Wide Angle Lenses

[Diane Miller]

Not sure I have time to get very involved in this for a few weeks, but a discussion started developing in Landscape about wide angles, and it's a subject I'm interested in.

I have the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 "II" which is supposedly an improvement over the older version, but I'm frankly underwhelmed by it. At 16mm wide open at f/2.8 the sharpness in the center is not up to my standards, and on my full-frame bodies the corners are too bad to describe here. By f/9.5 or so it's much better, and useful for most landscape work. And in a scene lacking detail in the corners it's usable a little more open.

The Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE gets great reviews, as it should for $3000.

In the Landscape thread, Don Lacy said:

“The new version II tilt lenses are excellent the best wide angles that Canon makes looking at the MTF charts here the corners are very good on the 24mm http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...35tse2?start=2 (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/603-canon24f35tse2?start=2)”

and

“Many consider the 21mm the best wide angle lens made for 35mm cameras http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff..._28_5d?start=1 (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/470-zeiss_zf_21_28_5d?start=1)”

I thought I’d toss that out for a starting point. I’d really like something wider than 24mm, but corner quality at a wide aperture is the main criterion.

[arash_hazeghi]

Don is correct,

If you are critical about corner sharpness Canon only make two lenses that fit the bill, the TS-E 24 MKII and TS-E 17 MKII. They are razor sharp from corner to corner in neutral position because their image circle is a lot larger by design. Independent T-S axis opens up many new possibilities thus the 5-star rating in PZ. drawback is no AF and lack of filter option (needs adapter for filters).

[dankearl]

I think most are Canon users here, so this may not be very applicable, but in the Landscape photography world, Nikon is
used much more than it is in the Bird and Wildlife disciplines, where Canon clearly has the edge due to the lens choice.
The D800 seems to be the Landscape go to camera if you look at other forums.
I just snapped this in my yard to see how it looked at 16mm at f8
This is the Nikon 16-35mm f4, not that expensive and seems to be the lens choice for most Nikon Landscape photographers.
The 12-24mm f2.8 which is better does not take filters for whatever odd reason which is the only reason I did not buy it
instead of the 16-35 even though it is a whole lot more money.

Here is an f8 handheld 16mm photo (only 1/20 SS) I just took in my yard. straight OOC, with just very minimal sharpening after downsizing.
Other than DOF issues, (I stood about 4 feet way for this) this lens looks fine to me in the corners.

DSC_8599bp.jpg (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=133416&stc=1&d=1381448720)

[Diane Miller]

17mm would be enough, and AF and filters are not important. I would have assumed T/S lenses were sharper, because of the larger image circle Arash mentioned, but I have read reviews that say otherwise -- but I haven't taken time to document them. Maybe they were saying the quality declines with lens movements, which would be expected, to SOME degree. Stopping down would presumably correct it. I'm not doing any serious architectural photography and T/S would be a nice option, especially with the new design, but it's basically a bonus added onto what I want, which is IQ.

My interest is twofold -- landscape, which can generally be done with a smaller aperture (T/S can be good here, and also for stitching limited panos) and night sky shots, which need corner sharpness at a wide aperture or else an equatorial mount to follow the apparent motion of the stars to allow a longer exposure at a smaller aperture. That device is probably in the works anyway, for stacking bracketed exposures with a 300 + 1.4X to get the full detail in the corona during the solar eclipse in 2017. So with it maybe my current lens at ~ f/9.5 is OK for Milky Way shots. But that's a pretty long exposure, and EQ mounts can be tedious to dial in the best tracking accuracy.

[dankearl]

Diane,
Did you just say that filters are not important?
I know very few landscape photographers who don't use them.
You can replace grad filters with post processing! you absolutely cannot replace polarizer's with PP.
Try to take the glare out of river rocks in PP sometime...
I cannot understand why Nikon made the top of the line wide angle (the 12-24), without filter capability.
I and a lot of others did not buy it because of that.

[Diane Miller]

I meant not that important to me for a new lens primarily for night sky photography. I don't have a polarizer that will fit my 16-35 so if I'm shooting a scene with water where I need one, I'll use my 24-70, set it at the nodal point and shoot two images to stitch (a mini-panorama) if 24 mm is not wide enough.

I absolutely agree that polarizers are very important for water and other reflections. For the other common use of darkening a sky (to put it simply), I've been (and am still constantly) amazed at what I can achieve in PP. There are some limitations in noise, but for those instances where I forgot to bring the polarizer on the long hike, it's pretty amazing.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0011794/article/How-to-fake-a-glass-polarizer-filter-effect-digitally

Had no idea about the new Nikon -- that's a shame. Sounds like a great focal length range. Guess they were thinking about skies, not water.

