Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

best short zoom lenses to be used with canon mount?

Joel Arvidsson

Joel Arvidsson

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
46
Location
Sweden
I started this thread for short zooms that is wide or super wide.


Wich short zooms would you recomend for the canonmount? Was going to pick up a canon 16-35 but after reading its soft focus im not sure. Some say the 17-55 is sharper so i might go that direction. For superwide the tokina 11-16 looks interestig but for this range i could consider a prime. Is there any other brand that is supported that would be a better choiche.

This thread is focused on short wide zooms and super wide lenses.
 
Super wide... Tokina 11-16 f2.8.
I own both the Tokina and the Duclos PL mount version and don't know of any other wide lens as fast for such a low price.
 
Maik Müller Menendez said:
Just don't forget, that lens is made for APS-C, it's probably not usable in 5k-mode.
Click to expand...

APS C is a range from 20.7×13.8 to 28.7×19.1, Scarlet/Epic are 27.7x14.9, within that range.
I believe APS C lenses should work fine.
 
I'm also very interested in takes on the canon 17-55 as I'm planing on buy one to use it as my every day lens. I've read it is one of the only canon lenseses that can resolve the 7D's 18 MP on a APS-C size sensor. I've used it only a few times on 7D jobs and what I think is cool about that lenses is that it doesent step correct the iris on zoom moves, it rather does it in a very smooth way despite the fact that it is not a "L" séries lens. I also tought that the flare was nicier them most canon ef-s lenses. What is also cool is the IS. But as I said, I'm very interested in hearing every one's opinions on this lens.
 
Last edited:
I've found the Canon ef-s 17-55 ramps quite a bit, to the point where at 55mm it is nearly a t4 even if it says its f2.8. I'd estimate it ramps at least 2/3stop maybe even 1 full stop though I didn't test specifically.
 
I hadn't the chance to make a proper test yet, I couldn't notice the said luminosity loss but what I meant was that on zoom moves, the iris compensation was not clicky as it is on most ef-s lenses. I also moticed the 24-70 to have the same luminoskty loss you describe on the 17-55.
 
The 24-70 has some stop loss, but not nearly as bad as it is on the 17-55. The 11-16 is great and sharp, especially at 16. It's a killer lens.
 
I would love the Tokina 11-16 but I am also not sure about it because it's for the smaller sensor. Can this be discussed further?
 
its eith tokina or tamron, that has a 17-50 that is a 2.8... pretty sure its the glass the RED 17-50 is based around. Not the mechanics but the actual lenses and image quality. That being said my RED 17-50 gets used on everything I do... great lens, very sharp.
 
If you don't mind using an adapter and loose af, the nikon 14-24 is a monster !!!
 
This has been talked about many times in many threads, but basically any lens made for any 35mm still camera is going to cover the Scarlet's image circle, even at 5k for stills. There are a few exceptions, but not a ton. The Scarlet's sensor is roughly the same size as the 7D's (APS-C) at 4k.
 
The Tokina 11-16 covers the 4K of the RED ONE without issue. So it will cover the 4K of the Scarlet without issue. Will it cover the 5K of the epic? Most people say they like to use it with the epic, so I'm guessing it does cover. I remember someone posting some samples of the vignetting here.
 
I'm not a fan of the 16-35 as there is a LOT of barrel distortion. It's great for that semi fisheye look, however, I don't even like taking stills with it, as people heads appear stretched in the corners. The 14mm is great for that. The 11-16 is better, I think.
 
I agree that the 16-35 has a bit too much distortion for its focal lengths and price point. It's very sharp, which is nice, so if you're shooting in a wide open space without too much foreground business it's a rock star, but when you're shooting in a crowded room people bend around your lens like crazy. The 11-16 distorts about equally at 11mm to the 16-35 at 16mm.
 
Harry Charnock said:
16-35 2.8L is very sharp. Highly recommend.
Click to expand...

ProfNoxin said:
I agree that the 16-35 has a bit too much distortion for its focal lengths and price point. It's very sharp, which is nice,
Click to expand...

For 24x36mm image planes it isn't that good wide-open. See the relevant image sections in this test (by the 'infamous' Ken Rockwell):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/21mm-comparison.htm

Even on APS-C it doesn't do too well:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/175-canon-ef-16-35mm-f28-usm-l-lab-test-report--review?start=1

The 11-16 does better at 16mm than does the Canon in terms of resolving power, but let's be honest, they aren't competing lenses:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=1

The Tokina suffers more from lateral CAs though as you can see, even on APS-C.

Arnold F. said:
I would love the Tokina 11-16 but I am also not sure about it because it's for the smaller sensor. Can this be discussed further?
Click to expand...

The Tokina covers FX (24x36) at 16mm, but resolution will suffer. Have a look at this informal test to see how it performs on a D700:

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Zl9G

The point I'm making here is that if it covers FX at 16mm, it will cover anything less than FX which the REDs all have. You might even be able to use it at 14-15mm on the RED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top