# Advice 5d3, wide angle



## Half Way To Nothing (Nov 13, 2012)

Hi all,

I have just got a 5d3 after a few good years with a 50D. The Sigma 10-22 is APS-C so it's going on ebay.

I have the 24-105 which is a great lens and the 24mm is wide. But the 10-22 was wide.

So, the question for those have either, which would you do?

A) Zoom Option, 16-35mm f2.8 mk2

B) Prime Option, 24mm f1.4

C) Cheep Option, Keep the 24-105mm f4 and get the 50 f1.2! 

Thanks for looking..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2012)

You had a 10-22mm lens on APS-C - how much did you shoot in the 10-15mm range? That's 16-24mm on FF, so you can gauge your own need/use of that focal range...


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 13, 2012)

17-40? One of the best values in L land.


----------



## CharlieB (Nov 13, 2012)

Depends on your budget.

The 20mm prime is smaller, lighter... and just as good (if not slightly better optically) as the 16-35/2.8L(ii)

The 17-40/4 L is good. I've played with both... you have to be very picky to discern any quality difference in real world shooting. The extra stop, the extra little wideness... fits my way of shooting better.

Its all compromise...decide whats important... go with it.


----------



## extremeinstability (Nov 14, 2012)

Zeiss 21 F2.8 could be another thought. I went that route then snatched up a 14mm Samyang for the times I need even wider.


----------



## wayno (Nov 14, 2012)

I have the 17-40L and I rate it highly at F8 despite what a lot of others seem to think. As I understand it, the 16-35 isn't much better overall IQ-wise (if at all) but obviously has the advantage of being a stop faster.

I also recently bought the 24 1.4 which is fantastic but for my purposes, I tend to find it's best strength as a wide portrait lens (for that it's excellent). The type of wide angle work I do is mostly night photography and usually demands some FL flexibility given tricky spots and opportune moments etc.

Thus, my vote would go to the 17-40L for the best value/overall solution.

Dream lens still? The Zeiss 21 but at $2K-ish, I have other goals such as one of the Canon TS's (17 or 24)


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 14, 2012)

wayno said:


> Dream lens still? The Zeiss 21 but at $2K-ish,



I got the voigtlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar
I got it for its pancakeness as well as great optics
I like the lens alot for shooting landscapes very nice build and electronic aperture control is really nice
now if Zeiss made a tilt shift version of that 21mm I would be all over that
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/NEW-Voigtlander-COLOR-SKOPAR-20mm-F3-5-SL-II-for-Canon-/230760887096?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item35ba6bb338


----------



## Frodo (Nov 14, 2012)

CharlieB said:


> The 20mm prime is smaller, lighter... and just as good (if not slightly better optically) as the 16-35/2.8L(ii)



At least my copy of the EF 20mm f2.8 was sh*t. Poor resolution and vignetting. A bought the 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 and at 20mm it was dramatically better than the 20mm. FWIW DXOMark rated this lens. 

I also have the 24-105 and so sold the 20-35 and bought a Samyang 14mm which is great.


----------



## Sharp (Nov 14, 2012)

I do own a few lense, and actually when I bought my 16-35 II (for an old 30D), it was doing ok. I found on my new 5D3 that it is too wide. I use it most of the time in the 24mm-35mm range. I am not sure if I would echange it for a 24L or a 35L, just because the zoom is convenient sometime. In all cases, the good/cheap 50f1.8 is really lovely on it, dont spend too much for the 50/1.2! Just FYI.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 14, 2012)

17mm Tilt Shift is worth considering. Awesome lens, nothing out there to match it.


----------



## pinnaclephotography (Nov 14, 2012)

extremeinstability said:


> Zeiss 21 F2.8 could be another thought. I went that route then snatched up a 14mm Samyang for the times I need even wider.



I thoroughly agree. This makes a solid combo; both are solid choices for landscapes, but the Samyang 14mm is in a price/performance league of its own. Both these shots are sharp, corner to corner, at f/2.8. You will not find that in any other inexpesive UWA.
http://500px.com/photo/17884247
http://500px.com/photo/17891095


----------



## yablonsky (Nov 14, 2012)

Get the 17-40 L! It's a great lens for landscape. You will love the 17mm!
The colors are great and corner sharpness is ok stopped down to F8 or F11.
Distortions never were an issue for me. Neither was vignetting.
The price is also really nice  for an L.


----------



## RC (Nov 14, 2012)

When I got my 5d3, the first thing I did was slap on my 16-35. I was anxious to check out the FOV since my widest on crop was 15 (24 FF, and 28 on a film body). Shot a few red rock country landscapes and found myself shooting the whole range of the lens and many at 16mm. I had my 24-105 but never even mounted it. So if you had the 10-22 for crop, and assuming you used it, I'd definitely go with option A. I'd also keep your 24-105 for walk-around.


----------



## Half Way To Nothing (Nov 14, 2012)

Thanks for all the reply’s,

neuroanatomist – Enough to make me want the 16-35!!

crasher8 – Good value but some of the reviews say it’s not the best! Not sure if it would worth of the 5d3!

CharlieB – Budget is coming from the sale of the 70-200 2.8 IS mk1 and sigma 10-22 so about £1300 in the UK.

wayno – Not sure the wife will let me spend that much!!

wickidwombat – That’s a great shot! Love the way the water of the rock does that effect!

RC – Keeping the 24-105 of course! It’s a great lens.

Thanks to all the other reply’s, going to borrow a 17-40mm this weekend to see if I like the results. If not it could be the 16-35mm, I do like the 16mm end (see below, what do you think?)

The 24mm 1.4 is so tempting to have the 1.4, which would be something very new!!




Lonely Walk by P A - Photography, on Flickr


----------



## pinnaclephotography (Nov 14, 2012)

The 17-40L is flexible but optically limited. Only so-so sharpness in the center and the corners are terrible at all apertures. This lens (like other L lenses) is a good one to pick up used and resell when one is willing to shoot Samyang (nuisance of fully manual lens) or Zeiss (expensive). At UWA, one should really be shooting on a tripod, so MF is no big deal. Saving money with the Samyang route is probably the best move for most, provided they have the patience.

I'd recommend passing on the 16-35L, it really doesn't get much sharper than the 17-40L, just more expensive. The only real redeeming characteristic of the 16-35L would be aperture flare characteristics around f/16.


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 14, 2012)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/canon-17-40mm-f4l

Some folks like the 17-40


----------



## Half Way To Nothing (Nov 15, 2012)

Just got my hands on the 17-40 for a long weekend! I'll let you know what I think


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 15, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Some folks like the 17-40


Would someone please enlighten me: Why are there so contradicting opinions on the 17-40L vs 16-35L? For all other lenses folks usually seem to be able to agree on what's "better", though "is it worth it" usually is more controversial. 

* Is it because the qc allows for a large spread of "bad" and "good" copies of these uwa lenses?
* Is it because Canon has silently updated a lens or optimized the production so it got "better"?
* Is it because shots at open aperture are compared to "landscape aperture"?
* Is it because landscape shooters want to have edge sharpness, while event shooters don't care that much?

Here's the link to the iso crops if you want to play around: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Would someone please enlighten me: Why are there so contradicting opinions on the 17-40L vs 16-35L? For all other lenses folks usually seem to be able to agree on what's "better", though "is it worth it" usually is more controversial.
> 
> * Is it because the qc allows for a large spread of "bad" and "good" copies of these uwa lenses?
> * Is it because Canon has silently updated a lens or optimized the production so it got "better"?
> ...



Value and price play a large role in it. If you were to take a poll asking which lens people would rather have gifted to them, I would suspect that the 16-35L II would win handily. Most hobbyists can't afford thousands of dollars for a lens. The 17-40 is one of the least expensive Ls and has good value if you work to its strengths.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Nov 15, 2012)

Putting my 16-35mm on my 5dIII was the first thing I did when I got my new camera as well. Coming from a 50D the 16mm end on the full frame is pretty amazing.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Nov 15, 2012)

The 16-35 makes for some fun portraits as well.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 15, 2012)

If you must have the ultimate wide angle lens period.

Zeiss 15mm F/2.8. Its the very best made. Bar none.


----------



## aiai (Nov 15, 2012)

get the 17-40L lens!

i was working with a 17-40L lens on my canon 50d for 2 years.
after getting a 5D MK III and putting the lens on a FF cam was amazing.
Nice wideangle lens. I wouldnt pay double the price for a 16-35L lens.
17-40 hast great sharpness beginning at f8.

My suggestions: GET IT!


----------



## RuneL (Nov 15, 2012)

16-35, why not get the best when you got such an expensive camera. Of course there are the zeiss options if you can do without AF.


----------



## Half Way To Nothing (Nov 15, 2012)

Thanks for all the reply's, they echo what I have been thinking. I'm off to Gibraltar over the next few days, they have the 16-35mm for less then 1k. Going to try out the 17-40 tomorrow, up early to catch the Spanish Sun rise!

This is the worst bit about DSLR ownership, not knowing where to put your money! Nothing is cheep!


----------



## aiai (Nov 15, 2012)

everyone will say if you have money go for the 16-35 f2.8..

in the past i was taking pictures in clubs. "weather" sealing is great. Was tested by a drunk person who spilt half a glass of vodka red bull over my 17-40 . -> still works like a new lens  

very durable, good priced L lens.


----------



## Half Way To Nothing (Nov 15, 2012)

Is the 17-40 weather sealed?


----------



## aiai (Nov 15, 2012)

its built like a tank and is weather sealed, but note that a filter is required for weather sealing!

Have a look at

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



> The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM Lens is weather-sealed but requires a UV Filter to complete the sealing.



kr, aiai


----------



## extremeinstability (Nov 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks like the 17-40
> ...



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

There is one easy example. Yes vignetting can be corrected easily enough, but on higher dynamic range scenes it won't be as much fun opening up really really dark shadows(till Canon gets Sony class shadow lack of noise sensors I guess). 

I never had a problem with my 17-40 on a crop other than F4 was kinda annoying. Then I got the 10-22 and never used the 17-40 basically. Then I got a 5D II and sold my 10-22. So back out came the 17-40, where I soon hated it now on full frame. F7.1 would be the max of getting rid of vignetting, as in no improvement past that anyway, but it was still there a good bit. Need it more open like F4 and well it was just stupid. I soon found myself iso'ing up the 5D II just because I was stopped down so much. I wished I had enough money to get the 16-35 II just over that issue alone. My copy of the 17-40 on a full frame had utter crap corners, which I have heard is more common than not(many may never have much important out there or notice I guess). The 10-22 was about impossible to get flares off of. 17-40 shooting at night with street lights and voila flares for each light source. 

