# Going Wide on FF but which.



## Maui5150 (Jan 20, 2012)

So did some cleaning of house on my lenses.

Out EF-S 10-22, 18-135, and EF 70-200 F/4L non-IS

Since I am focusing on the 5DMKII over my T2i which is now a backup body, my current stable of lenses are:

EF 24-105 F/4L
EF 50 F/1.4
EF 85 F/1.8
EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS II

Thinking down the road adding the 135 F/2, though the 70-200 is so capable, I think I can live with that to cover the range.

I still would like to do some Landscape / Architecture shots wide and have been weighing the 15 Fisheye, the 16-35 MK I or the 17-40 F/4L. Price wise the 17-40 seems like a FF swap of the 10-22, but for the money and since it is slower glass, not sure if that is too much overlap with the 24-105. 

The 14 is obviously a sweet lens, but since this is not a need lens, and more of a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down. 

Also debating whether I go for some more length and weight the 300 or 400, though the 2X converter might give me similar results.


----------



## mortadella (Jan 20, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> So did some cleaning of house on my lenses.
> 
> Out EF-S 10-22, 18-135, and EF 70-200 F/4L non-IS
> 
> ...




I'm in the same boat, can't wait to see the replies you get.

I mentioned in another thread that I was going to get the 17-40L to cover my wide to ultrawide range on my recently purchased 5D, but that was met with plenty of lukewarm to negative responses. Seems as though the only ultrawide zoom worthy for a FF is the 16-35L II which is twice the price, and that is actually the exact FF equivalent of the 10-22 FL on a crop. Other recommendations were for the 24L - equivalent to 15mm on the crop...I hope you get some good replies!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 20, 2012)

I've rented the 24 f/1.4, and it's amazing. I haven't really done detail checks at the corners vs center, etc, but it's got amazing bokeh, especially when you have something close. Good detail, I'd say pretty sharp, but didn't really look closely at it. Nice and quiet with fast USM focusing, and not too heavy. 

Haven't tried the 50 f/1.4 yet, although it's on my list to buy (replace the 50 f/1.8 I have). 85 f/1.8 I love as well. Classic portraiture length, and pretty large aperture. Great value for the money in my book, even if supposedly it isn't as good as the 85 f/1.2.

I rented the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II, amazing lens, pretty darn heavy, but awesome. However, I decided to spend my money otherwise. Specifically on the 135 f/2. Great lens, really awesome. I highly recommend it. About the same length & weight as the 24-105, but gorgeous bokeh at that focal length and wide open aperture.


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 20, 2012)

Personally, I love my 17-40L. I was debating selling it when I moved over to the 5DII which I bought with the 24-105L. Interesting to hear you've seen negative posts about the 17-40L on some threads of this forum, because I mentioned selling mine in favour of putting the money towards the 24-105L, and was assured I'd be mad to get rid of it. And I'm really glad that I didn't - for the money I maintain it's a great lens - yes, no speed demon, and it will overlap with the 24-105L, but the range from 17-24mm is one that I love and use a lot.

So, if I was in your shoes (and trying to keep down costs as you mention) I would probably try and pick up a good second hand copy of the 17-40L, and if you find it's somewhat limiting, you can always sell it again without much of a loss and give the 16-35 a go instead.


----------



## Kahuna (Jan 20, 2012)

My choice would be the 16-35. I have the 16-35 II which I shoot on both my 5D and 5D II bodies. Not sure of the 16-35 MKI? never used it so can't make a comparative judgement. Had the opportunity to play around with the 14 mm fisheye for awhile, have to say it was fun but it just didn't wow me enough to purchase. The 16-35 has become my workhorse for landscape and my general walkaround lens when limited to a single lens selection.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 20, 2012)

@CowGummy - The only thing that kept me from jumping on the 17-40 was I heard at 17 wide open it has a lot of issues and really only became useable once you got in the middle of the range.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 20, 2012)

The automatic choice is the 16-35 mk.ii But pricey.

Sigma 12-24mm mk. 1 (Mk.ii has tri-polar distortion nodes), the Mk.1 is pretty good in distortion but is a bit soft on the edges. So choose your poison. 

I had the 17-40L ... it was an ok lens. Nothing special, very average.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 20, 2012)

TSE-17 would be ideal for architecture and landscape


----------



## dstppy (Jan 20, 2012)

"The 14 is obviously a sweet lens, but since this is not a need lens, and more of a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down. " 

Too late and a dollar short with this answer, but I would have kept with the EF-S 10-22 and used it when you wanted to go ultra-wide.

