Wide angle recommendations for full frame

[Resolutionary]

Afternoon PHers,

I know the right gear is all down to personal choice and spec requirements - however I've been browsing for a wide angle lens for a while now and I'm no clearer on what I'd like so I thought I'd get some opinions and feedback here.

I have a Canon 7D for my crop lenses, and one of my faves is the 10-18mm for it's interesting perspectives and wide coverage.

I also have a 6Dii but the widest lens I have for that is a 24-105 F4.

What I'm looking for is a versatile wide angle for my full frame body. I want to do more night sky shooting, landscapes, and more urban exploration stuff (tight spaces and wanting to get it all in!). Ideally:

- F2.8 or lower
- Relatively lightweight / unobtrusive
- As wide as possible while not being overly exaggerated distortion wise (so no fisheyes etc)
- Around £1k or preferably less!

I'm not bothered whether Canon or third party, although I am very fond of Sigma items.

So I put it to you; what would you choose - and / or what do you have and love?

[8bit]

There's a company called Irix who do an 11mm f/4.0 prime and a 15mm f/2.4 prime. Both manual focus and come in two versions which differ I think only in weight. I've not used either but I hear a lot of good things about them. Prices aren't bad, the cheaper 15mm variant was around £450 last time I checked. I'm tempted to get one of those for my Nikon D610 for the same uses as you list.

It's something I've been thinking about lately so I'm also in for the updates, as they say.

[anonymous-user]

Resolutionary said:

Afternoon PHers,

I know the right gear is all down to personal choice and spec requirements - however I've been browsing for a wide angle lens for a while now and I'm no clearer on what I'd like so I thought I'd get some opinions and feedback here.

I have a Canon 7D for my crop lenses, and one of my faves is the 10-18mm for it's interesting perspectives and wide coverage.

I also have a 6Dii but the widest lens I have for that is a 24-105 F4.

What I'm looking for is a versatile wide angle for my full frame body. I want to do more night sky shooting, landscapes, and more urban exploration stuff (tight spaces and wanting to get it all in!). Ideally:

- F2.8 or lower
- Relatively lightweight / unobtrusive
- As wide as possible while not being overly exaggerated distortion wise (so no fisheyes etc)
- Around £1k or preferably less!

I'm not bothered whether Canon or third party, although I am very fond of Sigma items.

So I put it to you; what would you choose - and / or what do you have and love?

I've had my Canon 17-40 f4 L for a few years now and been pretty happy with it. It's a bit soft at the corners when zoomed out to 17, and has a bit of distortion.

I am not sure why you'd want an f2.8 lens for the sort of use you're suggesting; for landscapes I default to f8, and for nighttime/low light stuff you're probably best advised to use a monopod or tripod.

Some of the best landscape pictures I've taken though have been with my very old Canon 28-70 f2.8 L wide open (replaced in the Canon line up ages ago by the 24-70L).

If you're set on a wide aperture lens though, what about a prime f1.4 L lens, such as the 24mm or 35mm?

(haven't looked at prices of any of that lot recently, btw, but I always buy lenses second hand. Ffordes have a good used selection right now by the looks of it).

[Resolutionary]

8bit said:

There's a company called Irix who do an 11mm f/4.0 prime and a 15mm f/2.4 prime. Both manual focus and come in two versions which differ I think only in weight. I've not used either but I hear a lot of good things about them. Prices aren't bad, the cheaper 15mm variant was around £450 last time I checked. I'm tempted to get one of those for my Nikon D610 for the same uses as you list.

It's something I've been thinking about lately so I'm also in for the updates, as they say.

I've heard of Irix, quick search suggests I can get the 15mm new for £380ish which seems remarkable value! I expect the 11mm on a FF will lead to distortion which might be un-fixable, perhaps I need to browse Flickr for some examples. Thanks!

Greg66 said:

I've had my Canon 17-40 f4 L for a few years now and been pretty happy with it. It's a bit soft at the corners when zoomed out to 17, and has a bit of distortion.

I am not sure why you'd want an f2.8 lens for the sort of use you're suggesting; for landscapes I default to f8, and for nighttime/low light stuff you're probably best advised to use a monopod or tripod.