[Don Lacy]

You can replace grad filters with post processing! you absolutely cannot replace polarizer's with PP.
Try to take the glare out of river rocks in PP sometime...
I cannot understand why Nikon made the top of the line wide angle (the 12-24), without filter capability.
I and a lot of others did not buy it because of that.
The main reason Dan is that the design of such a wide angle lens dictates a curved front element making it impossible to mount a standard filter, also when using a polarizer on such an ultra wide lens the angle of view will often result in uneven polarization across the frame resulting in 1/2 the sky darker then the rest. If you really wanted to use filters on the 14-24 there are after market solutions you can buy http://www.ianplant.com/blog/2013/03/15/using-filters-on-the-nikon-14-24mm-and-other-ultra-wide-lenses/

[Don Lacy]

Diane as much as I want a sharper wide angle what really intrigues me about Zeiss is the legendary contrast and color they produce along with low distortion and minimal CA might have to rent one before buying.

[arash_hazeghi]

...I have read reviews that say otherwise ...



which review said that?

it's not true.

see full size image 17 TS-E with 80% shift (http://ari1982.smugmug.com/Architecture/Wideangle/10360162_r4jRmL#!i=1654729697&k=LmLkgSp&lb=1&s=O)

[Diane Miller]

Don, yes, all the above, and not only CA but coma. Would love to know how those compare with alternatives, and at wide apertures.

I'm thinking of renting one, but probably only when I can make a run to a good dark, high altitude Milky Way location -- probably between Mono Lake and the White Mountains. That probably won't happen for me until next summer. Monsoon season will start here in CA before the next new moon, and by that late in the year the Milky Way will be setting in the east not long after dark. Mid to late summer is the best season for it.

Arash, I wish I had documented the reviews, but, as I said, I didn't. I don't take "reviews" seriously, especially those written by someone who has just spent money on something. But I'm more inclined to believe the negative ones than the positives. I've been too busy lately to get very involved in information-gathering. I'd prefer to rent and see for myself, in actual use.

[Don Lacy]

which review said that?
The reviews on the version I 24mmm was that it was a little soft all the review I have seen of the version II are excellent even the 17mm is stellar the MTF charts at PZ is really impressive http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/485-canontse17f4ff?start=2
Diane, PZ is pretty unbiased all the lens he test are loaned to him by individuals if a lens has issues he will point them out his review of the 17-40 f/4 clearly show the issued with corner softness as well as distortion

[arash_hazeghi]

The reviews on the version I 24mmm was that it was a little soft all the review I have seen of the version II are excellent even the 17mm is stellar the MTF charts at PZ is really impressive http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/485-canontse17f4ff?start=2


yeah we were talking about MKII, the old MKI was pretty soft.

I had the 17mm and now have the 24mm the photo I posted above was with the 17 almost fully shifted...

[Diane Miller]

Aarash, that image is impressive. What was the aperture? Full-frame body?

[Diane Miller]

E.J. Peiker has some good information about lenses in his Quack newsletter, Summer 2013. He rates the Zeiss 15 and 21 as the best "ultra wide" and "extra wide" but it looks like he hasn't considered T/S lenses, only primes.

[arash_hazeghi]

Aarash, that image is impressive. What was the aperture? Full-frame body?

f/5.6-yes

[arash_hazeghi]

E.J. Peiker has some good information about lenses in his Quack newsletter, Summer 2013. He rates the Zeiss 15 and 21 as the best "ultra wide" and "extra wide" but it looks like he hasn't considered T/S lenses, only primes.

I would just look at full-size images, you can find some here :

http://www.3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2

In these images Ziess is not that impressive for its price IMO. center is razor sharp but corners are hazy at open apertures.

[Roger Clark]

Hi Diane,

In my opinion, all wide angle lenses are poor performers, and this is backed up by the MTF data. But having said that, your desire for a great landscape wide angle lens and night photography are somewhat incompatible. The sharper wide angle lenses, like the Canon tilt-shift lenses are too slow for good night photography. Night imaging needs large aperture fast lenses with as good of performance as possible wide open.

First compare MTF charts for the top performing lenses to get some perspective:

Canon 500 f/4 II (best MTF performance in the Canon lineup and I don't recall seeing a better performance on any lens):
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_500mm_f_4l_is_ii_usm
The thin blue lines are f/8, black wide open. Thin black lines are fine detail, thick are coarser detail. Both thin and thick lines are important, especially for astro work (stars are the toughest test of a lens, as the smallest aberration will show in the star images. Lines below 1 will increase star diameter and separation of dashed and dotted will show elongated stars (and in regular scenes, blurring of detail, and loss of contrast.

Now look at the 300 f/2.8, a little worse performance, but still impressive:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Now look how much worse the Canon 24 f/1.4 II lens is:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm
(check other lenses and you will see a trend in worse MTF as focal length decreases. This is largely due to the asymmetry of the optics to off-axis light (large angles in the field of view), and is very difficult to correct.

The 24 TSE is better:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ts_e_24mm_f_3_5l_ii
but note wide open is f/3.5. Not sure why Canon didn't make their traditional plot.