I've never owned the 16-35 but have seen it's flare is at least worse and doesn't sound like corners are that great. Least its vignetting full frame is in a whole nother class. On my 17-40, where you see the heavier vignetting on the above link, you could count on about an equivalent sharpness drop off. It was damn nice in the middle and at least a good ways out though. Even stopped down, if I had stuff in the corners that needed to be sharp, well it was disturbingly soft. 

My thought always was, if I'm going to invest the cash to go full frame, I'm going to have to invest the cash to get a lens that truly makes it worth it. I constantly kept thinking, I was better off with my 10-22 on a crop than my 17-40 on full. I had to stop down to help the extreme vignetting to get it to where the 10-22 starts, resulting in more iso noise anyway. Then I added in having flare issues I never had with the 10-22. And again, least on my 17-40 that seemed great in the center, the corners were pathetic, fine on the 10-22. It just felt stupid to have made the "jump". 

So I went back to crops as I needed money then and certainly didn't have the ability to spend more for the 16-35. Since then I've made the full frame jump again for the second time and this time I went with the Zeiss 21 for my go to wide angle. Really with these wide angle zooms, you aren't getting that much focal change. A great prime like the 21 Zeiss instead made more sense. I had the option this time around to get the 16-35 and it just didn't sound so appealing. 

Here's one to consider on corners as well, Zeiss at F2.8 to the 16-35 stopped down to F5.6 even. Says something about the corners of even the higher priced(than 17-40) 16-35. Weird just how bad the corner vertical lines look. 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=708&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

It seems to me if corners don't matter, have at either zoom. If F4 and vignetting don't matter may as well go 17-40.


----------



## Ricku (Nov 15, 2012)

I wish I could say "Go for the uber sharp 14-24L", but.. :'(

The 17-40 is rubbish, and the 16-35 is more of a workhorse for photojurnalists. Sharp at the center but lousy edges and corners.

If I were you, I would go for the Zeiss 21mm, or for the 17mm or 24mm TS-E.

Personally, I'm waitng for canon to release a better UWA-zoom for landscapers. I don't care if it is 14-24, 16-35 or 17-40. I just want it to be razor sharp across the whole frame.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 15, 2012)

Half Way To Nothing said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have just got a 5d3 after a few good years with a 50D. The Sigma 10-22 is APS-C so it's going on ebay.
> 
> ...



Dump the 24-105 and get the 24-70 II it does as well as the 24 1.4 for 24mm landscapes and it does the zooming of the 24-105 and it's way better than the 24-105. The upcoming 24-70 f/4 IS might be an option, have to see how it pans out.

If you really love ultra wide, then I guess you could try 16-35 II or maybe get a Samyang 14mm for relatively cheap and couple it with a 24-70 f/4 IS (or 24-70 II if you can manage).

zeiss 21 2.8 is good and a bit wider than 24mm


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 15, 2012)

I simply am stunned at 'rubbish'. Love to hear your long list of rubbish L lenses. I do miss my 10-22 ef-s and I do think it has better corner sharpness than the 17-40 but my copy was a flare magnet as the 17-40 is much more under control.


----------



## gmrza (Nov 16, 2012)

aiai said:


> everyone will say if you have money go for the 16-35 f2.8..
> 
> in the past i was taking pictures in clubs. "weather" sealing is great. Was tested by a drunk person who spilt half a glass of vodka red bull over my 17-40 . -> still works like a new lens
> 
> very durable, good priced L lens.



I think there needs to be some perspective - ultra-wide angle lenses are difficult to build. We all have a tendency to knock the 17-40mm for its performance at 17mm wide open. When stopped down it does quite well for landscapes though, and by the time you reach 20mm, performance at f/8 is nothing to complain about - in fact not much worse than the 21mm Zeiss which costs a lot more. - Provided you can work within the limitations of the 17-40mm, it is a very attractive option.

Mine has also taken a good shower and is none the worse for that.

My view is that unless you need to shoot at wide apertures get the 17-40mm. If you to shoot a lot at apertures of f/5.6 or less, consider the 16-35mm.


----------



## castillophotodesign (Nov 16, 2012)

why isnt anybody talking about the tokina 16-28? I have the same dilema and i am seriously considering the tokina, and not only because of the price. I have owned two 17-40 and one 16-35 L II, i didnt like em so i sold them. Would the tokina be a good option?


----------



## pinnaclephotography (Nov 16, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Would someone please enlighten me: Why are there so contradicting opinions on the 17-40L vs 16-35L? For all other lenses folks usually seem to be able to agree on what's "better", though "is it worth it" usually is more controversial.
> ...



Value factors certainly apply. Is a used copy of the 17-40L worth the money? Yes, IF you don't want to operate with prime lenses and can accept many of the limitations that come with trying to make a zoom (jack-of-all-trades, master of none issues). There certainly are sample variation factors, but all copies will be pretty terrible in the corners at 17mm, regardless of aperture settings. It could be argued that most people buy UWA lenses primarily to shoot at the widest focal length available, so I recommend picking whatever lens performs best at that focal length.

Perception and the L bug come into play. If a lens has the red ring, many will emotionally decide it is better than it really is and loose objectivity. Third party options are seldom considered by most...to cite a specific example, I was recently on a particularly (in)famous bridge in Zion National Park, at sunset. Approximately 70% of the photographers (30+ people crammed on the bridge) shot Canon, 25% Nikon, and 5% other. Of the Canon shooters, 9/10 were shooting with the 17-40L, 16-35L, 24-70L, or 24-105L. There were only a couple people not shooting L glass, and to the best of my knowledge, I was the only one using a Canon body with third party lenses (Zeiss, Samyang). Peer pressure comes into play and the "popular" lenses will be perceived as best, especially by the token shooter with a Rebel (most people were walking around with 5K worth of gear on this bridge). That bridge was probably the only time I've ever seen 20 grand or more in tripods...

