# W/A zoom for 5D MkIII



## mikejkay (Sep 7, 2013)

Having made the jump from a 7D to a 5D MkIII  I am re-assessing my lens collection. I have a Sigma 10-20mm which,I understand, will fit the 5D but will produce unacceptable distortion and vignetting. On the to be sold pile then . I am therefore looking for a replacement. I want a lens to cover the range 17mm to 24mm (as I have the 24-105mm) although I would consider up to 50mm in order to save lens changes. There seem to be a lot more EFS lenses available and I keep on finding what appears to be a lens that fits my specification only to find that it is EFS only. Having splashed out on the 5D my budget is limited so I would consider 3rd party lenses. Any recommendations?


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 7, 2013)

You have the 17-40 L and the more expensive 16-35mm. The 17-40 is pretty good if not outstanding. A lens I like is the Samyang / Rokinon 14mm . I thinks it's great . It's manual but I think that makes you a better photographer. It's super for wide field astrophotography combined with the 5D. I understand what you are going through. I liked my Sigma too.


----------



## Rat (Sep 7, 2013)

Congrats on the 5D3, brilliant piece of kit. I have both the 17-40 and the 24-105 to go with it, and I think perhaps you might want to hold back on your purchase for a bit. The 17-40 is excellent for my purposes, but the 24-105 is already pretty wide on FF and I find in reality, I have rather little use for the 17-40. It is versatile and very usable and has little competition in its range, so if you really want an FF UWA it's a great little lens to own. I agree with Hector1970 that there are other, perhaps more extreme lenses that you could have as much fun with, or even more. How about that 8-15, huh?


----------



## terminatahx (Sep 7, 2013)

Not a fan of 3rd party lenses for the most part, especially when using with the Canon FF bodies, but that's just me.

I'd recommend the 16-35 2.8LII. The 17-40 is doable, but really bad iq in the corners for an L. Or you could always wait until next year when Canon delivers on a 14-24 (rumor).


----------



## Ewinter (Sep 7, 2013)

If you have no need for front mounted filters, the tokina 16-28 is better than the 17-40 (optically)


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 7, 2013)

Tested the 17-40 for weekend.
Didnt like it. Soft corners with not so soft CAs.
Owned a 16-35II for more then a year.
Corners soft, till f8.
Sold it.
Bought the Tokina 16-28.
Heavy. No filters then special solutions.
BUT: IQ finally satisfying.


----------



## rahkshi007 (Sep 7, 2013)

I have the 17-40L on my 5d3.. focus is quick and very sharp after f5.6...i like it very much compared to my 24-70L because it is very lightweight but still solid build. if u got extra $, go for 16-35 II L but it will be much heavier and cannot share filter as it is 82mm tread


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 7, 2013)

terminatahx said:


> I'd recommend the 16-35 2.8LII.



Agreed. It's a great choice for the ultra-wide range on FF.


----------



## beckstoy (Sep 7, 2013)

Check out the Sigma 12-24mm DG (for FF) with Hypersonic AF. I heard that it's a hit/miss depending on the copy, but I bought a used one for $400 and it's been well-used and is tack-sharp. I'm super happy with it.

Here's a brand-new one. I'm surprised I got one for $400 (I've never seen them anywhere for that cost) but I'm glad I jumped on it! 

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-12-24mm-4-5-5-6-Canon-Digital/dp/B004M18N2U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378575282&sr=8-1&keywords=sigma+12-24+for+canon

I shoot on 5DM3 also, btw. Great performer on that body.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 7, 2013)

It depends on what you shoot. If you like the creature comforts of full lens control through the camera, you get the 16-35L II. I've shot with that for a bit, and it's fine like the 24-70 Mk I was fine -- it's a well-built lens that produces sharp images. (Note that needing 82mm filters is annoying as I have a bag full of 77mm lenses.) 

However, if you want to pixel-peep, demand sharper corners, etc. then the 16-35L II has clear room for improvement. 

But if you are feeling adventurous, you could get the best wide zoom on the planet:
http://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/2012/04/tip-of-the-week-behold-the-frankencam/

Consider a few pearls on this lens (caveat -- I've never shot with it):


It has a mad, loyal following. This lens effectively defines a nontrivial chunk of the landscape photography community.
Lee Filters makes filter products _just for this lens_.
Roger from LR: "This lens is certainly the best wide angle I’ve ever shot with, and only the legendary Zeiss 21mm Distagon is sharper corner-to-corner (and that’s a $5,000 prime lens). This paired with a D4 is mind blowing—that’s the equivalent of an 9mm rectilinear lens on a DX camera. A week with the “Wide Thing” will change the way you shoot. This lens is so good that a third party is selling an adapter so it can be mounted to Canon cameras – Canon shooters are willing to focus and set aperture manually just to use this lens."
This lens once took a picture with soft corners and wrote an apology to its owner in the EXIF data.
Using it weekly is rumored to cure depression.
It will actually make you want to own a Nikon body.

People on this forums would give their left nut for this lens in a Canon mount. Keep in mind that along with the 35L II and the mid-level 50 F/1.4 update, a native Canon 14-24 F/2.8 has been the most obvious why-hasn't-it-been-made/rumor-has-it-it's-coming-any-day-now lenses. So you can wait for Canon to offer you one or you can be brave and mount this thing as shown in the story.

LR carries that lens and the adapter ring if you'd (wisely) like to try before you buy.

