# 17-40 Replacement



## joaopedroglm (Jul 12, 2013)

Hello,

So i use the 17-40 for Landscape photography and i`m not happy with the results, so i m considering the Zeiss 21 2.8 or the 24 II TSE 3.5, i would like to know some opinions and if i will see major result differences with these lens that i mentioned.

Thanks.


Canon 5D2, Canon 7D, Canon 17-40 , Sigma 35mm, Canon 70-200 IS II


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 12, 2013)

I don't love the 17-40 but I do like the 17-40. It makes great results @ 5.6 and that's where I begin aperture wise for landscapes.


----------



## callmeasyoulike (Jul 12, 2013)

joaopedroglm said:


> Hello,
> 
> So i use the 17-40 for Landscape photography and i`m not happy with the results, so i m considering the Zeiss 21 2.8 or the 24 II TSE 3.5, i would like to know some opinions and if i will see major result differences with these lens that i mentioned.
> 
> ...



I have the same "problem" (if its a real problem). Most of the time the 17-40 is pretty enough, but sometimes I wish I had a lens wich is more consistent in sharpness. I`m thinking about the TS-E 24 ... maybe I will work more often with stitching images.
Funny: I nearly own the same lenses and cameras as you do  maybe a special problem of this compilation ;D


----------



## Jo7hs2 (Jul 12, 2013)

If you can afford it, everything I've read on the topic suggests the mark II TSE 24 is stunning, and of course you also get tilt-shift in the equation. The latter point is enough that I've been considering the somewhat less stunning (but still perfectly good) mark I for some time now. I've never really been dissatisfied with my 17-40, but I typically use it fairly well stopped down, for long exposure waterfall work or other nature photography.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Jul 12, 2013)

I feel your pain as I've had and sold the 17-40, twice. Had the 16-35 f2.8L mark 1 and sold that and now have the equally as horrible mark II version. It works 'ok' at F4 - F11 but still soft in the corners. I only use it when I need the 16mm range, with caution.

The landscape lenses I use now are the 24TSE-II and a Zeiss 35mm 2.0 or the Sigma 35mm 1.4. All three are incredibly sharp throughout 'most' of the range. I hope in time to sell one of the 35mm's as I don't need to carry more than I can use. 

As you know, both the TSE and Zeiss are manual focus. Getting critical sharpness is lesson to learn. I'm lucky enough to also use a Zeiss 100mm, which for landscape, is a great tool also.

You also mentioned the Canon 24mm II which I've heard is also a great lens but the TSE appears to out perform it in the IQ arena.

Lastly, the Zeiss 21mm would be my next purchase after I sell some of my other mothball fleet lenses.

Best of Luck


----------



## joaopedroglm (Jul 14, 2013)

Thanks Guys

Still a hard decision


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 14, 2013)

Given that both options are manual focus, I'd go with the TS-E 24. Typically used for architectural photography, the movements also come in handy for landscapes. I use shift to so some quick panoramas and to get a shot that I can not get to. I use tilt far less but it useful when you can. If you don't use the movements, the TS-E 24 II is still about the best 24mm lens around.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 14, 2013)

The TSE 24 is a very good lens. However, keep in mind that you need a tripod to get the benefit out of the T&S functions, otherwise you will be left with a very sharp, albeit a slow 24mm prime.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 14, 2013)

I don´t know the Zeiss, other than all the positive things written about it. 

I personally love 24 mm. I think that is the best wide angle you can get, before your side perspective gets too distorted. I have had the 17-40 and both versions of the 16-35 (still have 16-35 vII) I hardly used or use them. 

The 24 TS-E f3.5L II is a great lens. Without using the tilt & shift it still outperforms any 24mm I have seen, except for the fact that it is manual focus. With the tilt & shift you can do awesome things with it. A lot of people think architecture when they hear of T&S lenses. But they have lots of great use in nature and landscape photography. you can create incredible depth of field and correct perspective in forests etc. You can also create very cool effects, by shifting the focusing layer vertically, to be an angle off the straight parallel line you get with all other lenses. 

