October 01, 2014, 10:37:14 AM

Author Topic: Advice 5d3, wide angle  (Read 19108 times)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3813
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2012, 06:54:51 PM »
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..

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
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 06:58:47 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2012, 06:54:51 PM »

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2012, 06:56:08 PM »
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

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2012, 07:28:46 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.

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.
Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

castillophotodesign

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2012, 08:04:46 PM »
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?
Canon 5D Mark III & Canon EOS M
100mm Macro F2.8L, 70-200mm F2.8L IS II, 24-70 F2.8L II, Canon 100-400L, Canon 16-35 F2.8 L II, TC 1.4X, TC 2X

pinnaclephotography

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
    • PinnaclePhotography
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2012, 08:10:09 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.

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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4515
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2012, 01:01:36 AM »
that first shot is awesome!
APS-H Fanboy

Half Way To Nothing

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
  • A SLR one hit wonder..
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2012, 03:51:41 PM »
So after a few hours with the 17-40, the vignetting is the most I have ever seen in a lens!!!
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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2012, 03:51:41 PM »

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2012, 04:28:05 PM »
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.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

stephan00

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #38 on: November 16, 2012, 04:55:49 PM »
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

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 147
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Instability.com
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2012, 05:50:50 PM »
So after a few hours with the 17-40, the vignetting is the most I have ever seen in a lens!!!
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.

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

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #40 on: November 16, 2012, 07:01:49 PM »
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

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #41 on: November 16, 2012, 07:03:37 PM »
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

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2012, 07:08:46 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 02:37:00 AM by michi »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2012, 07:08:46 PM »

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #43 on: November 16, 2012, 08:31:53 PM »
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
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 08:54:44 PM by TommyLee »

jrsforums

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2012, 08:39:35 PM »
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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2012, 08:39:35 PM »