# fill the void -17mm to 24mm



## NWPhil (Jan 19, 2012)

So, I am considering selling my 17-40mm f4L from Canon.
I have already the 15mm fish eye and the Ts-e 24mm mk2. Love the wide angle lenses, but the 15mm distorts things too much, and the 24 is not wide enough sometimes.
What would you suggest to fill the gap in between? yes, needs to be a prime, and does not have to be canon, as long has stellar quality - same or better than the 17-40 at wide zoom set.
Thanks

update: using a 5Dmk2 body for wide lens


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2012)

Are you using this on FF, APS-H, or APS-C? What's your budget? The TS-E 17mm is excellent, and the 14mm f/2.8 II is also great.


----------



## vuilang (Jan 19, 2012)

maybe the Zeiss ZE 21mm f2.8?


----------



## Caps18 (Jan 19, 2012)

Canon has a 20mm f/2.8, I have the 16-35 f/2.8 and it is a great lens. They also have a 14mm. And there are software corrections supposedly.

But, the TS-E 17mm would be what I would get. And cropping the pictures or getting closer to fill the frame.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you using this on FF, APS-H, or APS-C? What's your budget? The TS-E 17mm is excellent, and the 14mm f/2.8 II is also great.


Hi Neuro - thanks for the reply.
I did update the info - yes, a full frame, although I have also the 40D, but for wide angles, is just the 5D2

budget? I would like to stay under 1k, but open minded (should say open-wallet?)
yes, I am thinking of the ts-e 17, but +2k is a lttle out at this moment; which means I would have to wait for next year/ fall on current
14mm is a little too wide, although a rectilinear lens. Considering prices, I would be better off with the tse 17 then.

So, who else makes a decent 16, 17 or 18mm prime?


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 19, 2012)

I've been looking into this as well. I'm pretty sure that I'l either buy the Zeiss Distagon 21 or 18 at some point. The 21 would probably be my first choice but it's also a lot more expensive.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2012)

The Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 is quite nice, although a bit outside your budget.

You stated 14mm is a bit too wide, but if you are willing to consider a completely manual lens (not just MF like the Zeiss, but manual aperture, too), the Samyang (Rokinon/Bower) 14mm f/2.8 is worth consideration - except for the hefty amount of distortion, IQ is similar to the much more expensive Canon 14/2.8L II (and the Samyang lens is $380).


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 19, 2012)

hmmm
indeed: canon 14mm II, TSE 17mm and Zeiss 21mm - all different beasts at about same price range of 2K.
yet, there is 3-4 degree difference from each other. 
- AF... is not a concern
- Filter... well can't really use CPL on wide angles, without some compromising
weight/size not a concern either
- price... once you get close to the 2k range, is not going to be a $200 dollars difference that makes you choose one over the other
- quality... seems that the 14mm is a little behind compared with the other two
- useability... TSE gives you a lot more but with drawbacks and that bulging front element- ouch!!! I would be afraid to take it hiking

In sum: I need a canon 14 price, with the TSE 17mm performamce(CA-IQ), and zeis built quality ;D


----------



## sawsedge (Jan 19, 2012)

No such beast yet. I'd say keep the 17-40 and keep saving for one of the high end primes.


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 19, 2012)

sawsedge said:


> No such beast yet. I'd say keep the 17-40 and keep saving for one of the high end primes.



+1 Why does it have to be a prime? Both the 17-40L and 16-35L are fantastic wide angle lenses. If you're ebing limited by the 17-40L, maybe try the 16-35 instead?


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 19, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> sawsedge said:
> 
> 
> > No such beast yet. I'd say keep the 17-40 and keep saving for one of the high end primes.
> ...



Or perhaps the 14mm or even the 8-15 (fisheye)


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> CowGummy said:
> 
> 
> > sawsedge said:
> ...



Nice choice of lenses for sure, but for 'filling the void between 17mm - 24mm... surely not really going to be contenders here?


----------



## Kernuak (Jan 19, 2012)

I haven't used it, but when I was looking at potential wideangle primes, I looked at the Zeiss Distagon 18mm and 21mm. The 18mm was a little too wide for my purpose at the time, but it was quite a bit cheaper than the 21mm and judging by reviews, the image quality was almost as good. I'm also considering selling my 17-40, as I don't use it as much as I used to, since I got the 5d MkII, partly because filters are more problematic, but also, the landscape around here doesn't suit extreme wideangle in many places (although there are some places it works). Full frame dose also show up it's corner softness, so the 16-35 MkII might come into my plans at some point or I might reconsider the Zeiss 18mm.


----------



## branden (Jan 19, 2012)

The Zeiss 21 is great.

The Zeiss 18 is just as great, but much slower. On paper, it's only 2/3 stop slower, but in use the vignetting on the 18mm is pretty severe -- enough to the point where you'll be wanting to shoot the lens at f/8 the whole time. Also the lens meters a 1/3 stop darker than Canon lenses. 