If you are willing to spend the time it takes to exploit the potential of this lens, you will see many great results. You need a good camera body, a good tripod and lots of extra work pr. shot. But in my view, that is what makes photography fun.

Good luck!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 14, 2013)

I'm very pleased with my 17-40, actually - one of my favorite lenses. I use it exclusively on my 5D Mk II and I'm very happy with the results. I also love the portability of the 17-40 which makes it great for travel. I'm not a landscape-shooter per-se but I do extensively use this lens when traveling. 

Supposedly it's the best WA zoom Canon has to offer, so I would suggest you look into a prime as suggested by others on this forum (though a T&S would perhaps be a little overkill). How about a 24mm L? Note I've no experience with the latter. I do have a Samyang 14mm and a Sigma 20mm - interesting lenses but not for landscape work I'd say...


----------



## joaopedroglm (Jul 15, 2013)

And what about the Zeiss, anyone who have experience with this lens?


----------



## rumorzmonger (Jul 15, 2013)

joaopedroglm said:


> And what about the Zeiss, anyone who have experience with this lens?



The Zeiss 21mm f2.8 is a superb lens - equal to or better than the Canon 24mm f3.5L II TS-E in most respects, except the Zeiss has a little bit of distortion.


----------



## joaopedroglm (Jul 17, 2013)

What about the colors?


----------



## docholliday (Jul 17, 2013)

joaopedroglm said:


> What about the colors?



It's very Zeissy!


----------



## rsk7 (Jul 17, 2013)

I highly recommend the 24 TSE II. 

The Tilt and Shift give you lots of flexibility to be creative with a shot that you just cannot do with other lens. I shift all the time not only to fix perspective but to give me slightly diff angles on the shot that I can't move to get. Like when standing on the edge of a cliff or if I need to be a bit taller. Shift you can also use handheld without any issues unless you are trying to panorama with it. Then I'd recommend the tripod.

With manual focus of the lens I can still get focus confirmation from my 5D3 so while it isn't changing the focus for me, I do get the little dot in the view finder confirming that my selected focus point is in focus.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 18, 2013)

When you do landscape shots, do you manually focus to infinity then stop down to f16? If you have never done it, try it. You will be surprised by how much the border and corner improves.

Reason? Canon's UWA zooms all suffer from severe field curvature. I have used all 4 of them: 17-40 f4, 17-35 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8 I and II, they all exhibit this. The field curves inward from center to corner, pretty heavily.

If you let the AF focus on center frame, the corner will be very out of focus. However if you manually focus to infinity, then corner focus plane will at least be pushed further and won't be so out of focus anymore.


----------



## joaopedroglm (Jul 18, 2013)

I use manual live view focus, and normally F11. I think the 17-40 is a good lens, but i want outstanding IQ, thats the reason.

I know the 24 TSE II is very sharp, and the tilt/shift capability is a plus, but i`ve heard that the colors and microcontrast of the Zeiss are remarkable and really make a difference.


----------



## wayno (Jul 18, 2013)

I thought the 17-40 was a really good lens... Until I got the 24-70 mk2. I think of it as very capable now but it doesn't have the X factor of the 24-70 mk2- which I suspect is not dissimilar to the Zeiss 21...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 18, 2013)

The 17-40 can be good, but you have to stop down. Use it at 24-28mm and f/11 for good edge to edge sharpness. That's the case with other lenses as well (except Tilt- shift). Use it at f/11 - f/16 depending on the depth of field you need.

After f/11, all lenses are basically the same, because diffraction becomes the limiting factor, so don't expect a expensive lens to be noticeably better at f/16. Check the MTF charts at the test sites, the results start to equalize at f/8, by f/11 they are similar, and by f/16 they will be identical.

The beauty of a TS-E is that you can get a greater depth of field without stopping down so far, which means better results by using the optimum aperture. You can use that 17mm TS-e at f/8 or even a little wider aperture.

In any event, the point is that when you are doing landscape, you must stop down to get depth of field, and then spending $$$$ additional only gives a tiny bit of improvement, or virtually none at f/16.

17-40mm 






Zeiss 21mm






Canon 24mm TS-E


----------



## joaopedroglm (Jul 18, 2013)

Thanks, thats very interesting.


----------