Some of the best landscape pictures I've taken though have been with my very old Canon 28-70 f2.8 L wide open (replaced in the Canon line up ages ago by the 24-70L).

If you're set on a wide aperture lens though, what about a prime f1.4 L lens, such as the 24mm or 35mm?

(haven't looked at prices of any of that lot recently, btw, but I always buy lenses second hand. Ffordes have a good used selection right now by the looks of it).

My friend just upgraded from the 17-40 to a 16-35 F4 L actually, and he too noted the soft corners but says the new lens improves that somewhat.

I should have been clearer; I am keen on capturing the milky way and such, so a low f-stop will be useful. My 'best' galaxy photo was with a 70D and a 24mm f2.8 pancake - so I expect a FF body, wider angle and similar aperture will yield better results. I also prefer being able to stop down if I need to, as experienced with an F4 zoom I picked up (cheaply) which in reality should have been the F2.8 (alas, more expensive and funds didn't permit at the time).

I hadn't considered the 24mm 1.4, but its on the steep side of the budget and not as wide as I'd prefer (ideally I want something in the mid-teens to give some real change from the rest of my lenses).

I've just noticed Sigma do a 14-24mm F2.8.. just shy of a grand.. hmm..!

[danllama]

There's a Canon 15mm f2.8 that goes for around £3-350 I believe. Could be just the ticket. If you have the budget i'd plump for the 16-35 2.8.

[anonymous-user]

Used 24mm f1.4L II @ £819: https://www.ffordes.com/p/SH-18-005975/lenses-cano...

Used 24mm f1.4L @ £649: https://www.ffordes.com/p/SH-18-008767/canon-eos-l...

Used 14mm f2.8L II @ £1199 (ouch!) https://www.mifsuds.com/Used-Products/Used-Auto-fo...

[8bit]

Greg66 said:

I am not sure why you'd want an f2.8 lens for the sort of use you're suggesting; for landscapes I default to f8, and for nighttime/low light stuff you're probably best advised to use a monopod or tripod.

Ideally you want both; a fast aperture and a tripod.

Resolutionary said:

I should have been clearer; I am keen on capturing the milky way and such, so a low f-stop will be useful. My 'best' galaxy photo was with a 70D and a 24mm f2.8 pancake - so I expect a FF body, wider angle and similar aperture will yield better results. I also prefer being able to stop down if I need to, as experienced with an F4 zoom I picked up (cheaply) which in reality should have been the F2.8 (alas, more expensive and funds didn't permit at the time).

For capturing the Milky Way, planning and choosing your location are probably more important than the gear you have. You really want somewhere with a decent dark sky, check out www.darksitefinder.com. Bear in mind that the MW is most exposed in the night sky at certain times of year. Also you want to plan for a night where the moon is not in the sky. Once you've arranged all that you just need to sort out some clear weather...

24mm is fairly wide but I'd say unless you're happy building up panoramas then you'll want a bit wider. I generally shoot with a 24-70mm f/2.8 but I'd like wider too. I got this a couple of weeks ago, too much light pollution in the area and only the very tail end of the MW in the sky:

out by Niall Porter Photography, on Flickr

This was shot on my old D5100 with the Sigma 18-35mm, this is a crop from a 3x2 or 4x2 panorama I think. Darker skies area and better time of year but a little light cloud cover:

DSC_0011_stitch by Niall Porter Photography, on Flickr

[RobDickinson]

I use th 16-35/4L IS its awesome, corners are great. Not so great for astro, its OK because it works fine at f4 but not amazing ..

For astro I use my irix 15/2.4 and 35L mk2, mostly the 35mm and stitch.

Canons 16-35f2.8L mk3 is good , vignettes a lot, but not cheap.

Tamrons 15-30/2.8 is a good option also.

[Resolutionary]

danllama said:

There's a Canon 15mm f2.8 that goes for around £3-350 I believe. Could be just the ticket. If you have the budget i'd plump for the 16-35 2.8.

The 15mm is more fisheye'd than I'd like, and while a 16-35 2.8 is ideal, I would want a version II or III and it seems the former is hens-teeth rare now, while the latter is way over a grand new. I've not bought second hand before, sounds stupid but I like to be the first one to use my kit for peace of mind.

