I got a Sigma 15mm f2.8 fish last week and have been really happy w/ the result. You can de-fish it in photoshop and end up w/ a wider angle of view than any of the listed lenses above and still have a flat image. If you are interested I'll post some samples.
I got a Sigma 15mm f2.8 fish last week and have been really happy w/ the result. You can de-fish it in photoshop and end up w/ a wider angle of view than any of the listed lenses above and still have a flat image. If you are interested I'll post some samples.
I have the 12-24 Sigma amd I really like it. I considered the 17-40L, but it just was not wide enough on the wide end for me. I would suggest that you try them both out and buy the one you like best.
The 12-24 is not at its best wide open, but if you want that, get one of the L lenses and take a few steps back. Most of the WA stuff I shoot, I'm stopped down to the "sweet spot" on the lens anyway, and the Sigma is quite sharp there.
Both of these are with the sigma @ 12mm the first one is @ 5.6, the second @f11
The 17-40 f/4L is an amazing piece of glass. At the edges this lens is generally sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8L which costs over twice as much. Sure it is not as wide as the Sigma, but I believe you will find it optically superior. It has my whole hearted reccomendation :)
I bought the Sigma 12-24 and while I LOVE the ability to go down to 12mm, I was less than thrilled with the sharpness of the lens, both at 12mm and 24mm. I've owned a Zenitar 16mm fisheye for more than 5 years and I have to say that at $150, it's one of the best deals in photography. Yes, at 2.8 the Zenitar's performance is mediocre, but in my opinion, it equals the 12-24 at f/4.5 (it's fastest aperture) and costs $500 less.
I'd also recommend the Canon 17-40. I haven't shot the Sigma or the 16-35 but I'm sure you can get detailed and accurate descriptions from people who have both over at FredMiranda.com (where I like to check reviews before I buy -- by the way, when are we going to get a review section here).
I like the 17-40 but I tend to shoot much closer portraits than the 17-40 allows. I use it more for group work or architecture shots. You can see some of the portrait work I've done in either the PBase or OMP links in my signature below.
Kev
EDIT: by the way, the 17-40 tends to go for around $600 USD for a used on in the FredMiranda forums.
At the moment, both lenses are looking damn good. Both are fairly similarly priced in the USA, (i live in Australia, i would import).
I checked out both lenses last night, and came across something odd, which the sales guy couldn't answer.
Both lenses are rated at a minimum 28cm focussing distance.
BUT: I was able to focus at 10 or 12 CM!!!
This occured on both lenses, at either 12/17 mm AND 24/40 mm.
Now, it's been 2 years since i've done ANYTHING related to camera/photography theory, and I've only had the digital since Jan.
can someone explain?
The minimum focus spec is normally measured from the sensor plane. You were very likely measuring the "working distance", which is from the front element.
The minimum focus spec is normally measured from the sensor plane. You were very likely measuring the "working distance", which is from the front element.
Has anyone experienced vignetting on this lens at 19mm or above?
If on a film/full frame sensor DSLR, then at what length?
I would hate to get the beast and find I have vignetting when full open!
I imagine, wim, you'll get vignetting, when you use the built-in flash + wide. Only way I can think of to avoid this, is to buy an external flash or not use it at all (or just for fill-flash on bright days).
yeah, i try not to use the flash as it is, i find it drains colour.
does this happen to you?
but why would the addition of built-flash cause this? is just the way flashes light scenes?? wouldn't any flash do this, tho?
yeah, i try not to use the flash as it is, i find it drains colour.
does this happen to you?
but why would the addition of built-flash cause this? is just the way flashes light scenes?? wouldn't any flash do this, tho?
You are correct. Any flash will likely do this. I don't think any flash will cover 12mm without some modification.
Aside from flash, there will also be a small amount of corner darkness due to the very wide angle. This is an optical characteristic of all WA lenses, and though it looks like vignetting, it is not the same thing. It is easily corrected in software.
yeah, i try not to use the flash as it is, i find it drains colour.
does this happen to you?
but why would the addition of built-flash cause this? is just the way flashes light scenes?? wouldn't any flash do this, tho?
I was shooting a seascape tonight, which I have taken many times before. The light appeared the same or similar to the many other times I've taken this shot. When I viewed the images on the computer, however, there was considerably less definition between the varying tones. The shots, at first, seemed unsharp, which they were'nt, really.
When I compared it with other shots (same day, same roll) taken from a slightly different angle - these were fine.
Light's a fickle and complicated thing, at least to me. And it's never the same.
Flash, I guess, is always the same. It's also harsh and ugly in most situations. I use fill- flash on bright days sometimes (when the effect is subtle) and, occasionally, for an intended effect.
