I just sold my 40d and 10-22 and upgraded to a 1d mkII; now I am in need of a wide angle lens. I have rented the 17-40, but was hoping for something a bit wider. Obviously, the 14 f/2.8 is very appealling, but is a bit out of my price range at the moment. After doing alot of reading on this forum, I think I may have narrowed it down to the Tokina 12-24 or the Canon 15 f/2.8.

I do alot of backpacking, so weight and size is an issue, this is why the 15 f/2.8 seems very appealing to me, but the 12-24 seems to be more versatile (but I believe will only work from 15mm-24mm on the 1d). My kit already includes the 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400.

I know this topic has already been beaten to death, but any suggestions you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Canon 15mm f/2.8 is a fisheye lens. You know that, right?

AGeoJO wrote:
Canon 15mm f/2.8 is a fisheye lens. You know that, right?


I do, but from the samples I've seen, the fish-eye effect is not as drastic as I was expecting.

gkopp1999 wrote:
I do, but from the samples I've seen, the fish-eye effect is not as drastic as I was expecting.

It is on a FF camera, but on a 1.3X, yes, it will be less. Plus, it can be de-fished, but I haven't done it myself. I am sure others will chime in if you express interest. It is a great lens though but since it doesn't have USM, you will hear the AF motor, not that it matters much.

AGeoJO wrote:
gkopp1999 wrote:
I do, but from the samples I've seen, the fish-eye effect is not as drastic as I was expecting.

It is on a FF camera, but on a 1.3X, yes, it will be less. Plus, it can be de-fished, but I haven't done it myself. I am sure others will chime in if you express interest. It is a great lens though but since it doesn't have USM, you will hear the AF motor, not that it matters much.

Thanks for the info...the reason I am even considering the 15mm is the price (very attractive) and the f/2.8 aperature. I have seen several sample pics taken with a 1 series body that seemed very "non-fishy"

I was also considering the sigma 10-20, but the reviews seemed to be mixed.

The 1D (1.3 crop) does provide some issues with wideangle because you can't technically use EF-S lenses (as you know) however some swear by using the 10-22 on 1.3 crop, just losing the widest couple of MM, it just means removing the rear flange

Otherwise I'd say probably the *best* lens would indeed be the 14mm mark II

David

in my experience, the 15mm looks like a fisheye to me on my 1dmkiiN.

I would stick with a non-fisheye lens. the 17-40 does outstanding work with the 1d bodies.

in my experience, the 15mm looks like a fisheye to me on my 1dmkiiN.

I would stick with a non-fisheye lens. the 17-40 does outstanding work with the 1d bodies.

15mm vs 17mm is IMHO not a reason to have yet another lens weigh your bag down. 17mm on a FF will be close to what you'd get with a 10mm or 11mm on a 1.6 crop.

What about the Tokina 10-17mm? It is a fish-eye, but when I left my 10-22, the Tokina certainly took its place very well. I had it on my 1D - you just can't use it at 10mm because of slight vignetting, but around 12mm it looks fine and I was pleased with the results. It is a fisheye/zoom though and not exactly an ultra-wide.

Isn't the Sigma 12-24mm a full frame lens? The 10-20mm is not, but I don't know to what extent you can use it on a 1.3x crop camera.

In a way, you've gotten yourself into a bit of a tough spot here.

When you mention backpacking and UWA lenses, it makes me think that you are perhaps interested in landscape photography? (I do a lot of landscape work and I backpack for a good deal of it, so it all sounds sort of familiar.)

If so, I wonder why you went with the 1DM2? Perhaps this camera must do double-duty where the higher frame rate is important to you? From my perspective, for backpacking landscape (and other) photography the 5D might have more to offer: full frame sensor (obvioius wide angle advantages and some IQ advantages), more MP (for whatever that may be worth to you), smaller and lighter camera (very significant, in my experience - especially when crossing 12,000' trail-less passes ;-).

