# Ultrawide | Prime or zoom?



## whatjaimesaid (Dec 30, 2011)

I am looking at building up my kit with some higher quality glass and am considering getting a prime for my ultrawide lens. I have a crop body right now but I am planning to upgrade to a FF (5D classic or 5DMII) within the next six months.

Are any of the ultrawide primes better than others? I know Canon, Tokina and Sigma all have ultrawide primes. Any advice?

Right now I have a Tamron 10-24 which is fine but has a lot of CA and is far from tack sharp on the edges.


----------



## tron (Dec 30, 2011)

It depends on your budget. 

I would suggest the Carl Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 ZE. 
I wasn't satisfied with the edges of my 16-35mm f/2.8L (at least in apertures less than f/8)
I was not disappointed. The Zeiss is perfect for landscapes.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 30, 2011)

TSE-17 is an interesting wa


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 30, 2011)

I personally am looking to add the Zeiss Distagon 21 or 18 at some point.


----------



## tron (Dec 30, 2011)

Correct! I have forgotten the TS-E! I shouldn't as the TS-E 17mm is one of my wish lenses! As I do not have it I cannot express an opinion on its quality but I agree that it is an interesting choice indeed. 

Maybe if I had to choose between the two I would choose the TS-E.

However, right now I have the Zeiss and I like it so much so there is no way I would sell it to get the TS-E. (I will have to wait...)


----------



## whatjaimesaid (Dec 30, 2011)

Let's assume my budget is moderate.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 30, 2011)

Samyang/Bower/Rokinon/etc 14mm f2.8?

Can't get more moderate than that.

Lens has excellent reviews.

I am considering it myself.


----------



## Flake (Dec 30, 2011)

Such an impossible question! Most of the ultrawides are for crop frame cameras on a FF camera 17mm is wide, to get the same on a crop a 10mm but most of them won't work on FF, so you're limited, and frankly the ones which do aren't really up to much.

Sigmas prime wide angles are very fast, but suffer poor border performance, even on crop frames, so unless you want to play with limited DoF on a wide angle they're a bit limited.

If you want the very best performance possible buy a Nikon 14 - 24mm f/2.8 and an adaptor, it'll be manual focus which isn't too big a deal on wide angle, and it'll vastly outperform any Canon wide angle lens currently available, especially on a FF camera. Not for nothing have there been howls of anguish from Canon users fed up with the companies inability to produce a decent competitor for this lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2011)

whatjaimesaid said:


> Are any of the ultrawide primes better than others? I know Canon, Tokina and Sigma all have ultrawide primes. Any advice?
> 
> Right now I have a Tamron 10-24 which is fine but has a lot of CA and is far from tack sharp on the edges.



If you're considering a prime, I'd recommend picking a focal length first. Your Tamron 10-24mm is equivalent to 16-38mm on FF. Ultrawide is defined as <24mm (on FF). If you want wider than your current 10mm on APS-C, that means a 14mm prime (Canon, Samyang) or the Sigma 12-24mm zoom. There is the 17mm TS-E, 20mm primes from Canon and Sigma, and zooms from Canon (17-40, 16-35) and Tokina (16-28).

Of those, the best optical quality will be the 17mm TS-E.


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 30, 2011)

I have the 16-35mm on my 5Dm2, and I like the quality and ability to frame the shot. I have taken some great shots with it. 

However, I am looking at getting the 17mm TS-E next week. But, I don't think that is the lens for everybody to be walking around with.


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 30, 2011)

Just a quick suggestion—if you aren't doing it. The chromatic aberration on my Canon 10-22 used to bother me quite a bit before I sold it, but the lens correction of Adobe Camera Raw (and I assume Lightroom) does an amazing job just making it disappear—poof! gone. The Tamron lens is on the list of supported lenses so I'd make sure just to try that.


----------



## branden (Dec 30, 2011)

I'm a full-frame shooter.

I rented the Canon 20mm, Canon 16-35L, Zeiss 21, and Zeiss 18 before finally buying the Zeiss 18. The Zeiss 21 was a strong contender, but it wasn't wide enough.


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Jan 2, 2012)

I shoot FF on a 5DII and have both the 16-35 F/2.8L II and the mark I version of the Sigma 12-24.

The 16-35 has better IQ but the 12mm that the Sigma provides is NUTS - making the Canon lens seem a bit staid. Obviously it depends on application but I rarely have as much fun as when I am bending space and time with the Sigma. I have a fair few L lenses and the Sigma remains my only third party lens. It did freak me out a bit when I first used it on a FF camera - especially at the edge of the frame - but now I am used to its particular perspective I wouldn't be without it. 

I don't go anywhere near that wide when I am shooting my normal stuff and consider UWA an effect and if I am going wide I want to go WIIIIIIIIDE. Vignetting and CA are certainly (fixable) issues, but it is 12 fricking mm!

So I would recommend trying the 12-24 (I would welcome any info on the MkII version) on a 5DII 

http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/24192750#24135856

Cheers
Ash


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 2, 2012)

You mentioned a crop camera. Ultra wide primes wider than about 21mm ff equivalent just do not exist for crop cameras. The Canon 14mm is one of the few that are close, being equivalent to about 22.4mm ff which I consider a wide rather than ultra wide.


----------



## ddl_cgy (Jan 2, 2012)

If you want the widest rectalinear (straight lines stay straight and not bent like with a fisheye) then try the Sigma 8-16; I've seen it get some pretty decent reviews.

On a crop I use Canon 10-22.


----------



## koolman (Jan 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> whatjaimesaid said:
> 
> 
> > Are any of the ultrawide primes better than others? I know Canon, Tokina and Sigma all have ultrawide primes. Any advice?
> ...



neuroanatomist: For a crop - t2i - would you recommend as a "walk around lens" with IQ in mind not budget, the 16-35 ?


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 2, 2012)

koolman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > whatjaimesaid said:
> ...



I have the 16-35mm II and the 14mm f/2.8 II and while I love the versatility of the 16-35mm, the 14mm is crushing it in terms of sharpness and color. 14mm is very very wide on Full Frame, but if you want ultra wide you wouldn't be disappointed. At the same time it's significantly more expensive than the 16-35mm. 

I would 2nd the vote for the Zeiss 21mm, I was pretty blown away with it's sharpness across the entire frame. I am most likely selling my 16-35mm for a that or a 24L II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2012)

koolman said:


> neuroanatomist: For a crop - t2i - would you recommend as a "walk around lens" with IQ in mind not budget, the 16-35 ?



Actually, I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as the best general purpose zoom for an APS-C body. On the same APS-C body, the IQ of the 17-55mm is better than the 17-40L, slightly better than the 16-35L II, plus the 17-55mm has a broader range and IS. With a 7D, the weather-sealing of the 16-35L might be a factor, but not with a T2i.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist: For a crop - t2i - would you recommend as a "walk around lens" with IQ in mind not budget, the 16-35 ?
> ...



I'd 2nd that, IMO it's sharper than the 24-70, I was really surprised the first time I played with it. Also it's an effective However I remember having my T2i and being pretty damn impressed with the 16-35mm on APS-C, the bokeh is very circular and looks beautiful cropped. 

But in terms of versatility, Neuro is right, the 17-55 is awesome. The only bad thing I've ever heard about the lens is that its somewhat susceptible to dust.


----------