Doing a bit of research, one will find that Zeiss lenses consistantly beat out Canikon options, due to drawing/rendering styles. Microcontrast and subjective sharpness make a huge impact. Canikon options typically go all mushy and detailless in the corners, which is terribly annoying for landscape work.

So when considering the peer pressure of L glass and objectivity, most people cannot imagine that L glass can often be lousy compared to other options. Canon has a very poor history of wide angle image quality (sharpness being the primary metric), particularily in the corners (Canon's design strengths are more in the moderate and telephoto ranges). Nikon is a better in this regard, as evidenced by the stellar 14-24. To compare UWA options for a moment, the 14L, Samyang 14mm, and the Nikon 14-24 are three options that come to mind. The 14L has a particularly remarkable attribute and that is distortion control...after that, everything rapidly goes downhill, which is dissapointing for a $2000 lens. The Nikon 14-24 is super sharp and has minor distortion issues at 14mm, but at wider focal lengths that is well controlled...I'm not surprised that quite a few Canon shooters have adapted this lens. Most people have never heard of the Samyang 14mm and considering it only costs $380, most would just assume it is terrible and move on. Well, it is terrible, at distortion that is. For sharpness, it easily beats every wide angle Canon makes, except perhaps the tilt/shift lenses. If your shooting is not hampered by the complex mustache distortion (sunset shooters with a straight horizon), this is the best value UWA you will ever find.

Here are 2 shots I took recently with the Samyang 14mm. Both were shot at f/2.8 and are sharp corner-to-corner. When one gets this wide, the DOF is pretty extreme even wide open, which keeps the lens surprisingly handholdable.




Horseshoe under the stars by posthumus_cake ([url=http://www.pinnaclephotography.net]www.pinnaclephotography.net)[/url], on Flickr




The Cliffs of Insanity by posthumus_cake ([url=http://www.pinnaclephotography.net]www.pinnaclephotography.net)[/url], on Flickr


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 16, 2012)

that first shot is awesome!


----------



## Half Way To Nothing (Nov 16, 2012)

So after a few hours with the 17-40, the vignetting is the most I have ever seen in a lens!!!


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 16, 2012)

Half Way To Nothing said:


> So after a few hours with the 17-40, the vignetting is the most I have ever seen in a lens!!!


The chromatic aberation is also pretty impressive in contrasty scenes. I recently sold my 17-40, as I rarely used it on full frame, due to the corner softness, as well as finding it too wide for my tastes. It is certainly good value, but if image quality is more important to you, then it isn't the lens to get. I can recommend the 24 f/1.4 L MkII, it is much sharper in the corners (at least once you stop down), with good contrast and controls CA much better; it is also much better than the 24-105. There is some vignetting, but it is easily corrected. If you want something wider, then the Zeiss 18mm and 21mm Distagons have good reviews (more so the 21mm than the 18mm), but I haven't tried them personally. The Zeiss 21mm Distagon is one lens that many lust after and was one of my considerations before deciding on the 24mm L, simply because I wanted the wider aperture for the Northern Lights.


----------



## stephan00 (Nov 16, 2012)

Don't forget that there is a profile for Lightroom which corrects the distortion of the Samyang lens! Strictly speaking it was created for the 5DII, but since you can change the resolution in the profile-file, I find it very usable with the 5DIII as well.


----------



## extremeinstability (Nov 16, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> Half Way To Nothing said:
> 
> 
> > So after a few hours with the 17-40, the vignetting is the most I have ever seen in a lens!!!
> ...



I went with the 24L first for night stuff but soon realized the coma on stars is sooooo bad it needs F2.8 anyway. For anything with light sources at night, it just felt really pointless being a fast lens that needed well stopped down. Quickly thought, well heck I should have gotten the Zeiss after all. If Canon would ever ship my 5D II back to me I'd see how the Zeiss performs in that regard. I still want a fast fast lens for auroras and other night ops. Just not sure what it will be. Seems one of the Samyang F1.4s had leaps and bounds better coma characteristics. That stuff is just so damn nasty on the 24L and so far in from the corners too. Least the good aurora displays don't overly need uber fast and F2.8 or so will be great. But yeah, F1.4 to freeze structure better would be nice. If only it wouldn't result in curving lines for stars in the corners from the huge coma. Almost looks like star trails over really short shutters.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Nov 17, 2012)

It's a whole lot of money but take the ts 24 II. In a way this is the most versatile wide angle lens Canon does offer. Not to mention its extremely satisfying sharpness and contrast. Take the Tokina 11-26 as a APS-C back-up and you're gonna master all wide-angle prone situations.