Lots of good choices, lots of good answers, but unless you're going into business taking UW and/or changing your style, why switch?

Anyhoo, take a look at the shots you took that you liked the FOV on the UW you had before and apply the crop factor. As for the 17-40, didn't see any problems with unusability from our good friends at lensrentals:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/canon-17-40mm-f4l

If you're going wide and don't want to break the bank, that seems like a reasonable FF choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> I still would like to do some Landscape / Architecture shots wide and have been weighing the 15 Fisheye, the 16-35 MK I or the 17-40 F/4L. Price wise the 17-40 seems like a FF swap of the 10-22, but for the money and since it is slower glass, not sure if that is too much overlap with the 24-105....a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down.



This is tough - ultrawide lenses for FF are amont the most difficult lenses to design, and thus, good ones are expensive. The 17-40mm does have issues at the wide end, but by 20mm f/8 it's ok. The 16-35mm II (which I have) is quite nice, optically better than the 17-40mm especially at the wide end and wide open. The MkII was a significant improvement on the original 16-35mm, which was only slightly better than the 17-40mm.

The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 seems good for landscapes, but probably not for architecture - it's got massive barrel distortion, and it's moustache-type which means it's a challenge to correct in post, so straight lines and that lens don't play nicely together.

The best lenses for architecture are the TS-E 17mm f/4L and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. Both are excellent optically (the 24mm is slightly better), so it comes down to focal length. But, both are very expensive.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > I still would like to do some Landscape / Architecture shots wide and have been weighing the 15 Fisheye, the 16-35 MK I or the 17-40 F/4L. Price wise the 17-40 seems like a FF swap of the 10-22, but for the money and since it is slower glass, not sure if that is too much overlap with the 24-105....a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down.
> ...



From what I was aware of, the 17-40 was heads and shoulders better than the 16-35 mark1 especially in sharpness on the wide end... The mark 2 made the 16-35 better than the 17-40... I use the 17-40 on my 5d2... just shot some airline interiors with it for a client... So far so good... Go to a camera store and see if you can take a few test shots with both lenses on your camera... Go home, anaylize to your hearts content and make your mind up then.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 20, 2012)

I would use the 17-40 stopped down to at least f/5.6 - noticably better at f/8 than f/4


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 20, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maui5150 said:
> ...



+1 That sounds like the most solid piece of advice here. Don't buy before you try and as suggested by awinphoto, if you can do it on your own body you've got the advantage of being able to compare shots in your own time.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jan 20, 2012)

I'm weighing in with Neuro - for Landscape the tilt-shift lenses beat almost every other Canon lens if you ignore not having AF and that they are slow. On a tripod the 17 tse and 24 tse II are a dream to use. I own the others as well but they just don't get used outside as much. By the way, if you never used a tse type lens before, try one by setting setting both tilt and shift to zero and use it as a 17 or a 24. Once you feel comfortable with doing that, try setting tilt to only 1/3 or 1/2 a degree (i.e. less that a full degree) on a eye level tripod doing a landscape with some sort of forground that you want in focus and see what you get. Set to F8 or F11 on a full frame body and prepare to be amazed. Check out the corners and compare it to any non-tse Canon lens. Let us know what you find.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 20, 2012)

Unless you are doing indoor photography, the 17-40mm is fine, since you will be wanting to use f/8 in any event. If you want low light, the 16-35 gives you a wider aperture. I ended up with a older out of production Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that I bought off Craigslist for $125. I liked it so much that I sold my 17-40mm L.

I'd like to have the 24mm f/1.4, but its too expensive for occasional use.


----------



## cfargo (Jan 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> TSE-17 would be ideal for architecture and landscape


+1 
The 17mm Tilt Shift is the best wide angle for architecture hands down. I do own the 14mm II and it is a great lens but for architecture, the 17mm TSE is what I use. As for a zoom, I own both the 17-40 f/4 and the 16-35 f/2.8 and have found the 17-40 my preferred of the 2 as it is slightly sharper and it can use my standard 77mm filters. The 16-35 f/2.8 requires the larger 82mm filter of which I'm not going to buy any just for 1 lens.