Greg66 said:

Used 24mm f1.4L II @ £819: https://www.ffordes.com/p/SH-18-005975/lenses-cano...

Used 24mm f1.4L @ £649: https://www.ffordes.com/p/SH-18-008767/canon-eos-l...

Used 14mm f2.8L II @ £1199 (ouch!) https://www.mifsuds.com/Used-Products/Used-Auto-fo...

Thanks for the links, the 14mm is intriging for sure, although a bit above my limit. Since I have a 24-105 I can't justify getting a 24mm prime, even though the aperture on those two is great.

8bit said:

For capturing the Milky Way, planning and choosing your location are probably more important than the gear you have. You really want somewhere with a decent dark sky, check out www.darksitefinder.com. Bear in mind that the MW is most exposed in the night sky at certain times of year. Also you want to plan for a night where the moon is not in the sky. Once you've arranged all that you just need to sort out some clear weather...

24mm is fairly wide but I'd say unless you're happy building up panoramas then you'll want a bit wider. I generally shoot with a 24-70mm f/2.8 but I'd like wider too. I got this a couple of weeks ago, too much light pollution in the area and only the very tail end of the MW in the sky:

out by Niall Porter Photography, on Flickr

This was shot on my old D5100 with the Sigma 18-35mm, this is a crop from a 3x2 or 4x2 panorama I think. Darker skies area and better time of year but a little light cloud cover:

DSC_0011_stitch by Niall Porter Photography, on Flickr

Amazing images! I'm planning a few trips this year including Iceland, Scottish Highlands, and hopefully Norway as well as a load of road trips around England. I've got a friend who geeks out about astro photography so he's my fountain of knowledge in that department - but as you say weather is a biggie!

I don't intend to stitch multiple photos and so on; when I took my crop body out last year to Portland / Dorset I found that 24mm (or the equivalent) was too narrow to capture what I wanted properly (in fairness though yours at 24mm look great - the 18-35 though, daaamn!).

RobDickinson said:

I use th 16-35/4L IS its awesome, corners are great. Not so great for astro, its OK because it works fine at f4 but not amazing ..

For astro I use my irix 15/2.4 and 35L mk2, mostly the 35mm and stitch.

Canons 16-35f2.8L mk3 is good , vignettes a lot, but not cheap.

Tamrons 15-30/2.8 is a good option also.

Thanks Rob, this is great info. A friend of mine lent me his 16-35 F4, very nice piece of kit but perhaps not so adept with the night sky. Think he's looking to upgrade to the 2.8 for that reason. I can't because it is not cheap at all!

You're the third or fourth person to mention the Irix 15mm to me - I'm very tempted to plump for the Blackstone version for hardiness and I expect the F2.4 is a huge benefit over my current glass. Priced well too.

You know, I bought a Tamron super-zoom a while ago and was unimpressed with the picture quality, but I just watched a couple of reviews on the 15-30 2.8 and they all praise it very highly. Nicely in budget and the slight zoom range ought to be handy day-to-day. Is a heavy bugger though!

Thanks all, leaning towards the Irix or Tamron now. Before I plunge, anyone got any knowledge of the (now quite old) Sigma 17-35 2.8-4? It's cheap, and might be a good little investment for my upcoming needs.

[8bit]

RobDickinson said:

For astro I use my irix 15/2.4 and 35L mk2, mostly the 35mm and stitch.

Got any example shots with the Irix? Care to share any thoughts on it?

Resolutionary said:

Amazing images! I'm planning a few trips this year including Iceland, Scottish Highlands, and hopefully Norway as well as a load of road trips around England. I've got a friend who geeks out about astro photography so he's my fountain of knowledge in that department - but as you say weather is a biggie!

I don't intend to stitch multiple photos and so on; when I took my crop body out last year to Portland / Dorset I found that 24mm (or the equivalent) was too narrow to capture what I wanted properly (in fairness though yours at 24mm look great - the 18-35 though, daaamn!).

Thanks, still light years away (pun intended) from what I have in my head but getting closer

The 24mm shot was on a full-frame camera. 24mm on full frame gives a wider field of view than 18mm on a crop sensor body.

[RobDickinson]

8bit said:

RobDickinson said:

For astro I use my irix 15/2.4 and 35L mk2, mostly the 35mm and stitch.