----------



## e-d0uble (Nov 17, 2012)

I know it wasn't one of your choices, but I have to echo the poster who suggested you get the 17mm f4 TS-E. This lens is absolutely fantastic, even when fully shifted and wide open. Manual focus never bothers me as I "grew-up" with manual. It's spendy,that's for sure. Also, I know it's not on your list either (and I've never tried the 24mm f1.4), but the 24mm f3.5 TS-E (II) is unbelievable as well. I find next to nothing wrong with the 25-105: sure the corners aren't spectacular but I'll never let it go as it's a great 'almost all purpose lens'.. Regarding the 50/1.2: I find that this lens can be magic or tragic. Most shots I take with it justify its cost while others make me contemplate throwing it out the window. Also - not to nit-pick, but I don't consider 50mm to be too terribly wide ;D


----------



## michi (Nov 17, 2012)

I had a 17-40L about eight years ago I think. I absolutely hated it. Terrible image quality, I returned it the next day. I now have a 16-35L II. I have seen some fierce arguments on the net over this lens. Someone here in this thread brought up a few interesting points. I do agree that the quality control with this lens must have been poor. I know I'm not crazy, my lens was bad, but so many people wouldn't argue that they like this lens. And more recent tests/reviews show it to be quite capable. So maybe Canon did make a subtle change, or they really improved quality control. Not sure.

I think a used 17-40L might be an interesting option. It can always be sold again for pretty much what you bought it for if you don't like it. I'm happy with my 16-35L II, it's not perfect either, but certainly does the job well. If you can afford it, might as well get that and benefit from the increased low light ability.


----------



## TommyLee (Nov 17, 2012)

Hello Half-way
I had a 50D (sold) with a Canon 10-22...which revealed to me ...I wanted wide lenses...good ones...

some thoughts for what they are worth..things I have tried...
I am suggesting the 14mm f2.8L II
(maybe try the Samyang...but the Canon is *very small* and autofocuses...
this is a great difference IMO)


I also have a 5D3...sure is a good camera
I have had 16-35 II for a couple yrs now (used on 5D2)
...recently got the 14mm f2.8 II... just WOW..

the 14mm II is my new fav lens..
no distortion...very sharp...small and handy.. 
a little more CA than 16-35 II but corrects in LR

for me I plan to use it in 2 ways
as the wide add-on to the bottom of a zoom
...24-70 or 24-105 (I have this one) 
and with something longer on top if needed ......like a 70-200 f2.8 II (love this one)

ALSO
the 14mm fills the widest end of a prime kit in my mind
.... 14L, 35L, 85L/100L/135L/ arrange the tele end .. any way you want (I dont do 50's)
I have the 24L mk I, but I find that lens less useful than my 35L which I think of as the 'normal' lens for a kit...

all this seems to 'bump' my 16-35 II .....as useful...as good as it is...
but not really... the 16-35 is a very fine lens... IF you want that zoom in that range...
I have neglected mine...and take it out...occasionally...

but
my ideal kit will end up
14L 24-70 II (with the fast 35L II (waiting) in the middle... if needed) 
then a specialized longer lens above 70... like 85L, 100L macro or 135L (they do different things)

I like the 24-105...but want the f2.8 aperture(wish it had I.S.)

so all this talk..back to my point
the 14L is big-time quality and crazy fun .....if you want REALLY wide

the 16-35 is MAYBE more useful IF you want zoom in the range 
(I used mine at 16mm mostly ... and thus KNEW I wanted the 14mm)

as you choose variations...
I recommend you keep the 24-105... for now
I keep going to mine IN SPITE of all the others ...
when I want a simple ... camera-at-side..... 
add the 14mm to get real width..... or 135 f2 to get lovely fast reach.....

so again for ME 14mm ...if not the SOLE LENS....is the first hitchhiker...it rides 'shotgun' ...
when I go out... with 24-105 (future 24-70) or other primes...

a few recent 14mm shots....
you cant really see the amazing detail, sharpness and pop....here...
so download the samples... they are just snapshots on a walk thru the city

I see the 14L as my main walk-about ...in the city....

in the dark mornings as the sun rises...
I FIRST use the 85L f1.2 II for the weakest light... shoot at f1.2
then as the sun spills...... out comes the 14L....

those two are just great!

rent a 14L II.....

TOM


----------



## jrsforums (Nov 17, 2012)

My wide angle mix, used on the 5D, 5D2, and, now, the 5d3 are:

Canon 16-35 2.8. (considered the II, but not enough difference foe the $s)
Samyang 14 2.8
Sigma 12-24 II 
Canon 15 fisheye

None of these are perfect, but they each do what I need in specific situations.

John


----------



## s.yoo (Nov 17, 2012)

Definitely the Samyang (or Polar, Bower, Rokinon, Pro-Optics, Vivitar...) 14mm f/2.8. Awesome optics in affordable price. And MF is kinda fun! 

http://flic.kr/p/dgxGpo


----------



## pinnaclephotography (Nov 19, 2012)

For those looking for a more moderate wide angle, the Zeiss Distagon 2/35 sits towards (or on) the top of image quality hill...Canikon cannot touch Zeiss in the microcontrast arena.




Autumn in The Narrows by posthumus_cake ([url=http://www.pinnaclephotography.net]www.pinnaclephotography.net)[/url], on Flickr


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 21, 2012)

Ricku said:


> I wish I could say "Go for the uber sharp 14-24L", but.. :'(
> 
> The 17-40 is rubbish, and the 16-35 is more of a workhorse for photojurnalists. Sharp at the center but lousy edges and corners.
> 
> ...



