Ultrawide on Alpha 900 / Sig 12-24 or Minnie 17-35/2.4-4

[mdcromer]

Hi everyone. Been reading here for a few months but just registered today for posting.

I've decided to purchase an Alpha 900 for landscape photography. I have already decided upon and purchased the 28-135, beercan, and 50/1.4 . Got some nice prices on ebay and the lenses should be arriving shortly. The camera body itself I'll probably pick up in January.

Right now I am shooting with a Sony R1, which is pretty brilliant for a 10MP cam, but the 25MP of the 900 will run circles around it for ultimate image detail.

I have one more lens to purchase, and I have not decided for sure which one I am going to get. Which ultrawide is the best?

I like the 20/2.8 samples I have seen, and David's 17-35 images on pbase are very impressive. David, I believe you mentioned that you have moved to the Sigma 12-24 now? Can you comment on the reasons for that? Also I am curious why you decided on the 28-105 over the 28-135/4-4.5? Size and close-focus, or is there something about the IQ of the 28-135 that you don't care for?

Anyway, my most likely candidates for ultrawide are the Sigma 12-24 and Minnie 17-35/2.4-4. Obviously, the Sigma is a LOT wider, but slower and doesn't support filters. I'll be shooting landscapes at f/16 or smaller most of the time.

[David Kilpatrick]

A lot of questions. First, I test equipment on loan and the Sigma 12-24mm falls into this class. I made good use of it and must consider whether I need this range. I do prefer to make unique images where possible because I'm selling stock photography and views which others do not repeat are saleable:







There are over 1000 shots of Palma Mallorca cathedral on Alamy from dozens (maybe hundreds) of contributors, but mine are the only straight-line wide angle views showing as much (there's one stitched interior cylindrical perspective, and some rather dark exterior fisheye shots). All that this shows is that no-one previously photographing this subject and submitting to Alamy has had a 12mm lens on full frame, whether on film or digital. You would imagine plenty of people would have by now, but not so. I'm not happy with the density and colour of the thumbnails/comps on Alamy and wish they did proper colour management on the AdobeRGB originals.

I have opted for the 28-105mm because it has a very flat field, without edge falloff, when used for close-ups - which it does fairly well at 105mm. The 28-135mm is limited to 28mm on its macro setting, otherwise you must be 5 feet from the subject and that is no use to me whatsoever. I owned it in film days, and shot a trip to Sweden with it, wonderful quality pix but I missed so many opportunities due to the focus restriction. That is a deal-breaker for me (am I am not keen on the size, the lack of a lens hood, the low overall image contrast despite high microcontrast, and the 72mm filter requirement - the 28-105mm shared a polarizer with my 75-300mm SSM G when travelling last week).

On Saturday a Canon 5D MkII arrives for test. I gather they are sending out 24-105mm f4 L lenses with them. I'll be interested to find out if that lens is adequate for 21 MP full frame. Very few of my pro readers use it, they generally rate it not up to the job and use the 24-70mm f2.8 L as their standard.

David

[mdcromer]

Thanks David for all that very useful feedback.

Some very cool views from the Sigma "popeye"!

I figure I can use a gel polarizer when desired.

The possibilities of wider than 17mm are very tempting. . . I think I'll have to get the Sigma even though it costs twice as much.

I don't shoot many close-ups so I think I can live with the 28-135 for now. . .

[David Kilpatrick]

You don't need a polarizer for the 12-24mm, in fact it's almost impossible to use as the lens takes in too wide an angle of sky. I never use polarizers with anything wider than 24mm, and find that even with a 28mm on full frame it is sometimes impossible to get an even sky tone with a polarizer. The shot in Palma (the exterior) did not have very brilliant sunshine or a very clear blue sky, on a winter morning, and no polarizer was used.

David

[Dr. Harout]

Back in the film days, for me the wide limit was 20mm. Kind of didn't like wider view, though very subjective. I would stick to the 20/2.8, but that's just me (I love primes).
And BTW welcome to the forum.

[mdcromer]

Actually I hardly ever use polarizers for skies, mostly I use them to control glare off foliage and water. In that application they can be useful with ultrawides.

