Advice 5d3, wide angle

[Half Way To Nothing]

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]

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]

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

[CharlieB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[pinnaclephotography]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.