Compact wide angle lenses?

Started May 12, 2012 | Discussions
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,146
Like?
Compact wide angle lenses?
May 12, 2012

Hi all,

I'm looking for a really compact wide angle lens for my next East Coast trip. The wider the better, ideally somewhere between 8-15mm. AF is not important, though size + weight must be minimal. Now I've done a fair amount of research and haven't found one that matches my criteria.

Would it make more sense to just get a Panasonic GF3 + 14/2.5 ($400) as a second kit?

paul13walnut5
Junior MemberPosts: 26
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to hellocrowley, May 12, 2012

The GF3, like all m43 cameras, has a 2x crop. The 14mm pancake cropped x2 is 28mm: wide angle, but not as extreme as you wish. And you'll kick yourself when Canon launch their CSC.

I really liked the GF1 and was almost tempted with the GX1.

But really want something that can take a 28mm f2.8 EF or the 40mm pancake that is rumoured on canonrumors.

Compact wide angle lenses: I rate highly the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. There are wider, there are those with more range. But always at slow apertures that drop as you zoom.

The tokina isn't huge with it hood removed. Is heavy. But a good bright contstant aperture lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,146
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to paul13walnut5, May 13, 2012

paul13walnut5 wrote:

The GF3, like all m43 cameras, has a 2x crop. The 14mm pancake cropped x2 is 28mm: wide angle, but not as extreme as you wish. And you'll kick yourself when Canon launch their CSC.

If the G1X is any indicator, Canon's CSC will likely have a sensor smaller than APSC. That GF3 kit is only $400 anyway, I could take a $100 hit if its resale value plummets. With that said, 28mm is not that wide. On the plus side, it'll be a separate camera that my wife can carry for me.

Compact wide angle lenses: I rate highly the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. There are wider, there are those with more range. But always at slow apertures that drop as you zoom.

The constant 2.8 is nice but not too important. At 77mm & 550g, that lens is huge to me though. I was hoping for something in the same size & weight class of EF 50 1.4. Thanks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Deleted1929
Forum ProPosts: 13,050
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to hellocrowley, May 13, 2012

In terms of field of view all of these are equivalent ( due to crop factors for the sensors ) :

  • 12-24mm on Full Frame

  • 8-16mm on Crop Frame ( APS-C )

  • 6-12mm on 4/3 frame

For a crop frame ( APS-C ) camera there is only one lens that covers 8-15mm, and that's the Sigma 8-16mm.

The 14mm f2.5 on the m4/3 actually equates to a field of view of 28mm on full frame ( or about 20mm on crop frame ).

-- hide signature --

StephenG

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,146
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to Deleted1929, May 13, 2012

I'm aware of the sensor sizes, which is why I said ideally my lens should be somewhere between 8-15mm. It doesn't have to cover the whole range though, a prime works. I had a 17-40 that was heavy and not wide enough.

In the previous post I said 28mm is not ideal, but since it's so lightweight and there might be no other choices, it could be a viable option.

sjgcit wrote:

In terms of field of view all of these are equivalent ( due to crop factors for the sensors ) :

  • 12-24mm on Full Frame

  • 8-16mm on Crop Frame ( APS-C )

  • 6-12mm on 4/3 frame

For a crop frame ( APS-C ) camera there is only one lens that covers 8-15mm, and that's the Sigma 8-16mm.

The 14mm f2.5 on the m4/3 actually equates to a field of view of 28mm on full frame ( or about 20mm on crop frame ).

-- hide signature --

StephenG

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Seehorse
Forum MemberPosts: 83
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to hellocrowley, May 13, 2012

hellocrowley wrote:

I'm aware of the sensor sizes, which is why I said ideally my lens should be somewhere between 8-15mm. It doesn't have to cover the whole range though, a prime works. I had a 17-40 that was heavy and not wide enough.

In the previous post I said 28mm is not ideal, but since it's so lightweight and there might be no other choices, it could be a viable option.

sjgcit wrote:

In terms of field of view all of these are equivalent ( due to crop factors for the sensors ) :

  • 12-24mm on Full Frame

  • 8-16mm on Crop Frame ( APS-C )

  • 6-12mm on 4/3 frame

For a crop frame ( APS-C ) camera there is only one lens that covers 8-15mm, and that's the Sigma 8-16mm.

The 14mm f2.5 on the m4/3 actually equates to a field of view of 28mm on full frame ( or about 20mm on crop frame ).

-- hide signature --

StephenG

Well, it isn't as wide, but if you want light weight and small the kit EFs 18-55mm IS is roughly the same size as the 50mm 1.4 and considerably lighter weight. Build quality is poor but it takes good pictures and the price is certainly right on it. While it certainly isn't the best piece of glass I've ever used it can give you nice results.

