Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Climbing Photography:
New Canon wide angle lens
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Climbing Photography

Premier Sponsor:

 


Partner philbox
Moderator

Aug 27, 2010, 12:17 AM
Post #1 of 24 (6016 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

New Canon wide angle lens
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

http://www.dpreview.com/...2616canon8mm15mm.asp

8 to 15mm zoom lens. I want one. I reckon this would be a rad lens for climbing. It will compliment my 17 to 40 and my 70 to 200.


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 27, 2010, 2:16 PM
Post #2 of 24 (5966 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'd be curious to see this go up against the Tokina 11-16 ATX 2.8. I know they're not really in the same category, but I don't shoot enough Ultra-Wide to get nitpicky.


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 27, 2010, 2:17 PM
Post #3 of 24 (5965 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hey Donnybox, which 70-200 do you have?


Partner philbox
Moderator

Aug 27, 2010, 4:01 PM
Post #4 of 24 (5931 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Hey Donnybox, which 70-200 do you have?

The 2.8 IS. It is soooo sharp and clear. I highly recommend it. Best lens to capture peoples faces.


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 27, 2010, 5:29 PM
Post #5 of 24 (5919 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Hey Donnybox, which 70-200 do you have?

The 2.8 IS. It is soooo sharp and clear. I highly recommend it. Best lens to capture peoples faces.

Yeah, I've been wuntzing one for awhile, but being out of work it was off the table. I'm hoping to get one in the next few months.

I was originally kicking around the idea of the Sigma generic, but now with the IS II out the price of the old IS to about the same as the Sigma. Of course, the new IS II looks pretty sweet. They're claiming 4 eVs of stabilization.


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 27, 2010, 5:30 PM
Post #6 of 24 (5918 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Hey Donnybox, which 70-200 do you have?

The 2.8 IS. It is soooo sharp and clear. I highly recommend it. Best lens to capture peoples faces.

Donnybox likes faceshots?


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 29, 2010, 12:56 PM
Post #7 of 24 (5859 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/...2616canon8mm15mm.asp

8 to 15mm zoom lens. I want one. I reckon this would be a rad lens for climbing. It will compliment my 17 to 40 and my 70 to 200.

Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic.


Partner philbox
Moderator

Aug 29, 2010, 2:19 PM
Post #8 of 24 (5848 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/...2616canon8mm15mm.asp

8 to 15mm zoom lens. I want one. I reckon this would be a rad lens for climbing. It will compliment my 17 to 40 and my 70 to 200.

Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic.

Yes, you're reading the article correctly. No, I con't see myself ever using the fisheye effect however you never know when an idea will present itself. I just like the idea that you can get the image superwide, you have some sort of contol over how wide you can go. I find myself wishing I could go wider sometimes with some of my shots.

One finds oneself stuck in one position not being able to back up to capture more of the context. I'd like to get closer to the subject to capture emotion on the face but then also capture the wider context of where they are.


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 29, 2010, 5:04 PM
Post #9 of 24 (5828 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/...2616canon8mm15mm.asp

8 to 15mm zoom lens. I want one. I reckon this would be a rad lens for climbing. It will compliment my 17 to 40 and my 70 to 200.

Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic.

Yes, you're reading the article correctly. No, I con't see myself ever using the fisheye effect however you never know when an idea will present itself. I just like the idea that you can get the image superwide, you have some sort of contol over how wide you can go. I find myself wishing I could go wider sometimes with some of my shots.

One finds oneself stuck in one position not being able to back up to capture more of the context. I'd like to get closer to the subject to capture emotion on the face but then also capture the wider context of where they are.

I hate you.


Partner philbox
Moderator

Aug 29, 2010, 5:48 PM
Post #10 of 24 (5814 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/...2616canon8mm15mm.asp

8 to 15mm zoom lens. I want one. I reckon this would be a rad lens for climbing. It will compliment my 17 to 40 and my 70 to 200.

Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic.

Yes, you're reading the article correctly. No, I con't see myself ever using the fisheye effect however you never know when an idea will present itself. I just like the idea that you can get the image superwide, you have some sort of contol over how wide you can go. I find myself wishing I could go wider sometimes with some of my shots.

One finds oneself stuck in one position not being able to back up to capture more of the context. I'd like to get closer to the subject to capture emotion on the face but then also capture the wider context of where they are.

I hate you.