The only purported downside is the lesser weather sealing of the 5D, but I've backpacked extensively with mine (and shot in ocean spray, desert wind storms, snow and light rain) and I don't find this to be a big issue.

So, oddly, one solution to your lens problem might be to consider a different body...

The 17-40 is a great landscape lens on the FF 5D. My basic backpacking kit (described more extensively here) is built around the 5D plus the 24-105 and 17-40 along with a tripod, etc.

Dan


gkopp1999 wrote:
I just sold my 40d and 10-22 and upgraded to a 1d mkII; now I am in need of a wide angle lens. I have rented the 17-40, but was hoping for something a bit wider. Obviously, the 14 f/2.8 is very appealling, but is a bit out of my price range at the moment. After doing alot of reading on this forum, I think I may have narrowed it down to the Tokina 12-24 or the Canon 15 f/2.8.

I do alot of backpacking, so weight and size is an issue, this is why the 15 f/2.8 seems very appealing to me, but the 12-24 seems to be more versatile (but I believe will only work from 15mm-24mm on the 1d). My kit already includes the 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400.

I know this topic has already been beaten to death, but any suggestions you could offer would be greatly appreciated.


Edited by danmitchell on Jul 25, 2008 at 08:41 AM GMT

I'd have to agree with everything Dan said above. We don't know why you have a 1dmk3, and there might be a VERY good reason (perhaps you shoot sports or something requiring that kind of AF speed)-- but if there isn't a good reason for it, you might consider a 5D...

jvarszegi wrote:
Isn't the Sigma 12-24mm a full frame lens? The 10-20mm is not, but I don't know to what extent you can use it on a 1.3x crop camera.
I use on on FF EOS5 (that's a film camera for the younger members fo the forum)
on a 10D, a 450D and a 1DMKIIn and it gives good results. on the 1D with the 1.3 crop you get a 15 to 31mm (approx).
john

dhphoto wrote:
... however some swear by using the 10-22 on 1.3 crop, just losing the widest couple of MM, it just means removing the rear flange
...
David

Too bad you sold the 10-22....
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604422834954/?search=lemons

Thank you everyone so far for your feedback. To answer a couple of questions...

I chose the 1 series body over the 5d because in addition to backpacking/landscape photography, I also shoot occassionally for the local paper and wildlife (mainly birds), so the higher fps is a must. I also chose it because of the build quality...my gear tends to get beat up and banged around while hiking, climbing, etc. I don't exactly need the the extra mp of the 5d, because I rarely do larger prints, and also I didn't want to hassle with carrying multiple bodies on backcountry hikes.

OK, I'll say it even though it is heresy on a Canon board: get the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 with the G-to-EOS adaptor. You lose auto focus, but you do get focus confirmation with manual focus. The Nikon 14-24mm is getting very good reviews. It has excellent sharpness through the range. Plus, it is cheaper than the Canon 14mm MkII even with the cost of the adaptor factored in; however, in addition to 14mm, you get a zoom all the way up to the 24mm where your 24-70mm can take over.

I like the Canon 16-35L, it is not cheap but its versatile and cheaper than the 14mm offering. It is also weather sealed, which may be useful on your hiking adventures. You can use autofocus as well. I understand the 17-40 is very good as well, but I've not used it.

Also, some people don't like Sigma out of hand, so don't take the negative reviews too seriously. I don't have a Sigma wide angle, but I wouldn't hesitate to buy one just because it is a Sigma, especially if price was a significant factor. Good luck.

On a 1.3 crop, a 16-35 f/2.8L MK1 is terrific, and you can get used ones under $900

If you want super wide there is really only the Siggy 12-24 f/4-5.6, but I think the 15-30 is a better lens IQ wise.

IMO on the 1D II with only 8MP the 17-40 is ideal and never found myself wanting wider than 17mm and I prefer panos anyway to get wider and get far more detail than possible with a single shot. The 17-40 delivers superb results on a 1D II.