Rokinon 14mm.
Sigma 12-24

which is good?

which wide lens do you use?

need advice!

thanks

I use the EF 16-35/2.8L II, which I bought used. I haven't used the lenses you list.

Note that the Rokinon has very strong falloff, as is seen here (roll your mouse over to see the 16-35L II @ 16mm):
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Lens (Rokinon/Bower) Vignetting Test Results (http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=769&Camera=453&LensComp=412)

It doesn't look nearly as sharp in the center as the 16-35L (again, roll over):
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Lens (Rokinon/Bower) Image Quality (http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=769&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

But do you really want something as wide as 14mm? That's extremely wide. It's really only useful for special effects shots. It's almost a fisheye. This would be a great view for extreme sports, but would barely be used in narrative film.

For narrative on full frame, anything wider than 20mm is an effects shot. 24mm is about as wide as you want to go for a normal looking shot that captures a lot of space. 28mm has a bit less perspective distortion and is even easier to use for normal shooting. 35mm gets into the true normal range, but with a touch of wide lens attitude.

But for extreme sports, I think an ultrawide rocks - along with an 85mm lens for interviews and some very long lenses for capturing distant action. For narrative, however, 24 to 85mm is the sweet spot.

I own a 24-70 L lens.
24 is not wide enough
I need just a very wide angle almost as a fish eye for the effect, i work shooting events and i need this king of lens. so samyang is rokinon?

Other than the pricey Canon 14mm, there is...

Sigma 12-24mm which works with full frame. A nicely rectilinear (the world's widest according ken Rockwell). I ownd one for a short period when I first got my 1DsMK3, and found it unacceptably soft at frame edges and corners. Nothing to do with pixel peeping. It just wasn't sharp! The 5D2 & 3 would be in a similar position to the 1Ds3 I am thinking.

So I make do with the Canon 17-40mm f4 as my widest lens, but at least that is a fully sharp lens. Unfortunately I can't use it for DSLR video as I only have a 1DMK4 that will do video, and the 17-40mm will not work with APS-H.

So the 24-70mm f2.8L is the widest I can shoot video, but that is one of favourite lenses and VERY sharp.

I don't have personal experience with anything else, so won't offer an opinion.

There's Zeiss...
18mm or the king of wide...new 15mm f2.8 but it's almost as much as your 5D mk3!

I also use the 16-35 f2.8 which gives a bit of fisheye at 16 and is great through 35.

Yes, Samyang and Rokinon are the same lens with different brand names.

the 17-40mm will not work with APS-H.

Really? Isn't the 17-40 an EF (not EF-S) lens? I believe that it works on Full Frame, which is larger than APS-H.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Review (http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

Of course, it won't be as wide on APS-H. 17mm becomes 22mm or so.

Jon

Not sure what I was thinking there, but yes of course it works with APS/H. I actually shot some video with it fully wide today without giving it a second thought! I think I was in in a "why are there no ultra wides for APSH?" mood when I wrote it. :-(

The 16-35mm doesn't really fisheye at the wide end but you do need to be aware that vertical lines like a doorway will fall away if they are close to the edge of the frame. Same with the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm which has a very decent image is great value & is really really wide. It is of course manual only but with a 14mm you don't need to do much focusing as pretty much everything is in focus. I have both lenses but generally use the 16-35mm as it allows me to quickly reframe at a more conventional wide angle & of course has AF.

In my opinion the Canon EF 14mm is cheap for what it offers. I purchased one a few weeks ago and could not be happier with the results.

The 14mm is a fantastic lens & I wish that I could justify one but it's a bit of a one trick pony plus it's not that much wider than the 16-35mm & costs 50% more. I compromised by buying the 16-35mm plus the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm & still had change from what the Canon 14mm would have cost me.

Nigel we all pick what works for us, nice to have options. I jump from the 14 mm prime to the 24-105 and have not felt that I lost anything. For me the 16-35 not having IS hurts my type of shooting, and it is a fantastic lens.
As for the Rokinon I do not like their look as much as I like the warm Canon lens.

Yeah, the Canon EF 14/2.8L II gives lines so straight, it's scary.

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Distortion Test Results (http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=454)

On that image, there is only the slightest barrel distortion at the top edge. This would be impressive for a 50mm lens. At 14mm, it's amazing. (Roll the mouse over to see the Rokinon/Samyang for comparison.)

Personally, I think the 14mm would be absolutely killer for ultrawide landscape photographs, and for extreme sports. In those situations, I'm going to crank the 16-35 full wide to 16mm without thinking, so you don't lose anything by using a prime over a zoom.

On the other hand, a zoom is the better narrative lens. For instance, when shooting in a car, phone booth, elevator, or some other tight space, you can pull the camera back as far as the space allows, then zoom in or out to give the best framing. This is ideal. You could never have enough primes to solve all tight-space problems as effectively. Besides, aside from a 24/1.4 lens, all ultrawide primes are f/2.8 anyway, so going to an f/2.8 zoom doesn't really cost you anything.

FWIW, here are links to compare vignetting and sharpness of the Canon and Rokinon/Samyang. The Canon 14 is really a sweet piece of glass.

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Vignetting Test Results (http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=454&Camera=9&LensComp=769)

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Image Quality (http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=454&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=769&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Jon you always have great info.

I only use the 14mm in tight spots, landscape, or for extreme wide effects and it MUST be level. Which is nice that the MKIII has a digital level.

Would never use for narrative. For that I would pull out my 24-105 or 70-200 if needed.

