Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

moondigger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
I've seen people use the 16/2.8, including two pros (one from TASS and one from Reuters) who use it on their R3 cameras...

I don't know why, but your comment here reminded me of the reason I bought the RF 16 f/2.8 in the first place. I already have that exact focal length covered two different ways (16-35 f/4L and 11-24 f/4L), and other nearby ultrawide fields-of-view covered several other ways (Canon TS-E 17 f/4L, Laowa 15 f/4 macro, Rokinon 14 f/2.8, Canon EF-M 11-22).

Given how thoroughly I have that FOV covered, what's the purpose of picking up the RF 16 f/2.8? I read that it has moderate transmission of ultraviolet wavelengths, and thought I'd give it a try with my full-spectrum converted EOS R. Unfortunately, I don't yet have a UV bandpass filter that will work with the 16/2.8, so I've only tried it out on the R5. For typical visible-light usage, it seems fine to me. Better than OpticalLimits' 3/10 rating would suggest. But for the reasons I already explained, I tend not to pick it when I have need of an ultrawide lens.

Sep 17, 2024 at 08:40 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

mdvaden wrote:
It's tempting to pass on the Tamron. Still hoping to go smaller.

You've been around the block a couple times so I had a question in case you might know. Would a CONTAX / Zeiss 18mm Distagon f/4 have close optical similarity to a Zeiss 18mm 3.5 ZE ?

...

Yeah the Tamron looks like a bit of a beast, around 2.5lbs, heavier than my 180 Tamron I believe. But the 20 nikkor and 17 Tamron are a lot lighter, for instance

I searched on here, both used to be pretty popular, looks like 18/3.5 is the better lens. Found numerous threads, I just searched 18/4 contax fredmiranda.com on Google,and you might take a look at adaptall-2.com 17/3.5 Tamron too since it lists tests of other 17 and 18mm lenses. I remember reading 18 & 21mm review in Rangefinder magazine, he basically that the 21mm zeiss is the uber performance model, but he'd prefer the 18mm, probably due to the fl

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1227604/

Sep 17, 2024 at 12:32 PM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

moondigger wrote:
For typical visible-light usage, it seems fine to me. Better than OpticalLimits' 3/10 rating would suggest. But for the reasons I already explained, I tend not to pick it when I have need of an ultrawide lens.

I guess ignorance is bliss. I didn't realize that the conventional wisdom is that the 16mm f/2.8 had bad image quality. Otherwise, I've been very happy with it whenever I used it.

That said, I'd probably also recommend the Canon 15-30 IS STM lens over any of the L-series UWA zooms for rare and / or non-professional use. It's the same size (and practically the same weight) as the 24-105 STM and has a fairly useful UWA range. Though 35-40mm would have been a nice end point, but much like the 28-70 f/2.8 coming up, you have to take some compromises to get these lenses that seemed practically impossible not long ago.

The last non-L EF zoom lens that went that went shorter than 24mm was the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 (and an Asia-only 22-55 kit lens). Anything in the EF range shorter than 20mm was L and there's only 3 EF lenses shorter than 16mm (that's not a fisheye). Meanwhile, The RF mount already has 4 lenses shorter than 16mm and 15-16mm can be had for a song now in the RF mount.

Sep 17, 2024 at 02:20 PM

moondigger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

kakomu wrote:
I guess ignorance is bliss. I didn't realize that the conventional wisdom is that the 16mm f/2.8 had bad image quality. Otherwise, I've been very happy with it whenever I used it.

To be clear, I don't think it has bad image quality. I think it's fine, even if it isn't quite as good as the 16-35 f/4L at 16 mm. I don't typically choose it when I'm heading out to shoot because I prefer the flexibility of the zoom.

Sep 17, 2024 at 03:17 PM

mdvaden
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

moondigger wrote:
Yes, I get that... I just meant that given the OP's stated requirements, a general consensus seems to have emerged for the those two lenses. They're inexpensive and widely available...

For the more part, you're correct.

I almost ordered the RF 16mm this morning, and it's sitting in a "cart". A thought came to delay a few days to double check weights, prices and features. The RF 16mm weighs a very light 165g

RF 14-35mm f/4 is only 540g which is almost 200g less than the EF 135mm's somewhat light 750g. With adapter the EF 16-35mm f4 weighs close to 750 grams and the price is in the middle.

I see a possible open door to fund a lens up to near $1100 but the RF zoom may not be worth $500 more than the EF 16-35 which also has a steady f/4 In most aspects the RF 16mm seems easily worth its price.

Sep 17, 2024 at 04:06 PM

mdvaden
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

The purchase finale

Irix 15mm 2.8 Blackstone

+ Canon RF 16mm 2.8 or Canon EF 16-35mm f/4

The first reply in this thread suggested a Milvus 15mm. A later suggestion Laowa 12mm led me to cross paths with reviews from Dustin Abbott and others about the Irix 15mm, which suggested it's like 90% the benefits of the Zeiss, if not better in a couple ways.

I found a nice copy of the Irix 15mm at Used Photo Pro where I've bought lenses and cameras from before. $290 w/ free shipping. As for the Canon EF, I will probably buy an RF 16mm first to keep as a more compact lens.

...

Sep 18, 2024 at 06:41 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end

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