+1....razor sharp at f2.8 + IS for handheld slow shooting.
[/quote]


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 30, 2012)

*14mm aps-c vs FF on B&H site*

Does anyone know why B&H would advertise the Bower to be optimized for APS-C and not recommended for FF but yet they don't put the same info on the Rokinon and Samyang? They mention light falloff, distortion and apertures f/8 and above. iirc


----------



## dppaskewitz (Dec 1, 2012)

I am equally as confused. I bought the Bower version at B&H when I was in NYC a couple of weeks ago. I am very unhappy with the results and am planning to return it. Did I just get a bad copy and should I order a new one? And, if so, which version? I now see that B&H is selling the Bower version for $299 (with $80 instant savings until December 5). I paid full price of $379. B&H wants $379 for the Rokinon version and $399 for the Samyang version. Are they really all the same? Or are there some differences that would explain the price difference? And, it appears that the Nikon version has a focus confirmation chip, while the Canon version does not. Although the lens is UWA and I will presumably be using it stopped down to some extent, giving a fairly wide depth of field, I can't see to focus all that well through the viewfinder and unfortunately still work with the 5Dc (and thus have no live view for focusing). Assuming I get a new copy, and it is acceptable, how do I add focus confirmation (reading other posts, it sounds like that is what others have done)? Thanks for any insight.


----------



## tron (Dec 1, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I could say "Go for the uber sharp 14-24L", but.. :'(
> ...


I used to wish that, but then, I woke up. 

Now I have all 3 mentioned primes. I bought one every year for the last 3 years.


----------



## pwp (Dec 1, 2012)

Ricku said:


> The 17-40 is rubbish, and the 16-35 is more of a workhorse for photojournalists. Sharp at the center but lousy edges and corners.


That's a mighty big call to say the 17-40 is rubbish. Maybe you have not owned one. It's mushy wide open but is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II from f/5 onwards. The 17-40 is a lens I've used with total confidence for demanding commercial work since they first came out in 2003. Read reviews...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3
http://www.lenstip.com/4.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_17-40_mm_f_4.0L_USM-Introduction.html
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0508/dw0508-1.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Also if you have been following threads about wide zooms on CR you'll see the 17-40 has delivered largely positive experiences for those who own one. 

-PW


----------



## shutterwideshut (Dec 1, 2012)

pwp said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > The 17-40 is rubbish, and the 16-35 is more of a workhorse for photojournalists. Sharp at the center but lousy edges and corners.
> ...



Yep, indeed. Perhaps this guy haven't owned or shot with the 17-40. I am a happy owner of the 17-40mm and definitely I will still keep this lens!


----------



## shutterwideshut (Dec 1, 2012)

One of my shots with the 17-40mm + 5D3 just a few days ago... 




Cliché by [shutterwideshut] on Flickr


----------



## extremeinstability (Dec 1, 2012)

Well there are as many or more on this forum alone that don't seem thrilled with the 17-40 on full frame. 

As for the Samyang comment today above, perhaps it has something to do with original version?
http://www.lenstip.com/200.1-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_IF_ED_MC_Aspherical-Introduction.html

This wording to start off that review "Important! The review of improved vesion of this lens can be found here"

I'm not real sure how one knows if an older one is slipped in. But there's some rather high praise from them on the newer good version... http://www.lenstip.com/239.4-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_ED_AS_IF_UMC_Image_resolution.html


----------



## jrsforums (Dec 1, 2012)

extremeinstability said:


> Well there are as many or more on this forum alone that don't seem thrilled with the 17-40 on full frame.
> 
> As for the Samyang comment today above, perhaps it has something to do with original version?
> http://www.lenstip.com/200.1-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_IF_ED_MC_Aspherical-Introduction.html
> ...



Note the different names.....


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 1, 2012)

B&H do not list the lens they carry as the 'AS'….bummer


----------



## extremeinstability (Dec 1, 2012)

jrsforums said:


> Note the different names.....



I did but wasn't sure they were all that conclusive....

IF ED MC Aspherical
ED AS IF UMC

Both have IF and ED. Then Aspherical spelled out on one and AS used on the other. Then only difference left is UMC vs MC. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/698923-REG/Bower_SLY14MMF28C_14mm_f_2_8_Ultra_Wide.html
Least with the bower at BH it seems off naming it might be hard to tell. 

http://www.amazon.com/Samyang-Manual-Focus-Aspherical-Cameras/dp/B006MI1XUA
Amazon naming doesn't seem helpful either. Guess if one researched enough to distinguish UMC vs MC. I never got that far.


----------



## @!ex (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for my favorite current lens, the 14mm L II. I have shot most of the Sigma UWA lenses and actually find the 8-16mm one of the most outstanding lenses for a crop body that you can get, I shot the siggy 10-20 for a long time, and figured the 8-16 would be just as soft in the corners or even softer because it was much wider, but that is not the case. I usually only shot those lenses at their widest, and usually found myself wanting even wider (its how I see the world I guess). So when I moved to Canon this year and to full frame (5D mkiii) I first got the sigma 12-24, but was totally disappointed. I then sucked it up and bought the 14 LII and I have to say, this thing is nothing short of remarkable. The thing kills is in speed, especially useful for astrophotography, sharpness corner to corner (even wide open), color, and lack of distortion, and almost compete lack of flare. it is small, built like a tank, and a joy to shoot with. The rear gel filter is actually an advantage in my opinion, especially when using huge ND filters (you can also buy a system for using large grad filters on front if you want to go that route, I have it and don't use it much). 

All and all it is a badass lens, my only small grip on it is because it has only 6 aperture blades the starburst when stopped down is only 6 pointed, but this is easily corrected in post if you really hate it.

enough talk, I'll just post some of my favorite images I've shot with it the last few months since getting it, and you can judge for yourself.




The Things You Find by @!ex, on Flickr



Last Ride by @!ex, on Flickr



Everything Peels... by @!ex, on Flickr



Fonda's Madonna by @!ex, on Flickr



Is Where I Drew Some Blood by @!ex, on Flickr



Empty at Rush Hour by @!ex, on Flickr



Sunset on a season by @!ex, on Flickr



Light Pollution by @!ex, on Flickr



DOF for Miles (literally) by @!ex, on Flickr



Sitting on the Dock by @!ex, on Flickr



Mile High 'Murica by @!ex, on Flickr



The Plunge by @!ex, on Flickr



Big Sur by @!ex, on Flickr



No Lines by @!ex, on Flickr



Power Sources by @!ex, on Flickr



Drought by @!ex, on Flickr


----------



## extremeinstability (Dec 1, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> B&H do not list the lens they carry as the 'AS'….bummer



AS is short for aspherical which both names on lenstip are using. Only difference left is MC vs UMC.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm in a similar predicament. I just bought the 5d Mark III and 24-70 2.8 II. (Arriving on Monday...damn UPS was supposed to deliver today but was late).

Anyways, I have a 60D and the 10-22mm... I love using it at 10mm. If I sell the 60D+grip and accessories, and the 10-22 on craigslist, I can probably get about $1500 and buy the 16-35 2.8 II. 

My questions is: 

Is it worth selling my current gear?

OR

Do you guys think I should keep the 60D, not bother with the hassle of trying to sell gear, and have a backup body/2nd camera angle when I do video work.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 1, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> I'm in a similar predicament. I just bought the 5d Mark III and 24-70 2.8 II. (Arriving on Monday...damn UPS was supposed to deliver today but was late).
> 
> Anyways, I have a 60D and the 10-22mm... I love using it at 10mm. If I sell the 60D+grip and accessories, and the 10-22 on craigslist, I can probably get about $1500 and buy the 16-35 2.8 II.
> 
> ...



I would wait until you've had a chance to try out the 24-70 II on the 5D III before making that decision. The 16-35 II is versatile like the 10-22 on a crop camera, but it will lose to the 24-70 II. For you, it might make more sense to get a UWA prime to complement the 24-70 II rather than getting the 16-35 II.


----------



## RC (Dec 1, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> I'm in a similar predicament. I just bought the 5d Mark III and 24-70 2.8 II. (Arriving on Monday...damn UPS was supposed to deliver today but was late).
> 
> Anyways, I have a 60D and the 10-22mm... I love using it at 10mm. If I sell the 60D+grip and accessories, and the 10-22 on craigslist, I can probably get about $1500 and buy the 16-35 2.8 II.
> 
> ...



Tough call and only you can answer. When I got my 5D3 I kept my 7D because 1) it was worth much more to me than what I could get off CL or ebay, 2) I did not want to lose a high FPS and extra reach body and 3) having a second/backup body with same ergo and battery as my 5D3 seemed practical and functional. Besides I knew I would always regret selling it--I love my 7D. 

I did not have any EF-S lens and I already had a 16-35 II so I wasn't motivated to sell any gear. So is a 16-35 a good trade off for your crop gear? I certainly think so but of course only you will know. Either way I would sell your 10-22.


----------



## Promature (Dec 1, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> I'm in a similar predicament. I just bought the 5d Mark III and 24-70 2.8 II. (Arriving on Monday...damn UPS was supposed to deliver today but was late).
> 
> Anyways, I have a 60D and the 10-22mm... I love using it at 10mm. If I sell the 60D+grip and accessories, and the 10-22 on craigslist, I can probably get about $1500 and buy the 16-35 2.8 II.
> 
> ...



I've been using Amazon to sell any old gear I had (sold kit lens, EF 28 f1.8, and 70-200 f4) was sold in less than two days, and more than what I paid for them on the Canon Refurbished site (the 28mm and 70-200 that is). Just make sure you have the lowest price and it will sell quick, I promise.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Dec 1, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> I'm in a similar predicament. I just bought the 5d Mark III and 24-70 2.8 II. (Arriving on Monday...damn UPS was supposed to deliver today but was late).
> 
> Anyways, I have a 60D and the 10-22mm... I love using it at 10mm. If I sell the 60D+grip and accessories, and the 10-22 on craigslist, I can probably get about $1500 and buy the 16-35 2.8 II.
> 
> ...



I regret almost every day that I sold my 60D when I bought my 5D3. But it was a financial trade off I had to do in order for my wife to agree to th purchase.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 1, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> AudioGlenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in a similar predicament. I just bought the 5d Mark III and 24-70 2.8 II. (Arriving on Monday...damn UPS was supposed to deliver today but was late).
> ...



I was considering the 14mm f/2.8L or the TS-E 17mm for their sharpness. You're right about waiting a little though. I have enough work on my hands in the upcoming months learning the new gear. I do know that I want an UWA eventually


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Dec 1, 2012)

I would sell the 60d unless you really value the articulating screen or do macro work.

I use a similar 5d3 setup with the 24-70 II and sold my 16-35 II for the 17mm ts-e instead.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 1, 2012)

+1 for the Tokina. It is a very nice lens, and I'd definitely consider it if I move to FF.
The bulging front element is a worry, tho'

+1 for not liking my 17-40 as well. Colors and sharpness mainly- the 17-85 I had was better (it was really good, actually). I was mostly using it on a crop, but I did notice marked vignetting on the 5DII.


