July 28, 2014, 06:42:00 AM

Author Topic: 17-40 Replacement  (Read 4474 times)

joaopedroglm

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
17-40 Replacement
« on: July 12, 2013, 04:00:52 PM »
Hello,

So i use the 17-40 for Landscape photography and i`m not happy with the results, so i m considering the Zeiss 21 2.8 or the 24 II TSE 3.5,  i would like to know some opinions and if i will see major result differences with these lens that i mentioned.

Thanks.


Canon 5D2, Canon 7D, Canon 17-40 , Sigma 35mm, Canon 70-200 IS II
Canon 5d2, Canon 70-200 2.8 II, Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE, Sigma 35 1.4, Fuji x100s

canon rumors FORUM

17-40 Replacement
« on: July 12, 2013, 04:00:52 PM »

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: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2013, 04:04:58 PM »
I don't love the 17-40 but I do like the 17-40. It makes great results @ 5.6 and that's where I begin aperture wise for landscapes.

callmeasyoulike

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
    • my flickr
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2013, 04:31:55 PM »
Hello,

So i use the 17-40 for Landscape photography and i`m not happy with the results, so i m considering the Zeiss 21 2.8 or the 24 II TSE 3.5,  i would like to know some opinions and if i will see major result differences with these lens that i mentioned.

Thanks.


Canon 5D2, Canon 7D, Canon 17-40 , Sigma 35mm, Canon 70-200 IS II

I have the same "problem" (if its a real problem). Most of the time the 17-40 is pretty enough, but sometimes I wish I had a lens wich is more consistent in sharpness. I`m thinking about the TS-E 24 ... maybe I will work more often with stitching images.
Funny: I nearly own the same lenses and cameras as you do  :) maybe a special problem of this compilation  ;D
5D Mark II/5D Mark III/17-40/24-70VC/70-200 4LIS/35 1,4HSM/40/85 1,8/100L/135/NEXC3/19/30 2,8/RX-100

Jo7hs2

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2013, 05:23:13 PM »
If you can afford it, everything I've read on the topic suggests the mark II TSE 24 is stunning, and of course you also get tilt-shift in the equation. The latter point is enough that I've been considering the somewhat less stunning (but still perfectly good) mark I for some time now. I've never really been dissatisfied with my 17-40, but I typically use it fairly well stopped down, for long exposure waterfall work or other nature photography.

MARKOE PHOTOE

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 168
  • Photography is a love affair with life.
    • View Profile
    • http://www.markoe.smugmug.com
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2013, 05:51:12 PM »
I feel your pain as I've had and sold the 17-40, twice.  Had the 16-35 f2.8L mark 1 and sold that and now have the equally as horrible mark II version.  It works 'ok' at F4 - F11 but still soft in the corners. I only use it when I need the 16mm range, with caution.

The landscape lenses I use now are the 24TSE-II and a Zeiss 35mm 2.0 or the Sigma 35mm 1.4. All three are incredibly sharp throughout 'most' of the range. I hope in time to sell one of the 35mm's as I don't need to carry more than I can use. 

As you know, both the TSE and Zeiss are manual focus.  Getting critical sharpness is lesson to learn.  I'm lucky enough to also use a Zeiss 100mm, which for landscape, is a great tool also.

You also mentioned the Canon 24mm II  which I've heard is also a great lens but the TSE appears to out perform it in the IQ arena.

Lastly, the Zeiss 21mm would be my next purchase after I sell some of my other mothball fleet lenses.

Best of Luck
A few cameras and lenses and a lot of creative energy and imagination.
"You never learn anything until you mess it up."

joaopedroglm

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2013, 09:18:43 AM »
Thanks Guys

Still a hard decision :)
Canon 5d2, Canon 70-200 2.8 II, Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE, Sigma 35 1.4, Fuji x100s

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1284
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2013, 10:40:19 AM »
Given that both options are manual focus, I'd go with the TS-E 24.  Typically used for architectural photography, the movements also come in handy for landscapes.  I use shift to so some quick panoramas and to get a shot that I can not get to.  I use tilt far less but it useful when you can.  If you don't use the movements, the TS-E 24 II is still about the best 24mm lens around.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2013, 10:40:19 AM »

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1462
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2013, 11:03:42 AM »
The TSE 24 is a very good lens. However, keep in mind that you need a tripod to get the benefit out of the T&S functions, otherwise you will be left with a very sharp, albeit a slow 24mm prime.
Light is language!

