# Which wide anlge zoom for new 5D3?



## Bennymiata (May 4, 2012)

I've currently got a Canon 60D and use a Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 for my landscapes etc., and I'm quite happy with it, but I'm upgrading to a new 5D3 and will need a good wide angle zoom lens to more or less replicate what I can do with the 60D and Tokina lens.

I have a budget of around $1500 for the lens, but I'm torn between the 17-40L and 16-35L.
I like the 17-40 as I will be able to use all of my 77mm filters, and I have a number of them which I do use, and won't have to buy new 82mm filters if I buy the 16-35.

Is there really much difference between the 2 lenses?
I generally take most shots at F5.8-F11 and higher anyway, so the F2.8 of the 16-35 might come in handy if I'm using it indoors, but it won't be used much at all.

There are also some other Tokina and Sigma lenses that look pretty good too, and I have Sigma lenses that I think are fantastic, like my 150mm macro with OS, and I've been very happy with my Tokina, so I'm open to suggestions.

What do you guys think I should get?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2012)

I went with the 16-35mm f/2.8L II because I do find f/2.8 useful, and the 16-35mm is a bit better in the corners (which are pretty mushy on the 17-40mm, even stopped down). But neither lens is optically stellar due to the complexities of designing a good UWA zoom for a FF image circle - from that perspective, the 17-40mm is almost as good as the 16-35 II, and a lot cheaper.


----------



## IIIHobbs (May 4, 2012)

I had the 17-40 and traded it for the 16-35 II when it came out. I like the 17-40 until I had opportunity to use the 16-35.

From the Digital Picture review, the 16-35 II has better vignetting performance over the 17-40. The 17-40 meters exposures 1/3 stop darker than the 16-35 II. Even with both lenses wide open (f/2.8 vs. f.4), the 16-35 II shows less light fall-off than the 17-40. 

The 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is slightly sharper in the center at all apertures (including f/2.8 vs. f/4) and focal lengths. At 35mm, they are very similar. At 16/17mm, the corner sharpness results were mixed with the 16-35 slightly better for a generalization. At 24mm, the 16-35 II wins the corner matchups and at 35mm they are mostly similar.

More here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Dylan777 (May 4, 2012)

I was in your situation last month and decided to go with neuroanatomist's advice, 16-35 II plus 82mm #007M Protection Clear MRC (Multi-Resistant Coating) Filter. Awesome lens with 5D III

I plan to get 24-70 II plus 82mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Slim MRC Filter.


----------



## aznstuart (May 4, 2012)

I ran out of money after purchasing the 5DIII >.<

I also had a 60D+Tokina. I'm not sure if you know this, but the Tokina actually works on the 5D. Zoomed out it has a circle though, but zoomed in it's the same focal length of 16mm as the 16-35mm and takes rectilinear pictures. It's not ideal, but it's a good patch until I get a few more jobs.


----------



## yellowkamper (May 4, 2012)

Hi have a look at the pictures posted on this , http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=306.0

Robin


----------



## Jamesy (May 4, 2012)

aznstuart said:


> I ran out of money after purchasing the 5DIII >.<


Me too! ;D



aznstuart said:


> I also had a 60D+Tokina. I'm not sure if you know this, but the Tokina actually works on the 5D.


I thought it only works on one extreme and you run the risk of slapping the mirror against the lens at the other extreme (I think 11mm). Risky IMO.


----------



## Axilrod (May 4, 2012)

+1 for the 16-35mm, I wasn't very impressed with the 17-40 at all. There is a reason the 16-35 costs 2x more.


----------



## ecka (May 4, 2012)

IMHO, 5D3 deserves a nice Zeiss 2,8/15 ZE and 2/25 ZE. Nothing less ;D


----------



## Bennymiata (May 5, 2012)

Thanks guys for your help.
Looks like the 16-35 is better, but not by much.

Now to weigh up the cost differences and the costs of new filters.

I will try the Tokina when the camera arrives, as I have also heard it works from 15mm and up.
Mind you, a little vignetting can sometimes look good too!


----------



## KeeFy (May 8, 2012)

Hey Benny, if you want to try the 16-35, give me a shout. 

Keith.


----------



## Bennymiata (May 8, 2012)

Thanks Keefy.
Wehn i ge the 5D3, I'll let you know, but it may not be until early July.
I'll wait until then for Canon to get the little bugs sorted out, and my savings have accumulated, unless I win the $70M tonight!


----------



## KeeFy (May 9, 2012)

No worries! I've got the 5D3 as well if you want to try them both. Did you win the lotto?  My colleagues were all talking about it.


----------



## Bennymiata (May 10, 2012)

Thanks for the offer Keefy.
I often go through Newtown, so I'd like to take you up on your offer.
I'll send you a PM.

If I had won Ozlotto, I'd be thinking of a complete Hasselblad set-up, not a 5D3 (well, maybe just for something more portable ).


----------



## Digirati (May 10, 2012)

If you're going to spend the $$$, it may be helpful to take a couple of them for a test spin from lensrentals.com or similar (no affiliation).

I have the 16-35mm in my wishlist currently , but can't bring myself to pull the trigger yet. It would be permanently married to my 5DII.


----------



## pwp (May 10, 2012)

The 17-40 f/4 is a perceptual match for the 16-35 f/2.8II from f/5.6-f/11. If your shooting style means you don't need f/2.8 in your wides, the f/4 17-40 delivers. Not only is it half the price, it's a lot lighter in the bag and takes 77mm filters which may match other Canon L glass that you might have. I shoot with the 17-40 f/4 for very technically demanding clients.

But if f/2.8 performance is genuinely important to you and you have the budget, the 16-35 f/2.8II is as good a wide Canon zoom as you're going to find. If you're considering pre-owned, steer away from the MkI version of this lens.

Paul Wright


----------

