, and I only bought it on a whim. But I'm glad I did -- it delivers really excellent image quality.
It has three disadvantages vs. Canon native lenses: 1) Manual focus and aperture. This is even less of a problem than it is with the Rokinon 14, as the hyperfocal distance is even closer. 2) No communication with the camera (also like the Rokinon). So the metadata won't show which lens was used, or the shooting aperture. 3) It's f/5.6 at its widest aperture. That's pretty dark if you're shooting in low light.
This is the lens I might use 5 or 10 times per year, just because it's so ridiculously wide. So the disadvantages I outlined above aren't much of an issue to me. I probably shoot fifteen times as many frames with the EF 16-35 f/4L, or ten times as many with the EF 11-24 f/4L. (I didn't mention the 11-24 earlier, because it doesn't really meet your criteria. But it's an excellent lens as well, IFF you don't mind the bulk and weight.)
|