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1357
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2013, 11:37:05 AM »
I don´t know the Zeiss, other than all the positive things written about it.

I personally love 24 mm. I think that is the best wide angle you can get, before your side perspective gets too distorted. I have had the 17-40 and both versions of the 16-35 (still have 16-35 vII) I hardly used or use them.

The 24 TS-E f3.5L II is a great lens. Without using the tilt & shift it still outperforms any 24mm I have seen, except for the fact that it is manual focus. With the tilt & shift you can do awesome things with it. A lot of people think architecture when they hear of T&S lenses. But they have lots of great use in nature and landscape photography. you can create incredible depth of field and correct perspective in forests etc. You can also create very cool effects, by shifting the focusing layer vertically, to be an angle off the straight parallel line you get with all other lenses.

If you are willing to spend the time it takes to exploit the potential of this lens, you will see many great results. You need a good camera body, a good tripod and lots of extra work pr. shot. But in my view, that is what makes photography fun.

Good luck!
2x5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L II, 70-300/4-5.6L, 200-400/4L 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Sigma 50/1.4 Art, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 85/1.2L II, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L II

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1231
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2013, 11:53:39 AM »
I'm very pleased with my 17-40, actually - one of my favorite lenses. I use it exclusively on my 5D Mk II and I'm very happy with the results. I also love the portability of the 17-40 which makes it great for travel. I'm not a landscape-shooter per-se but I do extensively use this lens when traveling.

Supposedly it's the best WA zoom Canon has to offer, so I would suggest you look into a prime as suggested by others on this forum (though a T&S would perhaps be a little overkill). How about a 24mm L? Note I've no experience with the latter. I do have a Samyang 14mm and a Sigma 20mm - interesting lenses but not for landscape work I'd say...
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 11:58:26 AM by mrsfotografie »
5D3, 5D2, NEX-6 | SY14mm f/2.8, Ʃ20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, Ʃ35mm f/1.4A, 50mm f/1.8 I, Ʃ50mm f/1.4 EX, 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12mm f/2, Ʃ19mm & 30mm f/2.8 EX DN, 16-50 & 55-210 OSS | 2x FT-QL, AE-1P, FD(n) & FL primes

joaopedroglm

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2013, 01:21:19 PM »
And what about the Zeiss, anyone who have experience with this lens?
Canon 5d2, Canon 70-200 2.8 II, Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE, Sigma 35 1.4, Fuji x100s

rumorzmonger

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2013, 03:04:45 PM »
And what about the Zeiss, anyone who have experience with this lens?

The Zeiss 21mm f2.8 is a superb lens - equal to or better than the Canon 24mm f3.5L II TS-E in most respects, except the Zeiss has a little bit of distortion.
Nikon D800E, Nikon D7100, Fuji XE-1, Nikon FE2, Olympus OM-4Ti, OM-1 MD

joaopedroglm

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2013, 06:11:02 AM »
What about the colors?
Canon 5d2, Canon 70-200 2.8 II, Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE, Sigma 35 1.4, Fuji x100s

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2013, 06:11:02 AM »

docholliday

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2013, 06:39:36 AM »
What about the colors?

It's very Zeissy!

rsk7

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
    • riverstep photography
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2013, 09:47:47 AM »
I highly recommend the 24 TSE II.

The Tilt and Shift give you lots of flexibility to be creative with a shot that you just cannot do with other lens. I shift all the time not only to fix perspective but to give me slightly diff angles on the shot that I can't move to get. Like when standing on the edge of a cliff or if I need to be a bit taller. Shift you can also use handheld without any issues unless you are trying to panorama with it. Then I'd recommend the tripod.

With manual focus of the lens I can still get focus confirmation from my 5D3 so while it isn't changing the focus for me, I do get the little dot in the view finder confirming that my selected focus point is in focus.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2013, 09:47:47 AM »