[toni-a]

Hi all, 

I intend to get an ultra wide angle lens, however I am not sure to which format should I go:

Using 30D for almost all my  shots and slowy  5D only with prime lenses for portraits.

I intend to get an ultrawide angle lens however I am not sure for which format I should get the lens:

a nice 16 or 17-XX prime or zoom for 5D or a 10-XX prime or zoom for APS-C

which is better especially from perspective view side

 

[Brightcolours]

There is no difference at all, concerning "perspective".

 

And primes? For FF there are really only 14mm primes. The Canon costs a lot and AFs, the Samyang distots a lot and has no AF. There were 17mm primes a decade ago, from Tokina. They are ok-ish from f8 and up. And from Tamron, a bit longer ago even.

Samyang has a 10mm f2.8 MF lens for APS-C.

 

UWA zooms for APS-C are cheaper and lighter. 

[popo]

I recently got the EF-S 10-18mm and it is fun, reminds me of the Sigma 10-20 I used to have years ago. They're slow lenses anyway. The way I tend to use these is to stop to f/8 or so, and you largely don't have to worry about focus accuracy at that point. Sigma do the 8-16mm too, if you need something even wider without going fisheye.

 

If you went the full frame route, it is easier to gain on effective speed from both the lens and the bigger sensor size. On the budget end there's the 17-40 f/4L I guess. Full frame would also keep the door more open to tilt shift lenses. For sure that isn't a budget option.

[JJ_SO]

I had 10-24 for APS-C and still have 14-24 for FF, which is also comparatively fast. If you like to play with a shallow DoF, then I'd recommend FF lens as you can use those for APS-C as well. But if you always want to go for a large DoF, then the smaller lens is lighter. I like to see as much details as possible, therefore 36 MP and the 14-24 are the right way. I also had the Sigma before and did like it, too.

[Rover]

I'm using a Sigma 14mm f/2.8 prime which is generally rare and out of production, but very nice. Not tried it on FF though but the corners are not very sharp until stopped down a lot even on APS-H. That's often irrelevant for the subject of course.

The old Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 zoom for APS-C was rather nice - I used it on two occasions.

[nuke12]

Well, a question here. I understand why a person might prefer an APS-C type camera + lens for long focal length lenses. because of the narrower angle of view.

 

Is there a reason why one would want an APS-C type camera when your dealing with UW photography? Price as one suggested but that aside, wouldn't FF be the better tool? To get the same AOV as a FF 14mm, your looking at a 9mm lens.

[Brightcolours]

Well, a question here. I understand why a person might prefer an APS-C type camera + lens for long focal length lenses. because of the narrower angle of view.

 

Is there a reason why one would want an APS-C type camera when your dealing with UW photography? Price as one suggested but that aside, wouldn't FF be the better tool? To get the same AOV as a FF 14mm, your looking at a 9mm lens.

 

What is the problem there? If one wants that FOV, one gets 9mm (Sigma 8-16mm). What would be the reason FF would be the better tool?

[popo]

If the lens exists, then there's a choice to be made. If the lens was available for one but not the other, you take it or leave it. I still think the difference is effective speed, if you need it.

[nuke12]

What is the problem there? If one wants that FOV, one gets 9mm (Sigma 8-16mm). What would be the reason FF would be the better tool?

 

I'm not suggesting it can't be done. I'm asking because the people I've seen, that are into landscapes big time with UWs, seem to lean towards FF. Right or wrong, I assumed, it was the preferred tool. Thus my question.

[JJ_SO]

And out of this two choices it IS the better tool, of course.  ^_^ Compared to an APS-C (Bayer-pattern) Sensor and given the max. possible resolution, the full frame provides more details at the same printing size. Which should be a bit more than 8×10"...

 

But then, a Medium Format sensor provides more detail and color depth than the Full Frame. And if you have a very quiet and not moving at all landscape, you could stitch a couple of frames together and so on… 

 

That's valid, if "landscape" means "lots of details". To get a characteristically impression of a landscape, I can use much less details. But then I prefer to reduce the (maybe distracting) details later on and still benefit more from a higher resolving sensor. Which, by the way, I'm happy to use for tele shots and crop them afterwards. A current Nikon D8x0 is always a decent APS-C, too - and all in one body.

 

I mentioned "Bayer-pattern" before, because if the light conditions are not too much of a contrast and I don't need the FoV of an ultra wide lens, I still prefer using Foveon sensors - lots of details, incredible sharpness. If Sigma ever manages to make a FF Foveon, together with fast enough CPU to save ~ 120MB RAW data per picture, not much people would care for Otus lenses in front of Bayer-sensors  -_- well, one  can dream...