# Advice on good compromise wide-angle



## baervan (Mar 13, 2015)

Hi there,
Im gonna go in Iceland in May for a bunch of days so I wanted to get myself a wide angle, I was thinking < 20mm.

The problem is Im tight on budget and I wanted to spend max 500 eu/$, also Im full frame.

As far as I know the only cheap solution is the Samyang 14mm 2.8, but Id consider it as last resort due to the manual focus. 

Any advice on this?


----------



## JoeKerslake (Mar 13, 2015)

What are you gong to be shooting? Wildlife? Landscapes?

On a 6D?


----------



## candyman (Mar 13, 2015)

I assume you go for the landscape.
If you stick to f/2.8 and do not want to go with MF, then it may become difficult - even when looking for an occasion
However, you may find an occasion Canon 17-40 for about 500 to 549 euro. The 16-35 f/4 IS is better but out of price range. The 17-40 is not bad at all but preceeded by better quality in the corners. That may bother you for landscape


----------



## scyrene (Mar 13, 2015)

I have the Samyang and it's a great lens. For landscape work, manual focus isn't so bad - also, if you're stopping down, a lot of the scene will be in focus anyway. It's a tough little lens with good image quality. The only other downside aside from no AF is the odd distortion, but you can get lens profiles in Lightroom etc. that clear it up fine.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2015)

Double your budget and get the 16-35/4L IS, or go for the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8. It's a very good lens, and MF with an ultrawide isn't terribly difficult.


----------



## gqllc007 (Mar 13, 2015)

Dont let the MF scare you off...I have the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 and it is almost always set to infinity at f/8 or f/11 and for landscape everything is in focus....awesome lens for the price I paid $269 US


----------



## baervan (Mar 13, 2015)

Thanks guys, I'll need to think hard about the Samyang/Rokinon, even if I am going there for landscapes, I wonder if in other situations it could be tricky to use. But I guess in terms of quality you are getting more than what you pay for.

I wonder why nobody ever hit that segment with a cheap autofocus prime, Im thinking a 15 or 16mm prime even at f4. Like it would be good if Canon came up with such lens in their new shorty primes line like the 35mm IS.


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

A word of warning about the Rokinon: It has a learning curve as it is fully manual. You might have troubles focusing and exposure can bring surprises also. It also has quite an amount of distortion that is not the pixel peeper flavor of distortion but real and visible. You can get unbelievable pictures with it. 

My recommendation would be the EF 20mm f/2.8. It is not a _great_ lens but it focuses and exposes automatically, you can use filters and it does not cost you all that much. 

This one I took yesterday with the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 at f/11, 1/200, 200 ISO







This one is with the EF 20 mm f/2.8, too many raindrops on the front element...


----------



## JoeKerslake (Mar 13, 2015)

martti said:


> A word of warning about the Rokinon: It has a learning curve as it is fully manual. You might have troubles focusing and exposure can bring surprises also. It also has quite an amount of distortion that is not the pixel peeper flavor of distortion but real and visible. You can get unbelievable pictures with it.
> 
> My recommendation would be the EF 20mm f/2.8. It is not a _great_ lens but it focuses and exposes automatically, you can use filters and it does not cost you all that much.
> 
> ...



The filters and holder are massive though!


----------



## Djaaf (Mar 13, 2015)

For your budget you have a few choices available : 
1° Used 17-40 f/4L
2° Samyang 14mm f/2.8
3° Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5
4° Used Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 
5° Tokina 17-35 f/4 


If you can extend your budget a bit, you may be able to do as I did and go for the Sammy + a Voigtlander 20 f/3.5. That makes a good UWA travel combo and I was able to get both for roughly 640€ (289€ for the Sammy and 350€ for the Voigt (used) ). 
Both are manual focus, but the Voigt has electronic aperture control and focus confirm. 
You can also glue a chip on the Sammy to get programmable Exifs and focus confirm (it's a bit of a pain to set up, though, but there's a thread somewhere in here where I helped someone else do it). 

For IQ, Sammy is worlds ahead of the 17-40, but the 17-40 is a lot more useable on day to day usage. 
The Voigtlander is between the two. Quite the same IQ-wise than the 17-40, worse than the Sammy, a lot smaller than both  It's manual focus, but electronic aperture and focus confirm in the OVF. Same thing for aperture, it's also between both. 

The Tokina 16-28 seems a bit better than the 17-40 IQ-wise, but it's also 2x heavier and has a bulbous front element. So no filters. It's still not as good than the Sammy. AF is also not USM, so a bit on the noisy side (not that slow, though, consigering the very short throw for UWA lenses...). 

I don't know anything on the Tokina 17-35 f/4 though, so i'll let you look it up. 

And for the last word, I personnally favor the Voigtlander 20mm most of the time. That lens is a real pleasure to use and it doesn't disappoint on IQ. (and filters in 52mm are very cheap.  )

Djaaf.


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

Adorama and Amazon are selling the EF 20mm f/2.8 at 489 dollars. Voigtländer costs 50 dollars more.


----------



## Djaaf (Mar 13, 2015)

Yeah, sorry, completely forgot about the Canon 20 f/2.8. 
Thing is, I've read pretty much everywhere that it had horrible field curvature and generally crappy optics.
And since i had already sold a UWA lens a few years back because I personnally hate field curvature (give me vignetting, CA or flare... i'll even take coma and astigmatism before field curvature...  ), I just didn't seriously considered it. 

Djaaf.


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

To have such a strong opinion about field curvature would indicate that you spend a lot of time photographing flat surfaces at a defined distance at maximum aperture? 

How to recognize field curvature and work with it, here is an article on the subject:
http://phototechmag.com/field-curvature/

My hero 8) Ken Rockwell has kindly published the data of all Canon wide angles on his site:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/ultrawides-compared.htm


----------



## Aichbus (Mar 13, 2015)

I'd get the EF 24 IS. 24 mm is sufficient for most shots and if you need to go wider, just take several shots and stitch them together, for instance with Microsoft ICE. I do the all the time.


----------



## Khufu (Mar 13, 2015)

Yo! My only sub-24mm FF lens is the discontinued Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4... and I reeeally like it! Lots of general user reviews online are positive though some pixel peepers don't love the corner sharpness wide open etc - but this is a rarely considered lens that goes cheap-as-chips and produces lovely images at a wide aperture for relatively few pennies, like $200-300/euros/pounds? 

It does get a bit of flare in direct light but it's pretty, not messy - ha 
Do consider it, I've never known a real world user to not love it, only whiny internet cretins who tell you that you need a $3,000 lens


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

HERETIC!


----------



## Khufu (Mar 13, 2015)

Here's some Tamron 17mm shots from around Summer 2012 using cheap AGFA film (from Poundland) and a cheap eBay ND/Grey Grad filter - scanned at around 2 Megapixels at ASDA (Walmart)...

The 5D III image plane is large enough to have filters, even at 77mm, noticeably "vignette"/block light from the corners more so than on these scans though... But for me, on this lightweight, modern Rebel film camera with stupid-vivid AGFA film this was ace! It's also lovely on the 5D III


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

Frankly, I do not understand anything you are saying but I hope you are having a good time with your Rebels from Agfanistan.


----------



## Khufu (Mar 13, 2015)

I shot that rebel... It's been a while, maybe I'll shoot it again! It's a little early to be drinking here but give me a few hours and I'm sure I can diminish my communicative skills greatly!


----------



## Djaaf (Mar 13, 2015)

martti said:


> To have such a strong opinion about field curvature would indicate that you spend a lot of time photographing flat surfaces at a defined distance at maximum aperture?



Nopes, but I don't spend all my time photographing subjects that are nicely curved along the field curvature either.  

That's why I hate that aberration. I do not control what's in focus and what's not as precisely as I can do with a flat focus plane (where all you need is your DoF and a rough estimate of the distance between the things you want in focus).
Add to that the fact that for each lens that have some, the curvature is different, and it's just a mess to manage. So you either end with pictures with blurry parts that don't reflect what you wanted or you shoot at f/16 to f/20 to overcome that. Since I don't like any of those options, I tend to buy lenses that have a focus plane as flat as possible.  
And since the quality of the rear screen or the OVF is far from enough to diffrenciate between in focus and slightly out of focus, I generally become aware of the issue long AFTER taking another picture is possible. 

But that's just me. You are entirely entitled to your own opinion.  

Djaaf.


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

...or one can focus using Live View or tethered and one can bracket.
Or one can dramatize. _A chacun a sa sauce_ as the French tend to say when opinions differ.


----------



## Djaaf (Mar 13, 2015)

Yep, that's pretty much the point I was making. I can't stand field curvature. You can work around it, if you really want to, or you can even be able to play with it. I don't.  

(and completely by the way : you can use "_A chacun sa sauce_" or "_Chacun ses goûts_", but most of the time we use something like "_Les goûts et les couleurs... _ " and then we shrug.  )

Djaaf.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 13, 2015)

I've had the Canon 20mm, the 17-40, the 16-35 f/2.8L II, the 15mm FE, and the Samyang 14mm. Of the bunch, the Samyang stood out for being pure junk.

I found that a old Tokina 17mm f.3.5 prime was excellent, and it costs far less than the others. I happened to get mine for $125, but even for $400, its good.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tokina-AT-X-PRO-AF-PRO-17mm-F-3-5-Aspherical-Lens-For-Canon-Excellent-/281624875462?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item41922691c6


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 13, 2015)

baervan said:


> Thanks guys, I'll need to think hard about the Samyang/Rokinon, even if I am going there for landscapes, I wonder if in other situations it could be tricky to use. But I guess in terms of quality you are getting more than what you pay for.
> 
> I wonder why nobody ever hit that segment with a cheap autofocus prime, Im thinking a 15 or 16mm prime even at f4. Like it would be good if Canon came up with such lens in their new shorty primes line like the 35mm IS.


The problem you're running into is that you have a crop lens budget for a full frame lens. I would agree with Neuro to save up for the 16-36 f/4 IS, but if that's too much or will take too long, take a look at the Tokina AT-X 17-35 F4 PRO FX. I haven't used it, but I had the 11-16 f/2.8 for a while and in general, Tokina lenses are well-built and pretty sharp. Most of them suffer for a fair bit of CA, but that can be corrected in post.


----------



## bainsybike (Mar 13, 2015)

Thinking outside the box, you could probably get an EOS M + 11-22 within your budget. You could carry that along with your full frame kit, or by itself when you wanted to travel light. I'd bet that in most situations the IQ would match that of your 6D plus any full frame ultra wide you could buy for the same price.


----------

