Wide ...

jackdaw

Hey

Can anyone recommend a good wide (super wide) lens that is 77mm
and is suited for a FF canon ...


I asked before but was looking towards the Sigma 10-20 , but someone told
me they aren't great for FF ??

Paulw

Canon 17-40mm is the widest 77m filter size lens that I can find for Canon.

But, from reading reviews, the 16-35mm f/2.8 II L lens is better quality, although it certainly isn't 77mm filter size.

leohoju

You could also try the Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8, as it takes 77mm filters, but might not be wide enough. I imagine you can get it for reasonably cheap second hand as well.

trishw78

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8 II L it has a 82mm thread I'm sure you can pick up a stepping ring. Filters are very hard to come by I have one expensive circular polarising and the rest of my filters are coklin.

whyulittle

Picked up an 82mm circular polarising filter for about half price from 7dayshop last week. They seem to be out of stock now though.

digitalage

Get the older canon 16-35mm its 77mm. Lovely lens.

jackdaw

So the SIGMA 10-20, is definetely not suitable for FF ?

digitalage

The sigma is not made for Full frame you will get vignetting, would be possible usuable from 16-20mm. Get the sigma 12-24 will work on full frame, have a read of this post.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Hq6E

Borderfox

The 17-40 is 77mm and is a superb lens with a higher resolving power than the Sigma 10-20.

leohoju

digitalage wrote: »

The sigma is not made for Full frame you will get vignetting, would be possible usuable from 16-20mm. Get the sigma 12-24 will work on full frame, have a read of this post.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Hq6E

The Sigma 12-24mm doesn't take normal filters on the front, but rather gel filters attached to the rear. If that's not an issue, then it's a certainly a good choice.

jackdaw

Borderfox wrote: »

The 17-40 is 77mm and is a superb lens with a higher resolving power than the Sigma 10-20.

my problem with 17-40 f4L or 16-35 f2.8L II is that because i have the 24-70 L f2.8 .. I find it hard to justify spending so much money on 8mm (or 7mm) ...

Paulw

I have the Canon 24-70mm lens, and recently bought the 16-35mm. I can honestly say that 8mm does make a big difference to what you can capture in the image. I'm delighted that I finally bought the lens.

I took a number of images (at 16mm) over the weekend, which I must process and put on Flickr this evening.

All I can say is - try it and see.

AnimalRights

and they're much lighter.

jackdaw

hmmmmmmmm.....


so how much is the 16-35 roughly ?


AnimalRights do you have the 17-40 AND the 16-35 !! ??

:eek: !!!

AnimalRights

Just the 17-40..I read reviews and comparisons though.
24-70 is a lot heavier, I own the 24-105L anyway so 24-70 I wouldn't need.
Reviews I've read have said that there is little between the 16-35 II and the 17-40 cept the extra stop obviously, the 17-40 was sharper in certain test scenarios too.
16-35 II is just too expensive for what it is, diff if you're a Pro and getting paid like PaulW etc

jackdaw

yeah .. id lean towards the 17-40 .. a lot cheaper and i don't think one really needs the extra stop at wide ...

digitalage

You do shooting indoors poor light, need as much as you can get

jackdaw

digitalage wrote: »

You do shooting indoors poor light, need as much as you can get

I'd use the 17-40 for outdoor wide shots....

good light ...

AnimalRights

Just up the ISO, newer Cams are great for higher ISOs.
I've gotten away with an f/4 at gigs.

Paulw

Personally, I'd always go for the extra stop.

Not only for low light, but also for DOF and other effects you can get using f/2.8 as opposed to f/4.

Bottom line - it comes down to your wallet and exactly how much you need the extra stop.

ThOnda

+1 for extra stop
At Charleville castle, I really struggled at 28mm reduced only to 1/4. I forgot my nifty fifty at home...

Paulw

Ok, here's a sample, taken at the weekend.

16mm f/16



16mm f/2.8



I've also put a number of other photos on my Flickr taken with the 16-35mm.