# New wide angle lens for FF



## alexturton (Mar 14, 2013)

I'm looking for a new wide angle lens for 5dmkiii for landscapes. 

I'm selling a sigma 24 70 hsm because generally I find its not sharp enough and the af is slow. I have 35, 50 and 85 covered by wide aperture primes so I'm not to bothered with the zoom anymore either. 

The options I'm considering are 

Canon 16 35 f2.8 ii
Canon 24 f1.4 ii

Any thoughts on these two lenses? Or any other ideas to cover wide angle landscapes?

Thanks
Alex


----------



## Spooky (Mar 14, 2013)

Hi Alex, 

Not sure that a fast AF is a big deal in landscape shooting, I now use live view for getting focus and composition nailed.

if you like primes, give the 24 TSE lens some consideration. It is pricey and manual focussing, but for landscape, giving focal plane (depth control) and sharpness, it's hard to better.
I use a 17-40 at the moment without complaint, although the corners could be better. Some have said it is sharper and is certainly cheaper, than the 16-35.
I am intrigued with the rumours regarding a Canon 12-24...
Other folks rate the Samyang wides or you could adapt a Nikon 14-24, both of course would be manual.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 14, 2013)

Spooky said:


> *Other folks rate the Samyang wides or you could adapt a Nikon 14-24, both of course would be manual.*



+1


----------



## infared (Mar 14, 2013)

Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE....incredible lens.
Check this review...scroll down to the first set of evergreen tree branches comparison. The lens blows away anything Canon wide open.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

Zeiss does not get every Len "right" but this is one of their best.
I own one and cherish it....and I am currently saving up for their new 15mm ZE...another lens that they have really gotten right.

I think the 24mm TSE is good too....never used one tho. One of the Sam Yangs is supposed to be good for the money too. I just can't remember which one.
Waiting for the Canon zoom could be forever and then the price is sure to be a jaw dropper...you could and their is no guarantee what quality that lens may hold for us...Canon has a tough time with wide angle lenses.


----------



## yablonsky (Mar 14, 2013)

I can recommend the 17-40. Stopped down to f8 it's sharp enough for landscapes and wide enough of course.
It's light and nice to use.


----------



## alexturton (Mar 14, 2013)

I'm tilting towards the 24 1.4 because I can see the extra 2 stops being useful. Does anyone have any example shots of the 24mm @ 1.4?


----------



## ncsa (Mar 14, 2013)

For landscapes you will of course be stopping down so that opens up more lens choice but if you are also looking for low light work then the 24 1.4 is a great option.

I find that 24mm is not wide enough on FF and use the 17-40 but also the TS-E 24 which is really worth its cost - the movements on the new TS-E models really do provide flexibility and I am finding I use the 17-40 less and less, it will also depend on your budget too.

- TS-E 24 II
- 17-40
- 24 1.4

- TS-E 17 (but not easy to adapt for filter use)


----------



## wayno (Mar 14, 2013)

I find zooms very useful for landscapes. The 24 1.4 is great but somewhat limiting. The 24-70ii is a better choice as most landscapes are not shallow apertures and I believe it is marginally sharper.

The 17-40 is perfectly good too.


----------



## ecka (Mar 14, 2013)

I'm not sure if 24/1.4L'II could be THE landscaping lens. I'd rather get Zeiss 21/2.8, unless you really need that f/1.4 aperture or AF. However, if I had the money, I would go straight for TS-E 24/3.5L'II or TS-E 17/4L (can't use regular filters).
Samyang T-S 24/3.5UMC is coming soon and it may be something worth waiting for. Their 14/2.8UMC (can't use regular filters) has strong and complicated distortion, but all the rest about this lens is just beautiful.
16-35L'II is not perfect corner-to-corner wide-open, but it is pretty competitive at f/5.6+ and its zoom-ability may be a huge advantage for many people. However, I don't find it to be a smart choice as a dedicated landscaping lens.


----------



## RGF (Mar 14, 2013)

ecka said:


> I'm not sure if 24/1.4L'II could be THE landscaping lens. I'd rather get Zeiss 21/2.8, unless you really need that f/1.4 aperture or AF. However, if I had the money, I would go straight for TS-E 24/3.5L'II or TS-E 17/4L (can't use regular filters).
> Samyang T-S 24/3.5UMC is coming soon and it may be something worth waiting for. Their 14/2.8UMC (can't use regular filters) has strong and complicated distortion, but all the rest about this lens is just beautiful.
> 16-35L'II is not perfect corner-to-corner wide-open, but it is pretty competitive at f/5.6+ and its zoom-ability may be a huge advantage for many people. However, I don't find it to be a smart choice as a dedicated landscaping lens.



Both TSE are very sharp. To go ultra wide consider the 14mm


----------



## jonsjons (Mar 14, 2013)

For landscapes, consider the Samyang 24mm f/1.4; it's a very sharp lens and you won't need AF when working on a tripod. In fact, you could pick up the Samyang and the Canon 17-40 for less than a 16-35...


----------



## shutterwideshut (Mar 14, 2013)

Get the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. This lens creates a lot of creative opportunities!


----------



## myocyte (Mar 14, 2013)

I'd recommend the 24 mm TS-E. I've rented/owned the Zeiss 21mm, Canon 16-35 II, and the Canon 14 II, and I could never get over the converging lines effect any time I point the lens up or down. The 24 mm TS-E was such a pleasure to have. Having the flexibility of shift is great when it comes to composing your shot and not having to crop the scene down later, which would effectively obviate the need for a WA lens.


----------



## Jim K (Mar 14, 2013)

Since you said a 24mm prime was one choice, I would go for the 24mm TS-E rather than the f/1.4 for landscapes.
I love my 24 TS-E for landscapes. The 17-40 is useful when I need to go wider for landscapes, almost always stopped down to f/8-f/11. I would have to rent a 17mm TS-E before I ever bought it. The filter problem would make me think long and hard about buying it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 14, 2013)

For landscape, its more of a focal length choice than a lens choice. Typically you use them at small apertures to get depth of field, and, at f/16 for example, they are all very similar. 

You are paying big bucks for fast lenses that you can use wide open.

AF speed doesn't come into play for landscape either.

Its possible that something else is causing your issue, such as a damaged or misaligned lens.


----------