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm in the same situation. I recently moved to a 5D3, so I sold my Tokina 11-16. Really liked that lens. I'm probably going to sell my 24-105, which doesn't see much use since I got the 35L/85L combo. I think at this point I'm probably going to go with the Tokina 16-28, given how much I liked the crop version. The other thing I might do is just wait and save up for a 14L. Need to do some more research about that one, great shots in this thread, though.


----------



## syder (Dec 1, 2012)

I would have bought the Tokina 16-28 if it wasn't for the front element. 

As someone whose paid work is mainly video I need to be able to attach things like variable ND filters. The tokina would require a rig + mattebox + a set of 4x4 ND filters which isn't what I want to use for a lot of gigs where mobility is paramount


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 1, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> I was considering the 14mm f/2.8L or the TS-E 17mm for their sharpness. You're right about waiting a little though. I have enough work on my hands in the upcoming months learning the new gear. I do know that I want an UWA eventually



Yes, lol, the choice between a AF and manual perspective control. Can't go wrong with either choice. It really comes down to how much you do NOT like shooting manually. The TS-E definitely gives some additional creative possibilities!


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 1, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> There is absolutely zero comparison between the 14 and the 17TS-E, they are so different anybody not sure which they need doesn't need either, seriously.
> 
> The 14mm is severely compromised in IQ, but gives amazing fov and very good AF and yes you do need to focus a 14mm. It really shines for things like skateboarding, snowboarding, and other moving and dynamic subjects.
> 
> ...



whoah...slow down there guy. obviously, I'm not sure what I need at this point. take a deep breathe.

Yes, I like UWA angle shots. I actually like the distortion of an ultra wide angle. I'm curious about the the TS-E and it's flexibility and sharpness. I like having AF so the 16-35 and 14mm prime are candidates as well. We're looking at $2k give or take a few hundred dollars. After my latest purchases, I won't be buying anything for a while (unless I can find a way to buy my wife another Louis Vuitton AND get her to agree on another lens purchase! hahaha) 

I agree I should probably go and rent/borrow. Heck, I might want the 8-15 fisheye! I really don't know.... hence my inquiry under the forum topic "Advice 5D3, wide angle".


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 2, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > There is absolutely zero comparison between the 14 and the 17TS-E, they are so different anybody not sure which they need doesn't need either, seriously.
> ...



LOL. I laughed hard at the part when you have to get your wife a LV bag so you can get another lens. It's virtually the same for me. ;D


----------



## ishdakuteb (Dec 2, 2012)

for me, i prefer both crop and full frame, that is the reason why i am still keeping my 7d after buying 5d iii... not sure about you. as if i would have to sell in order to have some cash to assist for new purchase, i would first sell your 10-22mm

my 2 cents


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 2, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> AudioGlenn said:
> 
> 
> > whoah...slow down there guy. obviously, I'm not sure what I need at this point. take a deep breathe.
> ...



my bad. your points are valid and very much appreciated.

how does one de-fish? is a separate plug in needed? ( I use Aperture). Is it built into Lightroom?


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 2, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> AudioGlenn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Haha. I knew I wasn't the only one who had to run these types/size of purchases through the "boss"!


----------



## @!ex (Dec 3, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> AudioGlenn said:
> 
> 
> > my bad. your points are valid and very much appreciated.
> ...



******.

Now I need the 8-15. You bastard.


----------



## @!ex (Dec 3, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > ******.
> ...



Once it is defished, what is the resolution (pixel x pixel)? Do you by chance have a full res shot you could link to, for science? Thanks in advance.


----------



## BrianPowell (Dec 4, 2012)

in six page of replies has anyone asked the OP what he shoots?? 
Budget is a consideration, but what do you shoot the most? 

I think a lot of shooters have owned either the 17-40 or the 16-35, but not both... so there is some bias in those recommendations 

I shoot mostly weddings, but some other portraits and events, etc. I've had the 16-35mm v2 on my 5D (2 and 3) for a long time, and shoot mostly weddings. Most of my all time fave images were at the 16 end of that lens! see http://www.brianpowell.info for examples. 

There is a difference from 16-17mm, and it is noticeable. Also, if you want to shoot under f5.6 or so, your IQ will in fact be better on the 16-35. I love it and shoot all over the range, depending on the ambient light. It's a perfect length for weddings because 16 is dramatically wide on a FF (pulling in sky on outdoor shots) and at 35mm I can take full length portraits or group shots. For journalistic coverage (dance floor, prep shots, etc.) I'm usually pretty wide. It's on the remote camera in the balcony for the ceremony. It does it all! When I travel, it's my landscape lens. 

I've owned the 24-105 f4, and the new 24mm TS-E for a while. The only other wide angle I'd want, and it's on my wish list, is the 14mm rectilinear  Looks superb. 

So what do you shoot?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> I am happy to post full res files but need a suggestion on where to do it.



I'd be interested in the quality loss to - upload full size jpeg to minus.com or abload.de if you happen to speak German, then you can link directly to it. If you want to share the raw files use any sharehoster like rapidshare or one of the trillions of clones.


----------



## @!ex (Dec 4, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Thanks for the links. I guess what I meant by resolution loss, is how much do you lose to the black vignetting that happens at 8mm on FF (or any other focal length beside 15mm). Seems like it is a pretty substantial portion of the sensor, but the effect you can get might make it worth it...


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 22, 2012)

So..... I ordered an 8-15mm fisheye!!!!!! 

B&H had a great deal ($1139+ free overnight shipping). It arrives on Christmas Eve before 1030 a.m.


----------