Got any example shots with the Irix? Care to share any thoughts on it?

Its a decent lens, like he overall design and features (of the blackstone), the focus lock, build etc. It has some coma in the corners but overall far better than say samyang 14. 2.4 is nice, and can use filters at 95mm. I only really use it for astro.

The Core of Simplicity by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

Let it Rip by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

Galactic by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

Akaroa Aurora by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

New Years Headspin by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

8bit said:

24mm on full frame gives a wider field of view than 18mm on a crop sensor body.

Just some advice, the canon 24/1.4L is pants for astro, the samyang or sigma are far far better, imo the 24-70/2.8L mk2 is better.

[chrismarr]

I didn't like my Irix - I got a dodgy copy and then they denied it and told me it was the way I was using it.

Using a Tamron 15/30 2.8 and its fine - does all I want and does it reasonably well. Filters can be a PITA with it though.

[RobDickinson]

Mine was hand picked from the factory by them to be fair.

[toasty]

FWIW Here's a couple of shots taken with the 16-35 F4 & 5D3 as my first steps into astrophotography. Any tips for post processing would be most welcome.


Milky by Jason Cross, on Flickr


Camping under the stars by Jason Cross, on Flickr

[Gad-Westy]

I was a big fan of the Irix 15mm while I had it. Shouldn't have sold it in hindsight but you live and learn. I had the blackstone version which has illuminated marking which aren't as useful as they sound. Not sure it's worth spending the extra over the optically identical firefly version.

Currently using a Sigma 20mm 1.4 for wide angle stuff. I really like it for astro, a bit of coma but I've never been too fussy about that and I'm yet to find a lens that doesn't show it to some degree or another. Benefit for astro is of course the wide aperture allowing for relatively low iso or shorter exposures to be used. But obvious downsides are that it's not that wide, it's not a zoom and it cannot take filters. It's also quite a whopper. So a little compromised for other stuff but I really like it as an astro lens.

I've just also picked up a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 OSD. I've not used it in anger yet but reviews are very positive and it seems like it should work quite well wide open so I'm hoping it might double up as an occassional astro lens but otherwise make a nice all round landscape lens. Only things I don't really like so far are the lack of distance scale and no foucs clutch so the focus wheel spins while the camera AF's. But worth at only £400 for a grey import.

[8bit]

Thanks Rob, stunning images too! I've seen some of them around here before but wasn't aware they were shot with the Irix.

chrismarr said:

I didn't like my Irix - I got a dodgy copy and then they denied it and told me it was the way I was using it.

Using a Tamron 15/30 2.8 and its fine - does all I want and does it reasonably well. Filters can be a PITA with it though.

What was the issue with your Irix? I had read of one or two which had poorly calibrated focus rings but not heard anything else? What's the problem with filters on the Tamron too?

[Speed addicted]

Damn you and your showcasing of things I didn't know I needed.

Irix 15mm Blackstone now on it's way, it was my birthday yesterday and I've bought it for myself.

I've been using a Nodal Ninja and 35mm for big skies and astro but was getting frustrated by the potential to cock up a shot and not know until it was all stitched later on, this should solve the issue quite nicely.

[rene7]

Never bought any WA's for Canon EF - Just bought a £10 OM-Canon EF adaptor and use my Olympus OM system MF WA's - 35-28-24+17mm all are tiny compared to the Ginormous Canon EF WA's.
Why buy new WA's I Rarely use a WA unless it's for static CAR shots
These can be bought for pennies on FleaBay

[chrismarr]

8bit said:

What was the issue with your Irix? I had read of one or two which had poorly calibrated focus rings but not heard anything else? What's the problem with filters on the Tamron too?

Half of the image was out of focus while other was fine. So strange. I'll see if i can find the examples.

[Speed addicted]

Got the Irix today.
First impressions, wow the box is nice! It’s like a posh watch.
It’s heavy (Blackstone metal body) and feels high quality, a few test shots show it’s sharp all over with a hugely wide field of view.

Nice bit of kit. I’ll be giving it a proper test when I go to the canyon lands of Utah in a couple of weeks, we’ve booked a hotel specifically for dark skies as part of the trip too. Hope the weathers decent!