inexpensive wide angle and telephoto for 5dm2?

[crosbyharbison]

I'd take a look at some third party options if your looking for a bargain:





200+


www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549255-REG/Sigma_737101_150_500mm_f_5_6_3_DG_OS.html


24-


www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/302698-REG/Sigma_200101_12_24mm_f_4_5_5_6_AF_Lens.html

[Sheiky]

Jan, is that shot of your brother a crop or did you shoot vertical? I'm hoping it's the latter and that's normal stretching, otherwise that lens is buggered.

Josh thanks for asking. No it was a vertical portrait-orientated shot. It isn't cropped and as far as I know the only thing adjusted was vibrance level -100 in lightroom. I still thinks it's kinda looking fisheye, but remember I was really really close to my brother, so I guess you could expect such distortion.

Jan,


Thanks for your sample pics. That Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 looks pretty cool! What was your overall opinion of it?

No problem! It is really cool actually! I was just battling over buying a ultrawide for my 5D2 or a 50mm fast prime.


The 17-40 was really cool, although I wasn't convinced that buying this lens purely for the 17-24 difference was worth the price. I thought 17mm wasn't too big of a difference.


The sigma was a little too expensive for me and my mind kept wondering towards the 50mm prime. Finally I bought the new Sigma 50mm 1.4 prime and thusfar I love it.


Anyway since I only had like 20min of shooting with both lenses, I didn't make a lot of pictures, but I can tell you a few things I noticed.


I will also post a few full-sized jpegs to show you a bit more and have you make a few decisions of your own.


The Sigma is really sharp! I liked that a lot.


The size/weight is pretty good, it feels good in your hand and on your camera (5D without grip)


Disliked the fact that you can't put filters on it to protect it. The glass is round (don't know the proper word for it)


There was a little chromatic aberation, which you'll probably see in the full-size. But not more than the 17-40L.


I don't know how you call it (light fall off perhaps?) but it seems that you get a bright "spot" on the picture and I assume it's from the sun. But the sun was very hard anyways.


Here they are:


12mm full size


12mm full size distortion


Hope you can do something with these. Anyway for me the 17-40L wasn't worth the price, considering I've already got the 24-105 and the 17-24 difference wasn't big enough for me. If I would consider buying an ultra wide again in the future, I would definitely try out the Sigma again. I can't really make a good conclusion on it since I haven't had enough time with it to create an honest and more reliable opinion, but for me the first idea of it is very positive, it could definitely bring a create side out.


I also don't know if I'm right about it, but distortion at 17mm could be even less than distortion from the 17-40 at 17mm, but I didn't try it so I can't tell you [:P]


Good luck and I hope this helps a bit!


Jan


Oh Ps: the pictures are straight out of the camera, with max open aperture and no postprocessing done. Used adobe standard profile and autoWB. AV mode +2/3 exposure if I remember correctly.
If you're interested, I also got an f10 picture from the landscape photo. Give me a signal if you want to see it [Y]

[neuroanatomist]

I also don't know if I'm right about it, but distortion at 17mm could be even less than distortion from the 17-40 at 17mm,

I think you're absolutely right. Although I don't see the lenses both tested on FF, on a 1.6x body the PZ tests show that the Sigma 12-24mm has substantially less distortion even at 12mm (0.6% barrel) than the Canon 17-40mm at 17mm (2.5% barrel).


Sigma 12-14mm distortions


Canon 17-40mm distortions


--John

[Mark Elberson]

No problem! It is really cool actually! I was just battling over buying a ultrawide for my 5D2 or a 50mm fast prime.


The 17-40 was really cool, although I wasn't convinced that buying this lens purely for the 17-24 difference was worth the price. I thought 17mm wasn't too big of a difference.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I scored a copy of the EF 17-40mm f/4.0 <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L via a trade with my father-in-law. He took my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. Anyway, I do feel that there is a pretty significant difference between 17mm and 24mm. It's nothing like 12mm though!!! If I were to consider the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 I think I would probably sell my EF 17-40mm f/4.0 <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L<span style="color: #000000;"]. I'm not sure if I want to go that route though. I think the 17-40mm focal length is pretty versatile for either close-quartered indoor shooting or walk-around landscape shooting. The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 is much more of a specially lens. That being said, I rarely remove my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L from my 5D soI guess if I was going out with the purpose of shooting with an ULTRA wide perspective the Sigma may fit the bill.Oh well, I am taking a break from buyingglass. I'm focusing onfinding the limitations (if any) of my current gear andfind myself much more interested in updating my studio setup. I do really appreciate your insighton the Sigma though. That lensrarely gets brought up. I'm anxious for Bryan to review it!

[Sheiky]

<div>

I also don't know if I'm right about it, but distortion at 17mm could be even less than distortion from the 17-40 at 17mm,

I think you're absolutely right. Although I don't see the lenses both tested on FF, on a 1.6x body the PZ tests show that the Sigma 12-24mm hassubstantiallyless distortion even at 12mm (0.6% barrel) than the Canon 17-40mm at 17mm (2.5% barrel).

Wow if that would translate to a FF-equivalent it would be pretty awesome! Definitely worth trying this out for architecture and stuff like that where distortion plays a big role.


Substancially? To be honest I find the results pretty remarkable and really interesting.

I do really appreciate your insighton the Sigma though. That lensrarely gets brought up. I'm anxious for Bryan to review it!

Yea that would be great! I know there is a significant difference between the 17 and 24mm on FF, but for me it wasn't significant enough to buy the 17-40L, that's what I meant to say []


For a walkaround lens the 17-40 beats the Sigma, I admit to that, and also the fact that you could still use filters like polarizers is a big plus, but 12mm is a real big plus for the Sigma. Also the way it handled on my camera and the results I got, (No less imagequality compared to the 17-40L, for at least I could see at 100% and only a few sample photos) , make the Sigma a very interesting lens to at least check out [A]


If I would have lived in a country or place where I could get more out of an ultra wide angle lens I would definitely have bought it. But to be honest, 24mm is often too wide around here, knowing that you also get bits and pieces of the concrete jungle in your photo. It's pretty hard for me to use a 12mm lens without photographing stuff I don't want to.


But I guess for architecture etc it would be a remarkable lens.

Oh well, I am taking a break from buyingglass.

Me too [:P] Now I've got to learn how to get more out of my gear and learn more about taking photos. The photography season has opened and I'm eager to learn!



</div>

[Fast Glass]

Hey Sheiky,


Can you post the RAW copy from 17-40mm at 17mm? I would like to see how it corrects in DPP.


Thanks,


John.

[Sheiky]

I suppose I can do that yes []


<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]Wait a minute please [:P] what kind of picture do you want? I've got a landscape shot just like the previews. I've got a head-shot and I've got a close car-shot. You can find chroma in all of them.


Alright I just sent you a personal message with the link. Good luck!


If others need them, just ask []


Jan