----------



## 00Q (Jan 20, 2012)

canon is lacking in wide zoom L lenses. hands down. this is where nikon kicks the crap out of canon. 

come on canon, give us a FF 10-20mm f/2.8 L


----------



## cfargo (Jan 20, 2012)

Nikon's 14-24 is awesome but again you couldn't pay me to buy a Nikon.


----------



## 00Q (Jan 20, 2012)

cfargo said:


> Nikon's 14-24 is awesome but again you couldn't pay me to buy a Nikon.



+1

me neither. But thats the exact lens I am talking about. It is hell of a lens. Shame on canon!!


----------



## cfargo (Jan 20, 2012)

00Q said:


> cfargo said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon's 14-24 is awesome but again you couldn't pay me to buy a Nikon.
> ...



Canon has the 8-15 and Nikon doesn't.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2012)

cfargo said:


> Canon has the 8-15 and Nikon doesn't.



...and the TS-E 17mm, and the MP-E 65mm. But...Nikon has a 200-400mm f/4 VR (a real, purchasable lens, not a 'we announced development of one but we haven't announced it for real and even if we do it'll be well over a year before you can buy one' lens).


----------



## KurtStevens (Jan 20, 2012)

I have 16-35 and 50, 85, and 135 and will be adding another body to the mix (probably a 7d or something crop body just to push that 135 to 200+) and I have to say I love my 16-35. Yes its 82mm but if you're going to want the best expect the cost to come with. 

What do the pro's use?


----------



## K-amps (Jan 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> cfargo said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has the 8-15 and Nikon doesn't.
> ...



What's the huge deal with the 200-400? It is a nice range to have ... and Canon has 400mm covered in 4-5 lenses at different price points does it not?


----------



## Gumbum (Jan 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 seems good for landscapes, but probably not for architecture - it's got massive barrel distortion, and it's moustache-type which means it's a challenge to correct in post, so straight lines and that lens don't play nicely together.



Well..it's not that great for landscapes either since you can't use filters on it...extremely sharp lens though.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 20, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> Haven't tried the 50 f/1.4 yet, although it's on my list to buy (replace the 50 f/1.8 I have). 85 f/1.8 I love as well. Classic portraiture length, and pretty large aperture. Great value for the money in my book, even if supposedly it isn't as good as the 85 f/1.2.



The 85mm 1.2 isn't supposedly better than the 85 1.8, its a much better lens, no question. The 85 1.8 is a great value and performs very well, but after using the 85L I could never go back.


----------



## Policar (Jan 20, 2012)

00Q said:


> canon is lacking in wide zoom L lenses. hands down. this is where nikon kicks the crap out of canon.
> 
> come on canon, give us a FF 10-20mm f/2.8 L



Really? Not just by far the widest rectilinear lens ever made (excluding pinholes), but with a 2x zoom range and fast? I'm sure they'll get right to that.

As for the first question, for architecture and landscape a T/S lens is the easy choice since you'll need to correct perspective for either. I'd prefer 24mm to 17mm for outdoor stuff but both have great reputations. The 14mm is fun but overpriced for what it is and the Samyang seems to have an awful lot of distortion, plus 14mm is kind of a gimmick focal length... Not that I'm above gimmicks or even use it was well as most.


----------



## ferdi (Jan 20, 2012)

K-amps said:


> What's the huge deal with the 200-400? It is a nice range to have ... and Canon has 400mm covered in 4-5 lenses at different price points does it not?


It has a built-in 1.4x extender which makes it a 280-560mm f/5.6 lens as well.
That's 900mm on a 1.6x body, with AF.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 20, 2012)

ferdi said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > What's the huge deal with the 200-400? It is a nice range to have ... and Canon has 400mm covered in 4-5 lenses at different price points does it not?
> ...



Thats nice... but it is $7G's too... For that price; Perhaps one could get a EF 400 F2.8 mk.ii, slap a 2x mk.iii and stay at F5.6 for 800mm on FF or 1280mm on crop . Yes you get zoom with the Nikon... but it is not like Canon does not have coverage on the long end. Maybe I am missing something else...


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 20, 2012)

I was definitely thinking of the 400 2.8 and with the extender my 70 - 200 would fill the gap, albeit at 5.6 from 200 - 400 and then the 400 could be either 400 at 2.8 or 800 at 5.6. 