[caporip]

I really like the 12-24. used it last weekend at Ightam Mote in Seveoaks and its reach is excellent as is in my view the IQ. As David points out it does provide a unique perspective on FF:-

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/305 ... 155c_b.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/305 ... 5bca_b.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[David Kilpatrick]

Actually I hardly ever use polarizers for skies, mostly I use them to control glare off foliage and water. In that application they can be useful with ultrawides.

But the control is still zonal off water, and if there is a sky present, it can get ugly! I find autumn/polarizer is best with a tele lens - no sky at all, maximum visual saturation. Or it would be, if we did not get winds blowing all the autumn colours away the day before they were about to be perfect

David

[pakodominguez]

There are over 1000 shots of Palma Mallorca cathedral on Alamy from dozens (maybe hundreds) of contributors, but mine are the only straight-line wide angle views

That lens gave you those straight-lines or you did some PP?

On Saturday a Canon 5D MkII arrives for test. I gather they are sending out 24-105mm f4 L lenses with them. I'll be interested to find out if that lens is adequate for 21 MP full frame. Very few of my pro readers use it, they generally rate it not up to the job and use the 24-70mm f2.8 L as their standard.

Yep, one of my canonite friends use the 24~105 and I never liked his pics: too soft everywhere even at f5.6 or f8. Now he's shooting protraits with a 85 f1.8 and there is a HUGE difference.

Regards

[David Kilpatrick]

There are over 1000 shots of Palma Mallorca cathedral on Alamy from dozens (maybe hundreds) of contributors, but mine are the only straight-line wide angle views

That lens gave you those straight-lines or you did some PP?

I did not PP the horizontal interior pic or the exterior view, those are from the lens. I was tempted to make the exterior 'shift lens' in accuracy (there's enough pic there to do so) but felt that some convergence looked better. The vertical interior shot includes the lintel above the door I was shooting in front of, so extreme is the 12mm angle. Despite my attempts squatting down and squinting through the finder while adjusting a 30 Euro tripod (bought a few minutes earlier from a store nearby to allow the interiors, after being told that a tripod would be allowed) I could not get dead perfect alignment. So this one has been pulled around a bit and a touch of barrel distortion has been removed, to make the lintel run more parallel to the frame top.

The 12-24mm is staggeringly good for straight-line geometry. It beats the 17-35mm D and it is close to the Nikon 14-24mm in overall drawing accuracy. I think Sigma get a cheque from me for this one, not a lens returned.

David

[alphaPDX]

Check my FS post .. just in case?

[Philip]

David, I find that my copy of the 12-24 gets really very soft after about 14/15mm on my A900, and not just at the edge, but across the frame (even stopped down to f11). How does this compare with your copy?

[David Kilpatrick]

I have been able to find some similar views taken at 12, 16, 17 and 20mm and also with the 28-105mm at 28mm - all at f9 or f10, because I was working with aperture priority. The 12-24mm appears to be very sharp, evenly and equally sharp, across the range of settings but the 28-105mm has a slight edge mainly due to much better shadow detail and colour balance, and less tendency to underexpose. The 12-24mm is soft towards the left hand edge in some shots, and examining a few shows that this is due to a slight parallelism error in the Alpha 900 (or the lens, most likely the camera). Where the right hand edge is focused on infinity the left hand edge is focused around 1 metre. This can give an impression of softness depending on the subject, true focus point centrally, and the aperture used.

I have used the 12-24mm on many cameras in the past and always found a similar situation - that either the lens or the camera had a tendency to be out of true. The tolerances at 12mm are so demanding that it's not surprising.

CA is worst in the middle of the range - there is very little at 12mm, hardly any again by 20mm, but it's visible at 16-17mm. No 24mm example to check.

David

[Philip]

Thanks for your reply David. It is as I feared, probably my copy of the lens. While it is totally usable at 12mm (which is, after all, why I originally bought it!) I really don't think photos taken above 16mm would pass Alamy QC, so I haven't bothered submitting any. I'll do a few tests to see whether it might be BF or FF, but if it nails the focus at 12mm, I don't think it's likely to be a focusing issue. What do you think?

Philip

[Greg Beetham]

Wowie zowie David how did you organize those clouds over/behind the cathedral radiating away from it like that? it really makes that shot.
btw did you have a look at it scrolled down past the bottom page bar so the image is nearly square format? with a fair amount of those steps hidden from view, just the cathedral and some forecourt and a few steps visible, that too my eye looks even better.
Greg