Ultrawide-Angle for Slr/C

Hi,

I would like to have a lens with a focal length shorter than my Canon zoom 24-70f2.8L I d prefer sth not too expensive, I do not mind manual focussing and I dont mind buying old/used.

I currently have the Leica R Super Angulon 21f4 but the photos suffer from red edges.

Could anyone of you recommend any lenses that do not show this problem on an SLR/c?

Regards,
Peter

If you are photographing non-moving subjects, try using your existing lens at the appropriate zoom setting, turning camera vertical, and shoot 3-4 overlapping images and stitch them using anyone of serveral stitching softwares. I like Photoshop CS5, since it will work directly from RAW files.
--
John Nollendorfs

John,

I ve tried this with already with the "most" wideangle I had before buying the 24-70. I was not happy- unless you turn the camera around the nodal point of the lens, you will get artifacts from stitching. If you want to turn the camera around the nodal point you need a tripod and there are places where you are expected NOT to use a tripod leave alone one with a bulky head- also you d have to carry the tripod. So I would really like to use a "real" wide angle.
Rgds
Peter

You might want to check out the Sigma 15-30mm lens. It can be had for quite cheap now since it's not new and... discontinued. Reviews are good on the lens though, some saying it beats the 17-40L for some focal lengths. And as far as I can remember, I can't recall any CA or redness at the edges. Performs quite well actually.

The Sigma/Canon 14mm F2.8 is pretty good as well, although the lack of zoom obviously (but extra light).

The Sigma 12-24 has an extreme wide angle of view... the corners are muddy though for two copies of the lens that I had. But for wedding jobs it does just fine. If your budget is low, perhaps google the Tokina/Tamron/Quantaray 19-35mm. Performs really well but focuses slow and not wide enough for most purposes.

Hope that helps...

Thanks, I will look into the Sigmas, although I do not necessarily need zoom.
Anyone know how the following lenses perform on an SLR7c:

Zuiko 21mm f2 or 21mmf3.5
Zeiss Flektogon 20mm
Canon 20-35 L f2.8

Regards,
Peter

aleunge said:

You might want to check out the Sigma 15-30mm lens. It can be had for quite cheap now since it's not new and... discontinued. Reviews are good on the lens though, some saying it beats the 17-40L for some focal lengths. . . .

Click to expand...

I did a rather careful comparison between the 15-30 and the 17-40 and found the 15-30 to be superior in focus at center, focus off, axis and in distortion. There was really no comparison. I did this at all f stops and a variety of focal lengths. As I say, the 15-30 was really stood out as the better lens.

In conducting this comparison, my SLR/c was mounted on a tripod, I focused on louvered doors that stretches across our entry way, and I placed a line drawing in the center. I used the up-mirror feature that raises the mirror, waits 5 seconds, and takes the photograph. I used the infra-red remote trigger to execute each exposure.

I had purchased the 17-40L as a possible replacement for 15-30. I returned it.

I would recommend this lens. It's too bad it's not being sold new any more.

sigma 12-24s vary but i had a great copy, same with 17-40s a tamron 17-35 does well as does the sigma 21 1.8 though soft wide open

bill

bill vann said:

sigma 12-24s vary but i had a great copy, same with 17-40s a tamron 17-35 does well as does the sigma 21 1.8 though soft wide open

bill

Click to expand...

The nice thing about the 12-024mm is the low rectilinear distortion, if you can find a good one. I bought one prior to the 15-30 that I have, and the lack of sharpness was unacceptable. I could have purchased several, until I found a good one I suppose. But, I didn't really want to play that game.

The Carl Zeiss (Jena) Flektogon is a nice lens. Both the f/4 and later f/2.8 versions perform very well optically, even on digital full frame. But they are mechanically unreliable, with the iris diaphragm being a particular weakness.

--
Colin

To all:
Thank you, that has been quite helpful.

To me: Sigh. It still won t be easy- Sigmas once more seem to have great variations in quality, Zeiss is said (in other forums) to have great image quality, but lousy mechanics,
and I have yet to find a Canon I really LIKE.

So maybe I will start with the sigmas - once my treasury secretary allows me to- and hope for the best...
Rgds
Peter

This might be one time that shopping at your local retailer would be better than internet shopping.

I brought my body into the retailer when I bought my Sigma 12-24. Took some shots and processed them at home before buying.

I would expect the wide angle Sigmas have been out long enough for the quality issues to be worked out.
--

Dale Warner