Huh, why. I thought we were having a pretty reasonable and civil conversation. Am I missing something here or is that just a bit of BET frivolity.


guangzhou


Aug 30, 2010, 1:52 AM
Post #11 of 24 (5754 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I love my 80-200 Nikon lens. it's old, but works wonderfully.


For my wide angle, I use a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC and I am very happy with it.



I usually end up with Sigma lens over the Nikon lens because of the price differences. I will never buy another Tamroon ot Tokia. never liked any of the ones I've owned or used.

I have to say, a fish-eye lens has some appeal to me, but....


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 30, 2010, 7:34 AM
Post #12 of 24 (5735 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/...2616canon8mm15mm.asp

8 to 15mm zoom lens. I want one. I reckon this would be a rad lens for climbing. It will compliment my 17 to 40 and my 70 to 200.

Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic.

Yes, you're reading the article correctly. No, I con't see myself ever using the fisheye effect however you never know when an idea will present itself. I just like the idea that you can get the image superwide, you have some sort of contol over how wide you can go. I find myself wishing I could go wider sometimes with some of my shots.

One finds oneself stuck in one position not being able to back up to capture more of the context. I'd like to get closer to the subject to capture emotion on the face but then also capture the wider context of where they are.

I hate you.

Huh, why. I thought we were having a pretty reasonable and civil conversation. Am I missing something here or is that just a bit of BET frivolity.

I thought I finally came to a final decision as to my next lens purchase. Not only did you get me second guessing, this option costs about 2X versus my other.


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 30, 2010, 7:38 AM
Post #13 of 24 (5735 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [guangzhou] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
I love my 80-200 Nikon lens. it's old, but works wonderfully.
[image]http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/80-200mm-f28-af/D3S_5805-1200.jpg[/image]

For my wide angle, I use a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC and I am very happy with it.

[image]http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/Sigma-1020mm-f456-EX-DC-4329/images/Sigma-10_20mm.jpg[/image]

I usually end up with Sigma lens over the Nikon lens because of the price differences. I will never buy another Tamroon ot Tokia. never liked any of the ones I've owned or used.

I have to say, a fish-eye lens has some appeal to me, but....

I was considering that Sigma since it had a wider zoom than the Tokina but I'd prefer a faster lens, especially for a wide-angle which I'd probably be using in low light situations often. I have the Sigma 17-70 and it's a helluva lot better constructed than any of the Canon consumer lenses that I have. I just noticed that they have a 10-20 f/3.5, not cheap though... edit: nevermind, looks like the price dropped significantly. Dammit, back to the decision board.


(This post was edited by Arrogant_Bastard on Aug 30, 2010, 7:44 AM)


kachoong


Aug 30, 2010, 8:14 AM
Post #14 of 24 (5723 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Hey Donnybox, which 70-200 do you have?

The 2.8 IS. It is soooo sharp and clear. I highly recommend it. Best lens to capture peoples faces.

Donnybox likes faceshots?

You may need the fisheye if you intend to take a pic of See Eye.


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 30, 2010, 8:24 AM
Post #15 of 24 (5715 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [kachoong] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

As an aside, in browsing these lenses I've noticed several articles calling out a multiplication factor - like the Sigma 10-20mm being a 2X lens. Seems funny that they're incorporating marketing tactics for the point and shoot crowd into SLR lenses.


guangzhou


Aug 30, 2010, 5:21 PM
Post #16 of 24 (5691 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
I love my 80-200 Nikon lens. it's old, but works wonderfully.
[image]http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/80-200mm-f28-af/D3S_5805-1200.jpg[/image]

For my wide angle, I use a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC and I am very happy with it.

[image]http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/Sigma-1020mm-f456-EX-DC-4329/images/Sigma-10_20mm.jpg[/image]

I usually end up with Sigma lens over the Nikon lens because of the price differences. I will never buy another Tamroon ot Tokia. never liked any of the ones I've owned or used.

I have to say, a fish-eye lens has some appeal to me, but....

I was considering that Sigma since it had a wider zoom than the Tokina but I'd prefer a faster lens, especially for a wide-angle which I'd probably be using in low light situations often. I have the Sigma 17-70 and it's a helluva lot better constructed than any of the Canon consumer lenses that I have. I just noticed that they have a 10-20 f/3.5, not cheap though... edit: nevermind, looks like the price dropped significantly. Dammit, back to the decision board.

My wide angle is the only lens I own that is not fast Glass. Everything else is 2.8 all the way through or better for fixed lenses.