Going wider is not any better, e.g. see 15 mm f/2.8:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_15mm_f_2_8_fisheye

While the Canon TSE lenses may be sharper than other lenses of similar focal length, and may produce the sharpest daytime landscape images for that fopcal length, they are too slow for nightscapes. Also, as I've stated in other threads, clear aperture of wide angle lenses shorter than about 24 mm are too small to record many stars as well as gather enough light to make low noise images of star clouds, nebulae and other extended objects. Clear aperture is the key to nightscape photography.

To compare lenses wide open and stopped down a stop or so on stars, see the http://www.lenstip.com site.
For example, look at the ugly star images that the canon 35 mm f/1.4 produces wide open:
http://www.lenstip.com/170.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_1.4L_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.htm l

Now compare the Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 DG HSM:
http://www.lenstip.com/359.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_b okeh.html

The Sigma gets good reviews and makes a superb nightscape lens. I have not seen a lens shorter in focal length than the Sigma that is a great lens for night photography, and below about 24 mm, lens aperture is simply too small to record much. The Sigma 35 works great wide open for night work (check this image, which was done with the Sigma--an image from which I'll make stunning 24x38 inch and larger prints: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.nightscapes/web/maroon-bells_nightscape_rnclark_c09.28.2013.lf3-bin8x8shs.html

Roger

[Diane Miller]

That image is incredible, as is what went into it! Hope to see many more from that trip!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Interesting read......I don't have a doubt about the MTF charts etc......but given that the late Galen Rowell used some lenses that would fail on most MTF charts.....I say worry less about the name or score of the MTF chart.....and study what they did. I doubt anyone would say that because he used a "cheap" lens....it wasn't great work of art! Rarely do you hear the masters discuss MTF charts.........just my 2 cents.

[Roger Clark]

Interesting read......I don't have a doubt about the MTF charts etc......but given that the late Galen Rowell used some lenses that would fail on most MTF charts.....I say worry less about the name or score of the MTF chart.....and study what they did. I doubt anyone would say that because he used a "cheap" lens....it wasn't great work of art! Rarely do you hear the masters discuss MTF charts.........just my 2 cents.

Roman,
I agree that image content is paramount.

Note that I use the much maligned and low MTF Canon 24 mm f/1.4 lens for night photography. See, for example:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/113887
In my opinion, the Canon 24 f/1.4 is the second best lens for night photography for the money, the Sigma 35 f/1.4 first.

You speak of a different era (Galen Rowell's era and earlier). Times were different. Film did not have the resolution of modern digital sensors, thus lenses placed lower demands on the image, and mass communication was more limited. In the early era, including pre-internet there was usenet, and the large format usenet forum had many pros and yes they did discuss gear, including MTF (circa 1980s to 1990s).

Today we have more information, from equipment tests to user experience that is rapidly communicated via the internet. Why not take advantage of that?

Roger

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Roger,

I think you should take advantage of the information.....just not make it gospel! I find way too many people put the emphasis on the gear.....not the technique. The charts and data are great tools.....the sharpest lens in the world won't take a good picture if the other stuff isn't in place first. Lastly.....in over 25+ years of photography....not one buyer,editor,etc. has ever asked me for the MTF data on the lens......just other photographers. Hence my point of technique first. Besides Roger.....you know I like to throw a hand grenade in the room and close the door occasionally :) . I will have to try my Sigma 35mm out in Feb in Arches.....if they ever open the parks!

[Roman Kurywczak]

BTW....get a 6x6 polarizer and solid ND's for those lenses with the curved front barrel.

[Don Lacy]

Interesting read......I don't have a doubt about the MTF charts etc......but given that the late Galen Rowell used some lenses that would fail on most MTF charts.....I say worry less about the name or score of the MTF chart.....and study what they did. I doubt anyone would say that because he used a "cheap" lens....it wasn't great work of art! Rarely do you hear the masters discuss MTF charts.........just my 2 cents.
Yeah but Galen was not printing at A1 and A0 sizes which todays sensors are capable of doing when paired with a top quality lens.
BTW it was Galen's work that inspired me to pick up a camera and shoot landscapes I still browse through his books when I need some inspiration or to remind me how far I still have to go.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Yeah but Galen was not printing at A1 and A0 sizes which todays sensors are capable of doing when paired with a top quality lens.
BTW it was Galen's work that inspired me to pick up a camera and shoot landscapes I still browse through his books when I need some inspiration or to remind me how far I still have to go.
Hey Don, some of his prints were pretty huge! He is the one who inspired me to work harder. I remember him telling a story of how he had a place near his house that he envisioned a photo of.....but conditions never conspired for him to pull it off. 15+ years (don't remember exact time) after he was in his office when he saw some clouds rolling in that he thought might work....he grabbed his camera and sprinted the few miles up into the mountains to set up his tripod and take his "dream" shot. I don't remember off hand which one it is right now....but it was spectacular! this taught me that vision, preparation, determination, and hard work with a bit of good luck would help me in my landscape photography and if someone like him works that hard....then I should probably too. He never once mentioned his gear!

[Bill Jobes]

Galen's gear: http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bagmain.html

[David Stephens]

The 17 and 24mm TSEs are hard to beat in the corners. Compare them to just about any lens you like, at any aperture at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=244&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2