- A


----------



## Rat (Sep 7, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> Check out the Sigma 12-24mm DG (for FF) with Hypersonic AF. I heard that it's a hit/miss depending on the copy, but I bought a used one for $400 and it's been well-used and is tack-sharp. I'm super happy with it.
> 
> Here's a brand-new one. I'm surprised I got one for $400 (I've never seen them anywhere for that cost) but I'm glad I jumped on it!


There's two versions of it. The mark II, released in 2011, may be alright (even if it lacks the EX qualification), but the mark I supposedly is not very good, especially for FF. Although, as you say, mileage may vary.


----------



## MLfan3 (Sep 7, 2013)

mikejkay said:


> Having made the jump from a 7D to a 5D MkIII  I am re-assessing my lens collection. I have a Sigma 10-20mm which,I understand, will fit the 5D but will produce unacceptable distortion and vignetting. On the to be sold pile then . I am therefore looking for a replacement. I want a lens to cover the range 17mm to 24mm (as I have the 24-105mm) although I would consider up to 50mm in order to save lens changes. There seem to be a lot more EFS lenses available and I keep on finding what appears to be a lens that fits my specification only to find that it is EFS only. Having splashed out on the 5D my budget is limited so I would consider 3rd party lenses. Any recommendations?



it depends on how wide you want to go and if you need to use filers.
in case you need 16mm in Canon mount and you do not accept any MF or adapted option , then there is no other choice but you have to get the 16-35mmLii.
if you really need the best UWA zoom , then you may want to adapt the Nikon 14-24, but it is an awkward lens to use , it does not take any filter and it is very prone to scratch(when I had it I hated it).
if you can live without 16mm and f4 is fast enough for your needs, go for the cheap 17-40f4L, which is not much worse than the overpriced 16-35mmf2.8Lii lens(in fact , it is better in some ways).
but if you absolutely demand for the best optical quality , I 'd say forget about all UWA zooms and go directly to the best primes (the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 or 17mm TSE and the Canon 24mm TSE).
the Zeiss 15mm is amazing , the Canon TSE17mm f4 is a great lens and I think nothing even touch the quality of these 2 primes.
but the 24mm TSE is actually sharper than both the Zeiss 15mm or the Canon 17mm TSE, so unless you really need wider than 24mm FOV, you may just want to get the 24mm TSE.
oh and if you really want it to be cheap , then get the Samyang(Rokinon) 14mm f2.8 or the Sigma 12-24mm f4-5.6 HSM.


----------



## jthomson (Sep 8, 2013)

+1 on the Tokina 16-28mm. That's what I got for my 5D3


----------



## eml58 (Sep 8, 2013)

I can recommend any of these Lenses, I own & use all of them, some are better than others.

Canon 14f/2.8: Used mostly for underwater where it shines, reasonable above water as well.
Canon 24f/1.4: Great Lens, Underwater & Above, but expensive.
Zeiss 15f/2.8 Distagon: Best WA Prime I own, superb optics, difficult to fit Filters such as my Lee system due to the Metal Hood on the Lens.
Canon 8-15f/4: Used mostly for Underwater @ 15, great Lens, above water also excellent @ 15, rest of the range is good also, but more a "Fun" Lens @ 8-13.
Canon 16-35f/2.8: Good to very good Lens, used both above & below water, has quite a bit of corner vignetting though, for an expensive Lens this is a disappointment, but used carefully, good Lens but not great.
Canon 17 TSE II: Amazingly good Optics, added advantage of being TSE, downside is it's Manual, but for Landscape not an issue.
Canon 24 TSE II: Same story as for 17TSE, great Lenses both these TSE's.

If I was to make a call on all these as to the most usable, best IQ all rounder, The Zeiss 15f/2.8 Distagon, but these Lenses for me have different main uses, TSE's for Landscape & Buildings, 14/24 Primes for Underwater, 8-15 for underwater, 16-35 general above water, but if I want spot on IQ, The Zeiss 15 does it.

I actually purchased this Lens after a recommendation from a CR member, I think it was "Sanj", never for one moment regretted it, the Lens is always in the Bag.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 8, 2013)

Want to buy a 6 month old 17-40 4.0L? I just used a 16-35 2.8L and it rocks! I am upgrading as soon as I sell my 17-40 and my 18-200 EF-S.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Sep 8, 2013)

If filters are NOT a complete necessity for you, there is the option of the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8.
Reading that you don't really need anything over the 24mm mark but you want 17mm or wider, the 16-28 f/2.8 is a great option as it's wider than 17 (16 does make a bit of a difference) and it's constant f/2.8. It's got GREAT image quality, and is so much cheaper than the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 II. It retails for just under $900 US. Like i said though, the difficulty is it doesn't take filters.
The next option would be the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, which is of course Canon's flagship UWA zoom. Great quality overall and DOES take filters (82mm filter thread). 
Moving up, the 17-40 f/4 does come to mind. It's not as wide as the other two I've mentioned and is constant f/4 rather than f/2.8. I've also read that corners aren't that good up until f/8. 
And another lens I've heard very mixed reviews about- the Sigma 12-24 mark II (I know the mark I is definitely terrible). I don't have much to comment on it as I don't know too much about it, but being a full frame UWA zoom, it's the lens that is the widest. 

Also, if you like fisheye, the 8-15 is a great sharp f/4 lens.


----------



## terminatahx (Sep 10, 2013)

If you want lenses worthy of the resolving power of the 5d, the:
- 16-35 f2.8l II
- tse 17mm f4l


----------