I'd amend that. It must be level - or at an extreme angle. Nearly level is the dead zone.

I have access to a Zeiss 21/2.8 and it's also a bit of a dead zone lens. It's wide enough to act "funny" during normal shots but not wide enough to clearly be delivering an effect. I've developed a few "rules" for using the 21mm view effectively:

1) Don't stick it on a head-height tripod for a general purpose shot. It will look normal until you pan or somebody walks into the edge of the frame.

2) Keep people away from the edge of the frame. Q: "Does this lens make me look fat?" A: "Not in the middle of the frame, but definitely at the edge."

3) Stop down when possible - unless your subject is very close to the lens and the ground is not visible. For instance, if you break rule #1 and shoot at f/2.8 with a moderately distant subject, everything will be in focus except the ground near your feet. Rather than looking like shallow DOF, it looks like the lens is soft at the bottom. Very unattractive. However, shallow DOF can still work when you have the subject close enough to throw the background out of focus.

4) When possible, use up close at a dramatic angle. This clearly shows the effect of the lens and delivers a good, forced perspective view. Of course, this might not apply to landscapes and establishing shots.

5) Along with rule #1, use a dolly/jib/crane/Steadicam to move through space, rather than to pan. When you pan, the edges and middle compress and expand, looking like a lens thing. When you move through space, you see the perspective of the world change, which looks dramatic, rather than like an optical artifact.

6) Put the lens in the upper corner of the room for a security camera look. (Or avoid this if you don't want to channel "security camera.)

Applying those rules, I get some of my favorite shots with the 21/2.8. Ignore the rules, and I get shots that don't work so well. Many of the rules apply to ultra-wide end as well.

For instance, when shooting a light crowd in front of a large building or stadium, stop down the lens and put the camera low on the ground (rather than at tripod height - and yes, get it perfectly level.) I've done slow-shutter timelapses like this and the results rock! The same shot at eye height, wide open, just wouldn't capture the same energy. And if the camera is tilted or poorly centered on a symmetrical building, the eye will be drawn to the imperfections.

Ultrawides are a blast, but they are demanding. Put one in the hands of a photographer who leaves it in auto and stands there looking though the viewfinder and the results will likely be dull or poor. Give it to a photographer with expertise and creativity, and the results can be truly stunning and unique.

The lack of IS on the 16-35mm doesn't bother me one bit. I quite often shoot handheld at 16mm & at most it needs a bit of stabilisation in post but with the lens that wide you don't see any shakes. I mostly use this lens on my Glidecam & Steadicam Pilot. I also have the 24-105mm if I do need a lens with IS on the 5D3 but on the C300 I would be using the 17-55mm F/2.8 EF-S.

Jon those are excellent points to always keep in mind using wide and ultra wide. I am always very low with my 14mm. As for dolly or pan I only use it for stills on the MKIII but will keep all of your points in mind when I might use it on the C300 which is not often.

Nigel I bet the 16-35 is great for video but for wide on my C300 I use the EF 17-55 which is a very nice combo.

I shot a video a bit ago with 35mm, 85mm and 100mm (macro) lenses, and used the 21mm for a single b-roll shot. I wanted a "fear" moment, so I went to the local firehouse and asked to get footage of the ambulance rolling out of the garage. I set the tripod as low as it would go and got close to their path. In this case, I panned, but it was tracking the ambulance so it was okay. It worked great, and a wider lens than the 21mm would have been even better.

For the overall effect, I started in color and faded to black and white as I mixed in a newsprint effect and slowed the footage. The results was a classic "doom" shot that I couldn't have delivered with a tighter lens.

The rest of the piece was a technical documentary that required a more straightforward approach. The 21mm would have been wrong for every other shot. But for that one clip, an ultrawide was exactly what was needed.

Nigel I bet the 16-35 is great for video but for wide on my C300 I use the EF 17-55 which is a very nice combo.The 17-55mm F/2.8 EF-S is the lens that is on my C300 all the time. Just about the only other lens that I use on it is the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II which I would use all the time if I could stand far enough back:-)

Another vote for the 16-35mm for a wide lens. Does roll off as stated at the 16mm end but a great quality lens. The thumbnail on this video was at 16mm and the flying at around 21mm.

Nicki & John - An Ashridge House Wedding on Vimeo

Steve

Thanks i got the sigma 12-20 4.5-5.6,

Great stuff! here some footage i've taken


Winter 2013 Middle-East on Vimeo

I mainly use my 24-105 as my wide angle as I like the way the IS handles when I'm going hand-held at 24mm, it feels natural without to much wobble. Anything more than 24mm though and I'm not a fan of the distortion.

I use my 14mm as well but only on the rare occasion when I'm on a tripod and I can position the lens to minimize the distortion. Other than that, I don't find a need to go wider that 24mm as in most cases I'm actually wanting to get tighter and shoot more macro.

I use 24-70mm f2.8 with my 5D3 for video and photo both. Its awesome.

You may go for 16-35mm f2.8 or 17-40mm f4

I use the world famous Nikon 14-24 2.8 with a fotodiox adapter. A fantastic lens! Only downside is losing autofocus and electronics.

Really? Isn't the 17-40 an EF (not EF-S) lens? I believe that it works on Full Frame, which is larger than APS-H.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Review (http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

Of course, it won't be as wide on APS-H. 17mm becomes 22mm or so.

You are right, the 17-40 4.0 works just great on the 5D M3.

Today is thread resurrection day apparently...

Just thought I'd throw in that there's the Rokinon Cine 14mm for anyone interested.