Wide angle on a 35mm

[DOD]Asprilla

[DOD]Asprilla

[DOD]Asprilla

Soldato
Joined
10 Nov 2003
Posts
14,034
Location
Surrey, by the river
Afternoon.

I'm off to South Africa in December to spend 10 days travelling along the garden route and I thought it would be a decent opportunity to do some landscape photography as opposed my my usual 300mm fully zoomed.

Anyway I was thinking about getting the Sigma 10-20 EF fit to go on my 350D as I could then use in on my Eos 5 as well. However, looking at forum posts elsewhere, some people have said that 10-20 would be useless on 35mm but they've not said why.

Any ideas?
 
The 10-20 won't project a large enough image to cover a 35mm frame as it's a DC/EF-S/DX lens.

Sigma do have a 12-24mm that can be used on full frame though.
 
Ah, I'd assumed it was an EF rather than an EF-S fint since it only said 'Canon fit' everywhere I saw it.

OK, that explains things.

Hmm, that's annoying I wanted to go as wide as possible by share the lens across both cameras.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;12732624 said:
Hmm, that's annoying I wanted to go as wide as possible by share the lens across both cameras.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but you could use the 12mm on both cameras and get a decent wide angle.

the sigma 12-24 would give 12mm on your FF camera and 19.2mm on your Croped senser.

Is that not wide enough?? or where you after more form the croped camera?
 
blastman said:
Is that not wide enough?? or where you after more form the croped camera?
Click to expand...

I was after as much as I can get. At the moment I've got a 17-85 on the crop and a 24-85 on the 35mm and I fancied something that would make a real difference, both in terms of angle and IQ since both of those are pretty poor.

GTRacer said:
The 10-20 is EF, I just meant that Sigma's DC range is roughly the equivalent of Canon's EF-S and Nikon's DX lenses in terms of the image circle projected.
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha.
 
Last edited:
[DOD]Asprilla;12732684 said:
I was after as much as I can get. At the moment I've got a 17-85 on the crop and a 24-85 on the 35mm and I fancied something that would make a real difference, both in terms of angle and IQ since both of those are pretty poor.



Ah, gotcha.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Canon have nothing to compare with the Nikon 14-24 2.8 which is stupidly sharp.
 
Canon 17-40L will work fine on 35mm/Full frame.. 17mm on FF is plenty wide enough for most jobs, more and you can distortion issues.
 
9designs2 said:
Canon 17-40L will work fine on 35mm/Full frame.. 17mm on FF is plenty wide enough for most jobs, more and you can distortion issues.
Click to expand...

True, but it's not going to be wide enough for the crop, or at least no wide than then 17-85 I'm already using (IQ will be a quantum leap though).

The Sigma 12-24 is looking interesting, but it's got no filter mount and a protuding front element which could be a recipie for disaster.
 
film_0230.jpg

film_0232.jpg


that's what the sigma 10-20mm looks like at 10mm on a film SLR
 
I'm not sure at what angle the 10-200 will start to work on FF without vignetting. You may find you can get 10mm on the crop and from 15mm or so on FF
 
[DOD]Asprilla;12735880 said:
Cheers for the help. Looks like it will be the 12-24, can't wait.
Click to expand...

Won't you get vignetting like that above???

TBH, on FF, the only wide angle zooms i would consider are the 17-40 and 16-35.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Won't you get vignetting like that above???

TBH, on FF, the only wide angle zooms i would consider are the 17-40 and 16-35.
Click to expand...

Apparently some, but not much. It is designed with an FF in mind.

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html

The 17-40 doesn't go any wider than I've got already (admittedly EF-S for the crop only) and the 16-35 is well over what I want to spend at the moment, especially for someone who doesn't really do landscapes.

The 12-24 will give me excellent width on both bodies and will give me greater flexability when I choose my next body - the Eos 5 probably has abother two years in it before it gets replaced with a digital, either FF or crop, depending upon how the 350D does (it's had £150 worth of repairs already).
 
[DOD]Asprilla;12737511 said:
The 17-40 doesn't go any wider than I've got already (admittedly EF-S for the crop only) and the 16-35 is well over what I want to spend at the moment, especially for someone who doesn't really do landscapes.

The 12-24 will give me excellent width on both bodies and will give me greater flexability when I choose my next body ....
Click to expand...

cuts.

I might have read above incorrectly, but, won't the 17-40 give you 17mm on the EOS5, currently you don't seem to have this, only 17 x1.6 on the 17-85.

Though 12-24 looks like a good option if you want to go that wide on a FF. I'm not sure just how much i'd use it at 12mm though. 16-17mm is seriously wide on ff you'll be shooting your feet in half the shots at 12.

Get into town and see if you can try one before you decide...
 
aztechnology said:
I might have read above incorrectly, but, won't the 17-40 give you 17mm on the EOS5, currently you don't seem to have this, only 17 x1.6 on the 17-85.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will bring be down from 24 to 17 on the FF, and I currently have 17x1.6 on the crop.

The FF probably only has a year or so before it's replaced. That may be with a FFD or it may be with a crop, I don't know yet, so I'd like to get a lens that gives me the option of going below 17x1.6 on a crop.

If I do go for the 17-40 I would probably sell my 17-85 which would make up some of the cost.

aztechnology said:
Get into town and see if you can try one before you decide...
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. I wouldn't buy one without trying it first, especially as some of them can be pretty soft apparently. Will probably try the 12-24 and -17-40 on the crop and see what they look like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom