Jump to content
cdascher

Canon Wide Angles for Aquatica and 5D markII

Recommended Posts

Hello All-I am in the process of switching over to the new 5DII (from 20D) and will get the new Aquatica housing when it is released. I have been shooting exclusively with the 10-22mm for wide angle with the 8 inch dome which I will continue to use. The 10-22mm is no longer on option with the 5D and I would like to get a good multipurpose wide angle lens to use with the new camera. I have read several threads here around this topic and would like to get some specific advise on the issue. I was thinking to get the Sigma 15mm FE as one lens and another for general WA shooting. I am thinking the 16-35 or the 17-40mm zooms would be best. Primes are also a possibility but I like the zoom flexibility (although I have heard some chatter about the 16-35mm having autofocus problems). Diopters are also an issue that I have no familiarity with. Obviously no one is shooting with this exact unit yet but any advise or experience from 5D or Canon full-frame shooters with wide lenses is appreciated.

 

Sincerely,

Chris D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello All-I am in the process of switching over to the new 5DII (from 20D) and will get the new Aquatica housing when it is released. I have been shooting exclusively with the 10-22mm for wide angle with the 8 inch dome which I will continue to use. The 10-22mm is no longer on option with the 5D and I would like to get a good multipurpose wide angle lens to use with the new camera. I have read several threads here around this topic and would like to get some specific advise on the issue. I was thinking to get the Sigma 15mm FE as one lens and another for general WA shooting. I am thinking the 16-35 or the 17-40mm zooms would be best. Primes are also a possibility but I like the zoom flexibility (although I have heard some chatter about the 16-35mm having autofocus problems). Diopters are also an issue that I have no familiarity with. Obviously no one is shooting with this exact unit yet but any advise or experience from 5D or Canon full-frame shooters with wide lenses is appreciated.

 

Sincerely,

Chris D.

 

Im in the same boat as you so to speak, as I am also looking for a few different lenses for my 5d mark II.

 

I think I have it narrowed down to the 100m usm for macro stuff and the 16-35 for general underwater shots.

I am by no means a expert, as Im new to stills having previously shot video, where lens changes were not a issue.

 

From the feedback I read on B&H regarding the 16-35, there are some autofocus issues with some people complaining about the speed of the AF. Others say they get used to it and its no big deal. I wouldnt count the lens out just from that issue, as I assume you will be shooting manual mostly anyway? Also, not sure how the 85mm size of that 16-35 would affect dome size? Someone smarter than me needs to comment on that.

 

Another option would be the Canon 14mm 2.8/L II. People seem to be raving about that lens.

 

I am down to the Sea&Sea or the Aquatica housing. My dealer is pointing me towards Sea&Sea just for the fact that the service is here in the US compared to Aquatica in Canada. Im still on the fence, as I like the fact Auquatica hangs out here at Wetpixel.

 

As far as Diopters, I see in another post here regarding diopter vs teleconveters, that someone likes the canon 500d closup lens on a sigma 150mm lens over the canon 100mm and the 2x tc., It seems logical to me to go that route rather than the 100mm with the 2x tc.

 

You also may want to look into wet Diopters. That even seems like a better idea with the 150mm sigma lens.

 

Oh, and if thats not enough options, check out the canon 180mm lens....

 

my .02, which is probably all its worth:)

Edited by gbrandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will like to read this :

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx

 

as you can see, the 15mm is "wider" than the 14, because of the fisheye effect, which is not that bad to have underwater.

 

I think I'll jump for it with the 5D2 when I'll have it. having a really wide angle is intresting for big animal photography, and I'm often with super close sharks.

So depending on what you want : ) I you want to shoot medium-sized fish as well, having a zoom like the 16-35 will be great.

 

About Sigma versus Canon, well it's kind of always better, and easier to resell, to have canon. if the price makes the difference, well then... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What port and what diopter would you use with the canon 16-35?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points regarding these last few posts.

 

16-35: Make sure you know if you're talking about the old 16-35 vs. the newer 16-35 II. The II is significantly larger and will require a different port/extension than the old 16-35, but the II is generally considered a significant improvement over the original in terms of sharpness. In fact, I think the 17-40 is as good as the old 16-35, and at a considerably lower price, so if you're talking about the old 16-35, give serious consideration to the 17-40 instead.

 

Macro: The Sigma 150 is a huge (not just big, but HEAVY) lens, and not nearly as flexible - in my personal opinion - as the Canon 100. In fact, I ended up giving my Sigm 150 away (to a topside insect shooter), and I generally just use the 100 with a wet diopter (and most recently added a Reefnet SubSee Adapter for super-macro).

 

Some people, e.g., James, LOVE the Sigma 150 with 500d on it, but I found it unwieldy, difficult to focus, and far less flexible (since the 500d is inside the housing) than the wet diopter route. IOW, I've increasingly become a big fan of wet diopters; when you see something 6 inches long, you can remove the diopter and shoot it, and when you see something itty bitty, you put the diopter back on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend you take a close look at the 17-40L. It is almost an exact replacement for your 10-22 - with regards to speed, price, and angle of coverage. The corner sharpness is decent especially above F8. You can use a B+H +2 diopter on it if you need increased performance.

 

If you're shooting Aquatica, then you have a focus knob on the macro port. That means you can use the 100mm or the 100mm + 1.4x TC using the same focus gear. All you need is an extension ring.

 

Regards,

James Wiseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the comments. I currently shoot the 100mm macro so that will not change (never tried a TC with it but sounds like something to try). My real problem is the wide angle as I have no lens at the moment (except the now defunct 10-22 which I will sell). I think the 16-35mm II seems like the front runner. I had heard the problem was actual focus point and not speed but that is chatter so I don't put a lot of faith in it. In any case, the 17-40L that James mentions is an alternative but I worry it is a bit slower at f4 vs the 16-35 which is an f2.8. Has anyone shot with either or both of these lenses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for all the comments. I currently shoot the 100mm macro so that will not change (never tried a TC with it but sounds like something to try). My real problem is the wide angle as I have no lens at the moment (except the now defunct 10-22 which I will sell). I think the 16-35mm II seems like the front runner. I had heard the problem was actual focus point and not speed but that is chatter so I don't put a lot of faith in it. In any case, the 17-40L that James mentions is an alternative but I worry it is a bit slower at f4 vs the 16-35 which is an f2.8. Has anyone shot with either or both of these lenses?

Only comment I would make on the speed is that you are not likely to want to shoot f2.8 very much, especially with the higher ISO ability of the 5DII, if you want to keep corners sharp with any of these lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few points regarding these last few posts.

 

16-35: Make sure you know if you're talking about the old 16-35 vs. the newer 16-35 II. The II is significantly larger and will require a different port/extension than the old 16-35, but the II is generally considered a significant improvement over the original in terms of sharpness. In fact, I think the 17-40 is as good as the old 16-35, and at a considerably lower price, so if you're talking about the old 16-35, give serious consideration to the 17-40 instead.

 

Macro: The Sigma 150 is a huge (not just big, but HEAVY) lens, and not nearly as flexible - in my personal opinion - as the Canon 100. In fact, I ended up giving my Sigm 150 away (to a topside insect shooter), and I generally just use the 100 with a wet diopter (and most recently added a Reefnet SubSee Adapter for super-macro).

 

Some people, e.g., James, LOVE the Sigma 150 with 500d on it, but I found it unwieldy, difficult to focus, and far less flexible (since the 500d is inside the housing) than the wet diopter route. IOW, I've increasingly become a big fan of wet diopters; when you see something 6 inches long, you can remove the diopter and shoot it, and when you see something itty bitty, you put the diopter back on...

 

 

Thats a excellent point and well taken. It makes sense to have flexiblility while UW. Your right in stating that with the canon 500 (or any dry diopter) your are limited in your minimum focus length.

Thanks for the informative post.

 

and yes, I was referring to the 16-35 II, not the older one. When I posted that it was late at night, I should have been more clear.

 

BTW, slightly off topic, but I was browsing your galleries, (excellent btw) and was curious as to how much PS on average do you use for your UW photos?

Edited by gbrandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only comment I would make on the speed is that you are not likely to want to shoot f2.8 very much, especially with the higher ISO ability of the 5DII, if you want to keep corners sharp with any of these lenses.

 

Most likely not UW, but I think it would be adventageous topside to have the 2.8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, the Sigma 150 is the smallest macro lens I use. I don't think the size and weight are unmanagable at all. Depends on the trim of your rig.

 

A dry diopter will provide better IQ. Whether its maximum focus distance is a problem really depends on what you use it for. How often do you shoot macro subjects at a distance of 2 feet or greater? Obviously you will lose that ability but there aren't many subjects (or good quality results) that use that combination. I find longer working distances more useful with shorter focal lengths.

 

The proper comparison for the Sigma 150 is the 100 with a 1.4x. Is the Sigma harder to manage and worse at AF than that combination? I don't think so but I haven't used one with Canon in a long time. I would rather do away with the degradation of the 1.4x than eliminate the far focus restriction with that focal range. I think the only argument for the 100 + 1.4x is that you already have the 100. Because I use a macro zoom rather than a 60 and a 100, I go straight to the 150 for supermacro stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canon 100mm with Kenko 1.4x is 79mm x 139mm in length and weighs 732g. The Sigma is nearly identical in dimensions at 79mm x 137mm long and it weighs 895g. There's a half pound difference in weight but no difference in size. To say that the Sigma 150mm is huge is completely wrong. It fits in the Nexus multiport for the old Nikon 105 and leaves room for a 500D AND a filter.

 

BTW, the Nikon 105VR is 83x116 and 790g. The Sigma is neither big nor heavy, the Canon 100 is simply light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You tell them Craig! Plus it's F2.8 which helps a LOT if you want to use autofocus. The 100+1.4x is F4

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James-I am going to try out my 2x Canon TC on my 100mm macro and see how it shoots. I should have an extra ring that will bump it out. Good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James, f2.8 is better but on the 5D2, only the center and 2 of the invisible AF assist points are more sensitive (albeit 2x more) with f2.8 and wider lenses. So the benefit may vary. Also f2.8 also gives a slightly brighter VF (but then there's Live View :)).

As for long macro lenses, flexibility is what the TC gives. In exchange of a bit of image degradation, you have 2 focal lengths (100 and 140mm) with a small TC which can also be used on the fisheye or whatever wideangle/telephoto. This helps with travel considerably instead of carrying 2 1.5lbs lenses. Of course, if I knew I would be shooting macro predominantly, then obviously the specialized lenses would be the best choice.

Staying ON TOPIC, with the 16-35II and the 82mm filter size, there aren't any quality diopters at that size. The Heliopan slims still cause vignetting at 16mm. And at 21mp, any imperfections will show much more. Something to think about for UW WA. The 17-40 is a great lens and can fit a diopter. Still the corners aren't exceptional. Matt and Jeff have experimented with the Tokina 10-17 FE with a TC (wow this thing is really useful!) and Jeff loves it. You get vignetting up to 12mm if I remember correctly. You want clean corners, stick above 19mm and you'll be good. Do a search on diopters (and dioptre for Mr Dioptre Alex M's posts) to find out the theory behind it. Then make up your mind what you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that flexibility is the reason the 100 is used with the 1.4x more often than the 150mm. Thing is, you rarely hear people advance the argument that you should use a 60mm with a 1.4x over a 100mm through the same reasoning. Why is that?

 

If I were shooting full frame, I would be using the 150mm focal length more often than the 100mm and I'd rather optimize my most commonly used configuration. For full frame, I would take a 60mm, a 150mm, and a 1.4x and leave the 100mm and 2x at home. In DX, there are advocates of the 60 as the standard lens and others that advocate the 100mm. When it comes to full frame, I find it interesting that there are so few that stick with the longer equivalent. I think because Nikon and Canon don't make it many won't consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Tokina 10-17mm FE will not work with a full-frame sensor. The Canon or Sigma 15mm FE should be OK if I understand correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Tokina 10-17mm FE will not work with a full-frame sensor. The Canon or Sigma 15mm FE should be OK if I understand correctly.

Jeff (Loftus) has posted images shot successfully with the 10-17 and a 1.4x Tele Converter, which allows the lens to cover FF.

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28899

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James, f2.8 is better but on the 5D2, only the center and 2 of the invisible AF assist points are more sensitive (albeit 2x more) with f2.8 and wider lenses. So the benefit may vary. Also f2.8 also gives a slightly brighter VF (but then there's Live View :)).

As for long macro lenses, flexibility is what the TC gives. In exchange of a bit of image degradation, you have 2 focal lengths (100 and 140mm) with a small TC which can also be used on the fisheye or whatever wideangle/telephoto. This helps with travel considerably instead of carrying 2 1.5lbs lenses. Of course, if I knew I would be shooting macro predominantly, then obviously the specialized lenses would be the best choice.

Staying ON TOPIC, with the 16-35II and the 82mm filter size, there aren't any quality diopters at that size. The Heliopan slims still cause vignetting at 16mm. And at 21mp, any imperfections will show much more. Something to think about for UW WA. The 17-40 is a great lens and can fit a diopter. Still the corners aren't exceptional. Matt and Jeff have experimented with the Tokina 10-17 FE with a TC (wow this thing is really useful!) and Jeff loves it. You get vignetting up to 12mm if I remember correctly. You want clean corners, stick above 19mm and you'll be good. Do a search on diopters (and dioptre for Mr Dioptre Alex M's posts) to find out the theory behind it. Then make up your mind what you need.

 

Excuse my ignorance, but why would you use a diopter at all with the 16-35 /17-40? I was under the impression the diopter and TC stuff was for the 50/80/100/150mm lens in macro stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse my ignorance, but why would you use a diopter at all with the 16-35 /17-40? I was under the impression the diopter and TC stuff was for the 50/80/100/150mm lens in macro stuff.

Ahhh haaa.

 

You need to do a a search on dome theory my friend. Or wide angle corner sharpness. Lots of answers with some time spent. Basically the dome makes a virtual image that the lens needs to focus on, and that virtual image is closer than the real subject distance. So the diopter decreases the minimum focal length to allow for the lens to focus on the virtual image. The esteemed Dr Mustard also likes them as they introduce a curved field which in theory could make for better corner sharpness. Although someone on an extensive thread recently bought to Alex's attention the better corners were more likely be due to the decreased field of view once the diopter was attached.

 

As for the 1.4x TC on the cropped sensor compatible 10-17, that's all about increasing the size of the image projected by the lens, so that it covers the Full Frame sensor.

 

Everyone learns a lot here on Wetpixel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx

 

as you can see, the 15mm is "wider" than the 14, because of the fisheye effect, which is not that bad to have underwater.

 

Just as a quick note - the comparison on this page is not accurate for the 5DMk2, because it was done on a crop sensor camera. Because of the inherent barrel distortion, the angle of view of a fisheye lens is not evenly distributed across the diagonal of the frame, with a greater degree of coverage towards the corners. This means when testing FF lenses on a crop body, as this test does, you will reduce the angle of coverage proportionally much more on a fisheye than a rectilinear wide angle. So on the 5DMk2 the 15mm would have a much wider angle of coverage compared with the 14mm, than you see in those tests.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as a quick note - the comparison on this page is not accurate for the 5DMk2, because it was done on a crop sensor camera. Because of the inherent barrel distortion, the angle of view of a fisheye lens is not evenly distributed across the diagonal of the frame, with a greater degree of coverage towards the corners. This means when testing FF lenses on a crop body, as this test does, you will reduce the angle of coverage proportionally much more on a fisheye than a rectilinear wide angle. So on the 5DMk2 the 15mm would have a much wider angle of coverage compared with the 14mm, than you see in those tests.

 

Alex

 

thanks for the class ! :)

 

I've read that the Sigma 15mm "is" better than the Canon 15mm. ("noise" during focus, slow AF, price...)

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've read that the Sigma 15mm "is" better than the Canon 15mm. ("noise" during focus, slow AF, price...)

What do you think?

 

I'm not a Canon user, so I dunno. The Sigma 15mm is significantly better than the Nikon 16mm in terms of close focus. But I was always under the impression that the Sigma and Canon 15mms were pretty close on performance. I think the Sigma is a bit cheaper - but the Canon probably has a better build quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the Sigma FE(several copies) before settling for the Canon. Sharpness wise I couldn't tell the difference between the 2. This is all on full frame or APS-B (1.25crop)

Pros:

4 year warranty in the US.

It focuses closer

40% cheaper.

Lens cap is better (but both suck!)

Slight yellow tint in pic (which is great for uw, and easily removed in post)

Cons:

The Sigma QC: I tried 3 copies. 2 front focused (yes you can tell even with a FE DOF). I had the same issue with the Sigma 12-24 (but I put up with it because I love that lens!).

Construction material the Canon has a very slight advantage.

CA is more noticeable in the corners.

 

The only reason I kept the Canon is because the the Sigma extends a bit when focusing and thus can suck in more dust. I use my lenses in high dust environments sometimes so I went with Canon.

For primarily u/w use, I'd go with the Sigma but test a few copies to get a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can extract the bottom line from this discussion, it sounds like a good combo would be Canon 16-35mm II and the Canon 15mm FE (if I have left over $). Currently have 100mm macro (whick I like) and I also have a 1.4x TC which should come in handy as well. Diopter may be needed for the wide angle lens but could have a problem finding 82mm at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...