I've personal experience with both these lenses, and IMO there are very good reasons the Zeiss 21 is more expensive, and those reasons are apertures faster than f/5.6. 

If you're only ever shooting at f/8 or slower, then by all means go with the Zeiss 18.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 19, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> sawsedge said:
> 
> 
> > No such beast yet. I'd say keep the 17-40 and keep saving for one of the high end primes.
> ...



good points, but neither the 17-40 or the 16-35 are at same levels of abovementionated primes.
i do have the 35 the 24 and the 15; so the 17-40 become only a 'want-to-hike-lighter-today-lens"
14 is bit too wide for me - for landscapes. the 15 effect does not work well all the time, and the 24 or 35 don't give me the extra width i need.
a 6 or 17mm prime would be ideal - the 18mm zeis is a bit soft and plenty of CA


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 19, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > CowGummy said:
> ...



agreed - the 15mm is already a special use lens for me - it travels always as a secondary lens


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 19, 2012)

I'd say pick up a 17-40. Doh 

I think the 17mm TS-E is your only choice if quality is factor #1. I have it and it is an awesome lens. Check eBay, i bought mine used for $1600.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 19, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> I'd say pick up a 17-40. Doh
> 
> I think the 17mm TS-E is your only choice if quality is factor #1. I have it and it is an awesome lens. Check eBay, i bought mine used for $1600.



starting to agree with that more and more...
great deal at $1600 - new: they show from $1895 to...overpriced, and not many used in the last few weeks. 
I think I saw one about $1800 - used


----------



## stark-arts (Jan 19, 2012)

I've been through this as well and I have the added issue of being an unbelievably bad auto focuser - even with a lens that wide. I know everyone will say "it's all in focus with a wide anyway but not for the type of shooting i'm doing where I generally have a model or some other subject in the fore frame. 

I shoot with the 35 L primarily - own the 15 fish and sold the mark 1 version of the 16-35. I've had extensive chances to play with the new one and it's ok. NOT STELLAR. Someone else asked "why primes" and the answer as always is weight, aperture, and generally better performance. I have had many talks with Canon reps about the fact that (until the non-AF and super expensive 17 TSE) there is no L prime between 14 and 24 and that an 18 or 20 would be a welcome edition. F 2 perhaps...1.8 on the 20 end would be pretty sweet. 

Sigma makes one that is reasonably sharp but honestly focuses slowly...


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 20, 2012)

took a look at that sigma - the reviews give it low ratings
17 TS-E is indeed the better/best option for overall performance and view angle; that is, if you want that wide
maybe I can sell a kidney and then buy the full line of TS-Es...but I would have to drink less beer and wine - darn!!! :'(


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 20, 2012)

vuilang said:


> maybe the Zeiss ZE 21mm f2.8?



That's an awesome one, I'm having a tough time deciding between that and the 24L II. I really only used my 16-35mm for the wide end and with the 14mm it seems unnecessary, so I guess I'm going to sell it for the Zeiss 21 or 24L


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 21, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> vuilang said:
> 
> 
> > maybe the Zeiss ZE 21mm f2.8?
> ...



if you thinking indeed about a 24mm -------take look at the TS-E. I did, and will not look back
Zeiss 21 is a great lens too, according to reviews...and then there is the other TS-E (17mm)


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 22, 2012)

NWPhil said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > vuilang said:
> ...



I've actually never played with a TS-E, do you enjoy yours that much? I always thought they seemed pricey and somewhat limited in terms of functionality. If you don't tilt and shift it's just a plain 24mm right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> I've actually never played with a TS-E, do you enjoy yours that much? I always thought they seemed pricey and somewhat limited in terms of functionality. If you don't tilt and shift it's just a plain 24mm right?



I really like mine. For architecture, there's really no substitute. For landscapes, tilt is great. It's also a lot of fun just to play around with DoF effects. Without TS, I suppose it is just a 'plain 24mm' lens, and manual focus at that - but it's the sharpest and least-distorted 24mm lens you'll find.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 23, 2012)

1++ Neuro
it would be a waste to 'just' use it as a 24, because has so much more to give.
I never tried the 24efII, but I really love the 24 ts-e. Next upgrade I will make will be the TS-e17mm
Still think Canon is missing something between 14 and 24 as worth consideing prime - they can't/won't ever have every number in between(as prime) but seem logic that they should consider a 20mm (1.8?) or whatever they can make with low CA and soft edges
Zeiss has the 18 and 21, altough the 18 is a lesser performer - so there you have it 19-1/2


----------



## tron (Jan 23, 2012)

Sorry no other options:

1st choice: TS-E 17mm L
2nd choice: Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 

I have the later and I wish the former 

If you do not want your zoom you sell it, add the 1000$ which is your budget and you are closer to 
get a wonderful lens...


----------

