July 28, 2014, 03:19:44 PM

Author Topic: Advice 5d3, wide angle  (Read 17968 times)


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2012, 06:59:10 PM »

Half Way To Nothing

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • A SLR one hit wonder..
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2012, 02:49:12 PM »
Just got my hands on the 17-40 for a long weekend! I'll let you know what I think
Canon 5D mkiii / Canon 50D - Canon 24-105L f4 IS / Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS / Sigma 10-22 f4.5 / Sigma 120-300 OS f2.8 / Sigma 1.4 x / Sigma 2 X

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4356
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2012, 03:42:05 PM »
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

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1285
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2012, 04:07:28 PM »
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


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

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
  • Shoot first ask questions later
    • View Profile
    • PS Photography
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2012, 04:20:38 PM »
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. 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 04:33:52 PM by Pinchers of Peril »
Canon 5D Mark III, 85 1.2 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 16-35 2.8 II, 50 1.4, 40mm pancake www.paulandsunny.blogspot.com

Pinchers of Peril

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
  • Shoot first ask questions later
    • View Profile
    • PS Photography
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2012, 04:52:34 PM »
The 16-35 makes for some fun portraits as well.
Canon 5D Mark III, 85 1.2 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 16-35 2.8 II, 50 1.4, 40mm pancake www.paulandsunny.blogspot.com

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3287
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2012, 05:00:19 PM »
If you must have the ultimate wide angle lens period.

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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2012, 05:00:19 PM »

aiai

  • Guest
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2012, 05:02:15 PM »
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

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2012, 05:07:24 PM »
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

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • A SLR one hit wonder..
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2012, 05:14:21 PM »
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!
Canon 5D mkiii / Canon 50D - Canon 24-105L f4 IS / Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS / Sigma 10-22 f4.5 / Sigma 120-300 OS f2.8 / Sigma 1.4 x / Sigma 2 X

aiai

  • Guest
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2012, 05:27:39 PM »
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

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • A SLR one hit wonder..
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2012, 05:32:16 PM »
Is the 17-40 weather sealed?
Canon 5D mkiii / Canon 50D - Canon 24-105L f4 IS / Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS / Sigma 10-22 f4.5 / Sigma 120-300 OS f2.8 / Sigma 1.4 x / Sigma 2 X

aiai

  • Guest
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2012, 05:35:49 PM »
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

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


kr, aiai

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2012, 05:35:49 PM »

extremeinstability

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Instability.com
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2012, 05:44:13 PM »
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.



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

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 494
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2012, 06:47:09 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 06:50:50 PM by Ricku »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2012, 06:47:09 PM »