Good quality wide field lens that doesn't cost the Earth

[Lester]

Hi all,

I have heard that Comet Lovejoy could have a tail of 50 degrees soon, so am looking for a wider lens than the 24mm to use on my Canon 20Da and 40D cameras.

I have looked at the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for about $700, and its reviews are very good.

I am leaning towards the Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 for about $800, that is reported to have slightly better CA control. Also having a slightly larger zoom range.

If anyone knows of a fixed lens in the 10-15mm that is sharper and or faster than the above I am all ears. Also any experienced owners of the above zoom lenses that have shot the night sky, as to image quality.

Thank you.:thumbsup:

[renormalised]

The Tokina looks like a good lens, Lester. How much slightly better is the Canon's CA control??

[Lester]

Hi Carl, I don't know how much better the CA is on the Canon as it was to different reviews by 2 different people. Also my thinking was that f2.8 - f3.5 is only 1.56 or about half a f stop. To sacrifice half an F stop for a better image IMO is a plus. The Tokina did also show more vignetting than the Canon.

The Tokina did perform better than a comparable Nikon lens for sharpness.

[Octane]

Digital Photo Professional will remove /any/ outstanding chromatic aberration with the tick of one checkbox.

It will only work on Canon lenses.

H

[Lester]

Thanks Humayun, so I don't need to look at any L type lenses.

[Octane]

Lester,

The L-series lenses have far better correction than their counterparts. But, as mentioned, DPP has a proper Canon lens correction database, built into it. Distortion correction (barrel/pincushion, vignetting and CA) all with the tick of 3 checkboxes.

H

[Lester]

Thanks again Humayun. From what I have read over the years a prime lens usually is sharper than a zoom lens, and I hate distorted star images. Is my fuzzy/distorted star images from zoom lenses at this lower price range founded or can someone prove otherwise? Have found a Nikkor AF 14mm F2.8 D ED lens $1400 would be the upper limit of my budget; would this lens work on my Canon cameras?

Unfortunately Canon's 14mm f2.8L comes at $2100 and not within my budget.

[renormalised]

Have a read of this, Lester....

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikcan.htm

[naskies]

I used the Canon 10-22 mm for several years on my 20D before I got my 5DmkII. I now use the 5DmkII + 14 mm combo as a replacement for the 20D.

The 10-22 is excellent - I don't recall any CA problems at all (even with the sun in the scene, or objects silhouetted against sunlight), though I tend not to specifically hunt for problems.

By the way, even my 14 mm has distorted stars in the corners... even if the lens was theoretically "perfect", a rectilinear projection at 14 mm full-frame won't show perfectly round stars in the corners (everything looks distorted).

Have you considered a fisheye, such as Canon's 15 mm f/2.8 or 8-15 mm f/4 zoom?

[Liz]

Exactly what I was doing this morning too Lester!! :D

Alas,still broke after my trip so limited to $500 and under, and shouldnt even be doing that.:help:

Looking at this one ... maybe ..

http://www.crazysales.com.au/canon-ef-24mm-f-2-8-camera-lens-can00001476.html

this is the one you were looking at .. tempting ....

http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=2276

[Lester]

Thanks Carl, had a read sounds good but don't want to wait for something to come from USA. I get a bit impatient when shopping, especially when the subject (Lovejoy) could fade at any moment.

Hi Dave, did you use the 10-22mm for any star fields? I am leaning towards this one at present.

Hi Liz, ironic isn't it, that Tokina looks good. The further I look the more confused I seem to get. I did find a site where lenses can be hired for a period of time, would be just my luck though to have a week of cloudy weather after spending $100s.

I appreciate the feedback. Thanks.

[Octane]

Lester,

In general, yes, primes are sharper than zooms.

But, having said that, my 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is seriously one of the sharpest tools in my bag. It's nuts.

Mind you, I've not used any of them, apart from my 200mm f/2.8L II USM for astrophotography. That lens is magnificent, particularly stopped down to f/4. If you can put up with the diffraction spikes.

H

[Lester]

Thanks Humayun, just what I wanted to hear from someone with experience that some zooms are as sharp as primes.

Surely someone has used a 10-22mm Canon or Tokina 11-16mm for a star field and enlarged it with good results.

All the best.

[skysurfer]

The Sigma 10-20mm (I bought is second hand for $320 in 2008) is a very good one. Very low barrel distortion even @ 10mm and a FOV of 97 degrees over the long side.
An alternative is the newer 8-16mm (even wider angle !).

The site www.photozone.de has an excellent set of review of lenses.
Another site is http://www.dpreview.com/products/lenses with test reports.

Another option is making more pictures and stitching them. Hugin (http://hugin.sourceforge.net) is a good auto stitching tool.

[Lester]

Thanks Sirius for your input, with good links and yes photo stitch is an option. Although with a moving comet may have some limitation restricting exposure times.

