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

Lester · #1 02-01-2012, 04:32 PM

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.

renormalised (Carl) · #2 02-01-2012, 04:47 PM

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

Lester · #3 02-01-2012, 04:53 PM

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 (Humayun) · #4 02-01-2012, 04:53 PM

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

It will only work on Canon lenses.

H

Lester · #5 02-01-2012, 04:55 PM

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

Octane (Humayun) · #6 02-01-2012, 05:22 PM

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 · #7 02-01-2012, 05:44 PM

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 (Carl) · #8 02-01-2012, 06:14 PM

Have a read of this, Lester....

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

naskies (Dave) · #9 02-01-2012, 06:17 PM

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 · #10 02-01-2012, 06:22 PM

Exactly what I was doing this morning too Lester!!

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

Looking at this one ... maybe ..

http://www.crazysales.com.au/canon-e...n00001476.html

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

http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/...idProduct=2276

Lester · #11 02-01-2012, 06:54 PM

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 (Humayun) · #12 02-01-2012, 06:56 PM

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 · #13 02-01-2012, 07:00 PM

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 · #14 02-01-2012, 07:00 PM

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 is a good auto stitching tool.

Lester · #15 02-01-2012, 07:18 PM

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 · #16 02-01-2012, 07:38 PM

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/...t_Lovejoy.html
to see what you can expect.

Adobe Lightroom also had lens corrections for the Tokina.

Cheers
stuart

Lester · #17 02-01-2012, 08:14 PM

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 (Mike) · #18 02-01-2012, 08:18 PM

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 (Chris) · #19 02-01-2012, 08:39 PM

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/a...e.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 (Dave) · #20 02-01-2012, 08:45 PM

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/R...ns-Review.aspx