Love the TS-Es but I am also trying to stay a little cheaper since I don't shoot that much here. I need to find a local buddy I can borrow from or bribe with beers.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 20, 2012)

00Q said:


> canon is lacking in wide zoom L lenses. hands down. this is where nikon kicks the crap out of canon.
> 
> come on canon, give us a FF 10-20mm f/2.8 L



As fun as that would be, it would take some serious engineering to make that happen. But I do agree that the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a bad ass lens and I really wish Canon would make one.


----------



## katwil (Jan 21, 2012)

I’m facing the same issue several other posters are. Moving to the 5D mk II means my Sigma 8-16 is very limited. While it will attach to the mk II, the lens petals (I guess that’s what Sigma calls them) protrude onto the image up to about 14mm. I had expected the 24-105 to handle the wide stuff, but I’ve been shocked to see how prominent the barrel distortion is at 24mm.

Sigma makes a big brother to the 8-16, the 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 AF II DG HSM, that gets good reviews for FF. If this lens is close to what the 8-16 is on APS-C, at under $1,000 it might be worth a look, especially as it becomes an entirely different animal (19-38mm) on APS-C.


----------



## ejenner (Jan 22, 2012)

Yup, choices are painful.

But for $700, if you are using the lens on a tripod most of the time, the 17-40 is a decent lens. OK, corners suck at f4, but really who needs corners at f4? Well, I guess some do. 77mm filters, cheap, weather-sealed and decently sharp at f8 and smaller (and actually OK in the center at f4-5.6). If you thought the 10-22 was OK, I don't see you having a problem with the 17-40. It's also fairly light and not too big, so great if it's not a FL you're going to use all the time.

But I do landscape as my primary 'most-fun' shooting, so I recently got a TS-E 17mm so maybe I can affort to be upbeat about the 17-40. The TS-E is also sharp enough for me with a 1.4TC. Actually i think the biggest benefit is the shift, but lets just say I have to change my PP and printing sharpening for this lens.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 22, 2012)

ejenner said:


> Yup, choices are painful.
> 
> But for $700, if you are using the lens on a tripod most of the time, the 17-40 is a decent lens. OK, corners suck at f4, but really who needs corners at f4? Well, I guess some do. 77mm filters, cheap, weather-sealed and decently sharp at f8 and smaller (and actually OK in the center at f4-5.6). If you thought the 10-22 was OK, I don't see you having a problem with the 17-40. It's also fairly light and not too big, so great if it's not a FL you're going to use all the time.
> 
> But I do landscape as my primary 'most-fun' shooting, so I recently got a TS-E 17mm so maybe I can affort to be upbeat about the 17-40. The TS-E is also sharp enough for me with a 1.4TC. Actually i think the biggest benefit is the shift, but lets just say I have to change my PP and printing sharpening for this lens.



+1 for the 17-40 @f/5.6 - f/13


----------



## Flake (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm sure this won't win any friends, but seeing as Canon is incapable of making a decent wide angle lens, then it's necessary to look to other suppliers. Thom Hogan has been using the Nikon 14 - 24mm f/2.8 with an adaptor, and getting much better results than with the Canon wide angles. It's a lens which does perform, and fortunately for us we are able to use Nikon lenses, something which is not possible the other way around. The lens is well built & holds its value well should (perish the thought) Canon manage to produce a wide angle which does have decent performance.


----------



## Caps18 (Jan 22, 2012)

I just went to the NAIAS auto show with a 5Dm2 and a 16-35mm II, and it was perfect. 20-24mm was the most typical, but sometimes you had to get close to the cars, and still frame the shot.

If I had to take one lens from my kit, the 16-35 would be my choice. You can increase the ISO and not need a flash as well.


----------



## BornNearDaBayou (Jan 24, 2012)

I don't know why more people aren't suggesting the Tokina 16-28/f2.8 or 17-35/f4. The 16-28 is supposed to be extraordinary. But of course you cannot use any filters

I have the 17-40L and although I haven't compared it to the 16-35, I hear they are almost the same in IQ. I am mostly happy with the 17-40, although yes, wide-open it is a dog. 

It does sharpen up nicely from f/8-11, which is where I use it all the time. Nice lens for the price. Internal zoom or focus--however you describe it. 

I will rent or buy the 17-35 Tokina eventually, and sell my 17-40L if the Tokina is better in IQ. I know the Tokina supposedly has almost zero distortion.....the 17-40L has A LOT at 17mm, some at 18mm, and neglible at 19mm.


----------