Dave, correct me if I am wrong, but IMO a fisheye lens has greater distortions due to larger FOV. I have noticed some 15mm lens are called fisheye where as the zoom of 10-22 isn't. So I am a bit confused on this fisheye category.

[rat156]

I recently (this week) bought the Tokina 11-16mm lens off eBay.

The performance is about what you'd expect, good, but not sensational.

Have a look at the images on http://www.siriuscybernetics.org.au/Siriuscybernetics/Comet_Lovejoy.html
to see what you can expect.

Adobe Lightroom also had lens corrections for the Tokina.

Cheers
stuart

[Lester]

Thanks for you input Stuart, your images are impressive. Did you use the Tokina 11-16mm at F2.8, or closed down a stop or 2?

[iceman]

Lester I used the 10-22mm recently at IISAC2011, and it's a great lens for the widefield aspect, but at f/3.5 it's pretty slow for astro use and I won't end up buying it for that reason alone.

[hotspur]

Yes Lester-I have the Canon 10-22 mm lens,I am happy with it for astro wide field,Its also quite handy for everyday use and landscape photography.

I did photograph a antique motor vehicle once with this lens,and was very pleasantly surprised how sharp the images came out with no PP.

Here is a wide field astro image with the lens

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment_browse.php?a=106355

My demands for astro work are less demanding the others here,so was pleased the the lens for that application.I will try and post a image at 10 mm of the Love joy comet I took the other day.

If you want to borrow it Lester,you are welcome,Mike borrowed it for the astro camp excursion.I rarely use the lens,but its always handy to have in the bag.

Cheers Chris

[naskies]

Lester - no, unfortunately I never used the 10-22 for stars (wasn't into astro then).

It depends upon what you mean by "distortion" - all ultra-wide angle lenses (say > 100 degrees) introduce major distortions compared to the flat perspective of say a 50 mm full-frame equivalent. Rectilinear lenses like the Canon 14 mm f/2.8L keep straight lines straight even in the corners, but it makes things look really stretched. Most fisheye lenses avoid the really stretched look, but they don't preserve straight lines (what most people think of as the "fisheye effect"). Software can easily convert from one to the other (with loss of quality especially in corners) - it's just a matter of which style you prefer.

Canon wide angles vary quite a bit in sharpness and CA. Check out the comparison pics at the link below. Note: I have the 17-40 and consider it a fantastic and sharp lens, but the others (such as the 24L II that I have) are really great.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

[colinmlegg]

Lester, if you have the dollars to burn also consider the Nikon 14-24 G with Novaflex adaptor. I have it (on a 5DII) and it outperforms the Canon 14 L prime at f/2.8 by a fair margin (in terms of sharpness, coma and vignetting in the corners).

It's an awesome lens... the sharpness of a prime with the versatility of a zoom. Only downside I've noticed is some off axis flare when moon is around due to the large front element.... and I guess no slot for front filters.

One other thing to consider is future proofing yourself. If you have or move to a full frame camera you'll want a lens also compatible with that.

A recent example of the comet at 14mm

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment_browse.php?a=106259

[Lester]

Many thanks, Mike, Chris, Dave and Collin for your replies. Thanks for the offer Chris. I have just done a search and now leaning towards the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, with reviews saying one of the sharpest in the range even compared to the Canon 10-22.
http://www.tokinalensreview.com/ Only down fall I came across is the CA that can be removed in processing.

Thanks Dave for your info on fisheye lenses, think I will stick to the rectilinear lenses.

Colin I will check the price on that lens as your results are impressive.

All the best.

[renormalised]

That lens is $2093 at Camera Pro (http://camerapro.net.au/nikon-1424mm-f28g-lens-australian-stock-p-218.html).

[Lester]

Thanks Carl, I just re-read Colin's first sentence; "if I have the dollars to burn", as I am a farmer and what do all farmers have in common = huge overdraft. Trying not to burn anymore $$ than I have to.

Unless someone can talk me out of the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 I may do a phone call tomorrow morning.

I have appreciated all the comments.

[trek1701]

This might be of some help

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=718&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=271&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Cheers Mark

[colinmlegg]

One other option...cheaper this time ;) . Samyang 14mm. If you can snag a good copy it's as sharp as the Nikon, but has more barell distortion and flare issues. "Good copy" is the key though. I went through 5 before I found a good one. Quality control not up with Canon and Nikon.

[Lester]

Excellent for a comparison Mark, with some very interesting results. Even some of the more expensive fixed lenses don't out perform the zooms. I must say Colin's Nikon 14-24 did perform very well, the best I saw.

[mithrandir]

This is from my Tokina 11-16 at 16mm f2.8. Unimap solved. You can see as it gets towards the corners the constellation lines don't quite hit the stars but it is not far out. Sorry about the amount of compression it needs to get under 200KB.

[Adelastro1]

I agree that the 14-24 Nikon is the best wide angle zoom that I've seen or heard about. Alexch on here has it and produces some great images. Ask him for his thoughts.... I hired this lens twice from a place here in Adelaide and it was stunning. It's the next lens I'll purchase! Second hand on ebay (if you want to risk it) it $1600-1700 that I've seen. The only thing is that it's for an FX Nikon camera body (ie. full frame camera). The Canon 5D Mk II is full frame too. If you use the lens on a normal crop sensor body (not the high end semi-pro or pro bodies) then the image that the lens produces will be approx 1.5 larger than the camera's sensor so it wastes a lot of what it captures, and it will be the equivalent of a 21-36mm lens.

I use the Tokina 12-24mm for all my wide field images and have good results. It's not perfect but none are. It does have CA on the edges but as people have stated that can be corrected. I haven't had any problems with it at all. I assume the 11-16 would be similar. My Tokina is also very sturdy and feels solid - something that is important to me - but I don't know about the Canon, Sigma etc. For cost wise I would recommend one of the Tokina's. Ken Rockwell rates the Tokina 11-16 as #1 also! And it takes 77mm filters, so if you have any that size already you're laughing!

My vote would be for the Tokina 11-16 for your budget.

I hope that doesn't confuse the issue!

[Lester]

Thanks Andrew and Wayne for your input to this thread. And Colin think I will give the Samyang a miss, as I without a trained knowledge/eye would need a good quality lens to compare to.

I have come across a Sigma 15mm F2.8, but it has the word "fisheye" that scares me a bit and I have not seen any comparison tests on this lens.

I am still at a loss as to why there are not more fixed lenses that are fast and sharp at 10-15mm and a good price. As to my thinking a fixed lens should be easier to make with less moving internal lenses to yield the best possible view.

[CometGuy]

Hi Lester,

For the cost your looking at maybe a second hand 5D mark I might be the ticket? That way you could use your 24 L to its full potential.

Terry

[Lester]

Thanks Terry, I had not thought of going that way about it. I will do some checking on how sensitive the 5D is compared to the 20Da. Do you or others know how the 5D performs for astro imaging compared to a 20Da?

[rat156]

I used it at f2.8 last couple of times I went out, the extra distortion is not noticeable.

Cheers
Stuart

[danielsun]

Hi Lester, I have the Tokina 11-16 f 2.8 and love it. I am mainly doing timelapse and widefields with it and am very happy.
Here is a sample taken on new years morning with it.
I got mine from Crazy sales about 9 mnths ago and if I remember I think it was aprox $640 and delivered within a week!

Cheers Daniel.

[Lester]

Thanks Stuart and Daniel for your input, the Tokina sounds like a top wide angle lens.

All the best.

[Liz]

Did you go for that one Lester?

[Lester]

No Liz, I have put it on hold for now. I seem to be getting on okay with Photostitch to put together 2 frames and getting in wide field that way. What Terry suggested about a full frame camera with my 24mm F1.4 lens has appealed to me. With my 1.6x crop sensors in both present Canon cameras the 24mm actually = 38.4mm. So to go the way of a Canon 5D MK ll would gain me a lot wider FOV where the 24mm would be 24mm. I know this option would be a lot more expensive, so have put it on hold for now.

For anyone wanting to shoot wider FOV, with 1.6x crop sensor type camera, the Tokina 11-16 IMO is as good as it gets for the money.

All the best.

[Lester]

Hi all, after a few days looking on the net at wide field lenses and toing and froing, I have ordered the Samyang 14mm f2.8 today. I did a full 360 in the last day from the Canon 16-35 L f2.8 after seeing the Samyang results with only 1/3 the price. Other than the moustache distortion of the Samyang in many of the other tests it came out better than the Canon. Also considered the more expensive 14mm f2.8 Canon, but the cheaper alternative won me.

Just hope I get a good copy, as the only downside I keep hearing is the 5 lenses Colin had to try before getting a good one. Prices of this lens vary from over $800-less than $400.

All the best.

[gregbradley]

Samyang 24mm F1.4, Samyang 35mm F1.4, Nikon 24mm F1.4 (rated the best in its class), Nikon 28mm F1.8G (newly released not in shops yet - about $700 which is cheap for Nikon).

Canon 15mm fisheye and use software to correct for distortion.

Greg.

[Lester]

I have already got a Canon 24mm f1.4, so was looking for the wider 14mm. Yes I looked at the fisheye Greg, but thought that may be a bit too adventureous for me.

[Poita]

Make sure you can get it exchanged, I tried 3 and all were awful and I gave up. My brother got a good one first go, so they do exist, but it is a bit of a lottery.

[Lester]

Hi Peter, yes there is an exchange, with cost of $35, so better than nothing. I had heard that it can be a lottery. Would be good to be able to walk into a shop and try them, but no such luck in Pt Lincoln.

[Lester]

I had a quick look at the Samyang 8mm f3.5 fish-eye and seems it is a good performer also. Although not meant for full frame sensors it still does a job and IMO better than the Canon 8-15 zoom fish-eye that only gives a circle illuminated at 8mm on full frame sensors.