When I bough a wide angle, I decided I didn't need the speed because of the amount of light it let's in. Also, what I should with wide angle usually doesn't require high speed glass.

To me, Sigma is the way to go. Good glass and affordable prices.


Partner philbox
Moderator

Aug 31, 2010, 7:20 PM
Post #17 of 24 (5603 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
philbox wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/...2616canon8mm15mm.asp

8 to 15mm zoom lens. I want one. I reckon this would be a rad lens for climbing. It will compliment my 17 to 40 and my 70 to 200.

Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic.

Yes, you're reading the article correctly. No, I con't see myself ever using the fisheye effect however you never know when an idea will present itself. I just like the idea that you can get the image superwide, you have some sort of contol over how wide you can go. I find myself wishing I could go wider sometimes with some of my shots.

One finds oneself stuck in one position not being able to back up to capture more of the context. I'd like to get closer to the subject to capture emotion on the face but then also capture the wider context of where they are.

I hate you.

Huh, why. I thought we were having a pretty reasonable and civil conversation. Am I missing something here or is that just a bit of BET frivolity.

I thought I finally came to a final decision as to my next lens purchase. Not only did you get me second guessing, this option costs about 2X versus my other.

Aha, I now understand completely. Just so you don't feel lonely, I hate you too, now doesn't that make you feel all gooey inside. SlyLaugh


dlintz


Aug 31, 2010, 10:06 PM
Post #18 of 24 (5586 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1980

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You guys are cute.

Everything you've read about the Canon 70-200 Mk II is true. I previously owned the extremely sharp 70-200 f/4 IS but the new version of the 2.8 IS does it even better. The two drawbacks are its price and weight but hell, you don't live forever.

d.


Partner philbox
Moderator

Sep 1, 2010, 1:07 AM
Post #19 of 24 (5570 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [dlintz] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've got the 70 to 200 F2.8 IS, are you saying that the Mark 2 is far noticably better? I'm loving my 70 to 200, I don't want to have to buy another being that I reckon the existing one is good enough. I'll hafta have a lend of someone elses to compare.


dlintz


Sep 1, 2010, 7:39 AM
Post #20 of 24 (5548 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1980

Re: [philbox] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I never owned or used the first version of the 2.8 IS so I can't compare directly. As I had mentioned my old 70-200 f/4 IS was very nice. The f/4 IS and non-IS are considered by many to be better than the 2.8 IS and non-IS. All I know is that my 2.8 IS II is better than my old lens...plus I rarely use my beloved 135L these days as the 70-200 does it just as well (except for f/2 Tongue ).

d.


Arrogant_Bastard


Sep 1, 2010, 8:41 AM
Post #21 of 24 (5538 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [dlintz] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dlintz wrote:
You guys are cute.

Cute? We're fucking adorable.


dlintz


Sep 1, 2010, 10:22 AM
Post #22 of 24 (5524 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1980

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
dlintz wrote:
You guys are cute.

Cute? We're fucking adorable.

I know. I just didn't want you to get all big headed about it.

d.


Arrogant_Bastard


Sep 1, 2010, 10:44 AM
Post #23 of 24 (5516 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [dlintz] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dlintz wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
dlintz wrote:
You guys are cute.

Cute? We're fucking adorable.

I know. I just didn't want you to get all big headed about it.

d.

How's your f/4 at shooting indoor sports? I have one of those cheap consumer 55-250 f/4-5.6, and it sucks. Granted I'm at 5.6 if zoomed in, but it's just not near fast enough. It was one of the reasons why I was looking at the f/2.8. It'd be nice to save some bucks with the f/4 but that seems kinda pointless.


dlintz


Sep 1, 2010, 12:29 PM
Post #24 of 24 (5502 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1980

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] New Canon wide angle lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
dlintz wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
dlintz wrote:
You guys are cute.

Cute? We're fucking adorable.

I know. I just didn't want you to get all big headed about it.

d.

How's your f/4 at shooting indoor sports? I have one of those cheap consumer 55-250 f/4-5.6, and it sucks. Granted I'm at 5.6 if zoomed in, but it's just not near fast enough. It was one of the reasons why I was looking at the f/2.8. It'd be nice to save some bucks with the f/4 but that seems kinda pointless.

The only indoor sports I've shot is climbing comps. Even with the relatively slow action of climbing f/4 would be tough unless you had flash IMO.

If I'm shooting without flash (which is my preference) I usually go to primes (Canon 135L f/2 and Sigma 50 f/1.4).

d.


Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Climbing Photography

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook