Very Wide-Angle Non-Fisheye Lens for 35-mm?

astrostu · Mar 15, 2007

I'm trying to set up a multi-year plan for purchases to start investing in some good glass. I thought I found my small-end model, the Canon 10-22 mm lens, but then I discovered that it, the Sigma, and the Tamron "equivalents" are all for the APS-C sized sensors. That's fine for right now with my Digital Rebel XT, but in a few years I plan on upgrading and at the moment, one of the key features I want on the body upgrade is a full-35 mm sensor.

Hence the question: I want a super-duper-über wide-angle lens that is NOT a fisheye since I do a lot of nature shots. Since I plan on plopping down a fair chunk of change for this lens, I would like it to be usable on any camera I get in the foreseeable future, and hence the APS-C sensor requirement is not ideal (I realize it will still work, but it will give a huge vignetting effect). So, does anyone know of an appropriate lens?

Peanuts · Mar 15, 2007

Have you looked into the Canon 17-40mm? With the conversion of the Rebel XT cropped centre to the of a full frame, they are pretty close to identical give or take a mm or two.

Aquarium Dreams · Mar 16, 2007

This one is on my list:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001VQ11U/ref=wl_it_dp/102-8774412-7587336?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2U5K5IVOZSPYI&colid=26FNT06HL22XF[/ame]

Also, I found this helpful:

http://photo.net/equipment/wideangle-dslr.html

fmw · Mar 16, 2007

The problem, of course, is that a wide angle for a 35mm frame isn't very wide on a digital sensor. It simply isn't an equivalent.

Digital Matt · Mar 16, 2007

The Canon 17-40 and 16-35 are both usable with a 35mm camera or full frame digital.

Orgnoi1 · Mar 16, 2007

+1 for the 17-40L... thats my current wide angle for my 5D... I had the 17-35 Tamron... which was pretty nice also...

Alex_B · Mar 16, 2007

The 17-40L f/4 is also my current wide angle for the 5D .. also quite happy with it.

Might look into the new 16-35L f/2.8 mk III, which is heavier though, and more expensive .

I agree on APS-C it is not really that wide, but on full 35mm it is wide enough for anything I shoot outdoors.

astrostu · Mar 16, 2007

I like the idea of that Sigma 12-24, though it's a bit slower than I'd like.

I guess I should've clarified slightly: I currently have the 18-55 mm kit lens, and the 18 mm (28.8 mm equivalent) is not wide enough a lot of the time. So while a 17 mm on a full-frame that several of you are recommending would be great when I get a full frame in a few years, it won't be too helpful to me now, and the whole point was so that I don't have to buy another $700 lens in a few years to work with the full-frame sensor.

Anyone know of perhaps a faster lens than that Sigma?

usayit · Mar 16, 2007

at what point does a wide angle lens considered a fish-eye?

I have a 19-35mm lens for my 35mm..... its pretty wide and distortions are starting to be obvious. Vignetting will be an issue to deal with ultra wide zooms.. doesn't matter if it is APS sized or 35mm sized sensor.

My advice..

Consider primes. Your post sounds like image quality is important. If it is... go primes. Some of the most expensive zooms will pale to moderately priced primes. This becomes increasingly obvious at the extremes of the focal length ranges; telephotos as well as wide angle. I consider zoom lenses a feature of convenience... moving subjects.. rapidly changing situations... less equipment to carry. Landscape+high image quality = prime (right tool for the right job).

Consider another format. The issue here is not focal length.. Focal length is a means to get the viewing field and composition (compression vs expansion) you want for a photo. 17mm on APS sensor is the same as 17mm on 35mm. But on an APS sensor is a cropped down viewing field than on a 35mm format. Just like 17mm focal length seems wider on a 35mm than APS, 17mm focal length will seem wider on a MF than on 35mm.

Then there is another option that I've seen wonderful results. Camera on a sturdy tripod equiped with a head specifically for panoramic shots. Take several and stitch together. It is a whole lot easier to accomplish now a days since digital.

add: I couldn't remember the name of those special panorama heads but Bogen photo calls them QTVR heads.... Can't recommend... never used them.. just observed their use.

xfloggingkylex · Mar 16, 2007

as far as I am aware, a wide angle becomes a fisheye when it can display 180* view angles, and is also considered a fisheye when the barrel distortion is intentional as opposed to a side effect.

fmw · Mar 16, 2007

xfloggingkylex said:
as far as I am aware, a wide angle becomes a fisheye when it can display 180* view angles, and is also considered a fisheye when the barrel distortion is intentional as opposed to a side effect.

True fisheyes have a 180 degree angle of view in every direction and project a round image on the frame. Full frame fisheyes are 180 degrees diagonally but cover the frame entirely. It isn't that fisheyes are left with barrel distortion intentionally. It is that there isn't any choice. To correct barrel distortion with that angle of view would distort the corners of the frame beyond recognition. Barrel distortion is more accurate in that case than a rectilinear projection. One of the advantages of the distortion is that the full frame fisheyes are simpler and amazingly sharp.

14mm rectilinear wide angles are common and are about as wide as things go if you want your straight lines straight on a 35mm frame. Nikon used to make a rectilinear 13mm. They may still but I don't know. It was REALLY expensive. The 14's from Nikon are over $1000 but you can get 14's from the third party makers for about half that. Perhaps you can find a zoom that starts in the 14mm or 15mm range at the short end. I'm just not enough of an equipment hound to be aware of them.

On a digital, the 14mm is still pretty wide and on 35mm is really, really wide.

xfloggingkylex · Mar 16, 2007

Could you explain the differences in fisheyes for digital and 35mm in a little more detail please. I dont fully understand what you mean by diagonal vs round. Does this mean that fisheyes for 35mm shouldnt be used on APS sized sensors and vice versa? You say fisheyes on 35mm are very sharp, is this not true for aps fisheyes?

usayit · Mar 16, 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens

The first image (pic of room) diagonally covers a full frame.

the second image of the sky is circular or round and projects a circular image on the frame

xfloggingkylex · Mar 16, 2007

great read. thanks for the link.

astrostu · Mar 17, 2007

Yeah, so I don't want a fisheye -- I'm looking for the widest angle lens I can get that doesn't have spherical aberration.

Forgive my ignorance, but: What's a "prime" vs. a "zoom" lens?

As for panoramae, that's what I do now, I just get sick of the post-processing and there are problems when there happen to be nearby objects in the scene I'm shooting of a distant object (e.g. when I was at Meteor Crater, I shot a 27-picture panorama of a ~160° field, but there were signs right under me that were highly distorted and chopped into pieces as a result).

So yeah, what are primes, and does anyone know of a faster lens than that 12-24 mm Sigma?