If you want wider angle than that you're pretty well stuck with a heavier lens. I played around in the shop with the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, the 10-20 variable, the Tamron 10-20, the Tokina 11-16 and the Canon 10-22. All of them are larger and heavier than the 50mm 1.4. That said, from the results my admittedly brief testing (ok, maybe testing is too strong a word) I'd buy the Tokina 11-16 given the choice of those lenses thanks to the quality result and the constant f/2.8. The worst of the bunch was the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5... the variable aperture version was far superior.

Frankly I didn't find any of the ultra wides to be all that heavy... yeah they outweigh the 50mm but they felt really balanced on my 7D.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,146
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to Seehorse, May 13, 2012

Seehorse wrote:

Well, it isn't as wide, but if you want light weight and small the kit EFs 18-55mm IS is roughly the same size as the 50mm 1.4 and considerably lighter weight. Build quality is poor but it takes good pictures and the price is certainly right on it. While it certainly isn't the best piece of glass I've ever used it can give you nice results.

If you want wider angle than that you're pretty well stuck with a heavier lens. I played around in the shop with the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, the 10-20 variable, the Tamron 10-20, the Tokina 11-16 and the Canon 10-22. All of them are larger and heavier than the 50mm 1.4. That said, from the results my admittedly brief testing (ok, maybe testing is too strong a word) I'd buy the Tokina 11-16 given the choice of those lenses thanks to the quality result and the constant f/2.8. The worst of the bunch was the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5... the variable aperture version was far superior.

Frankly I didn't find any of the ultra wides to be all that heavy... yeah they outweigh the 50mm but they felt really balanced on my 7D.

Thanks for the explanation. I have a bad back so walking around all day with a few pounds strapped to my neck is not ideal. Of all the lens you listed, which one was smallest & lightest?

Adapter lenses are not ruled out. I'm contemplating the Pentax 15mm f4 with an adapter...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stig Nygaard
Forum MemberPosts: 95Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to hellocrowley, May 13, 2012

Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye ?

It's a manual lens - and it's a fisheye. But it's compact and not very heavy. And you could use defishing software to remove the fisheye effect?

 Stig Nygaard's gear list:Stig Nygaard's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot S100 Canon EOS 50D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KariP
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,400Gear list
Like?
I do not understand....
In reply to hellocrowley, May 13, 2012

You are hauling around a 7D body (or 60D ? ) - then it is quite pointless to look for a lightweight lens (and they can never be really lightweight if you need some quality)

I just came home from a walk - i had a walk with my new G1X.

My 7D is quite heavy with a 24-105 - i really have experienced it ... and i have never seen a very lightweight super WA lens....

G1X is about 520g and 7D body only 860g ....

-- hide signature --

Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, 40D since 2007, and now 7D !
60.21 N 24.86 E

 KariP's gear list:KariP's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Calliope
Contributing MemberPosts: 774Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to hellocrowley, May 13, 2012

You might like the Black Rapid Strap or a Cotton Carrier holster. I have both and they make a big difference in how your back feels at the end of the day. Well worth the money! I chose the Black Rapid sport model with the underarm strap. It is very secure and allows you to raise the camera quickly if you need to.

 Calliope's gear list:Calliope's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
labe
Senior MemberPosts: 2,593Gear list
Like?
m4/3....
In reply to KariP, May 13, 2012

you could always go with the oly epm1 with 9-18mm lens or the 14-42 kit lens with the wide angle convertor and fish eye convertor or maybe a sony nex with the 16mm f2.8 pancake plus ultra wide convertor and fish eye convertor if you want small and light.
--
new to technology,always learning

 labe's gear list:labe's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix IS-1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Sony Alpha NEX-3 Nikon D3300 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Seehorse
Forum MemberPosts: 83
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to hellocrowley, May 13, 2012

If you're worried about your back... which I can sympathize with myself... I'll also endorse the Black Rapid strap. I have the Cargo version which has pouches on the shoulder pad to hold cards, a battery and other small items like a lens cloth.

The strap goes cross body from left shoulder to right hip and the camera freely slides along it... grab the camera and it slides freely up to your eye for a shot, put it down and it sits tight against your hip so there's no extra weight on your back.

It's much better than the old neck strap. I bought it last month and have been amazed at just how much better it feels.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,146
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to Seehorse, May 15, 2012

Thanks all for the suggestions. I might go with the EF-S 10-22mm, since it's the lightest and probably has the best IQ. I'll check out the Black Rapid straps as well.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KentG
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,434
Like?
Re: Compact wide angle lenses?
In reply to hellocrowley, May 16, 2012

Maybe. WA lenses can't be compact on DSLRs because of the mirror. They have to use retrofocus optical designs to work which makes them bigger and longer than they need to be. The only solution is a mirrorless camera. That is why Leica rangefinder camera lenses were so compact, no mirror.
Kent Gittings

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads