Going Wide on FF but which.

[cfargo]

TSE-17 would be ideal for architecture and landscape

+1
The 17mm Tilt Shift is the best wide angle for architecture hands down. I do own the 14mm II and it is a great lens but for architecture, the 17mm TSE is what I use. As for a zoom, I own both the 17-40 f/4 and the 16-35 f/2.8 and have found the 17-40 my preferred of the 2 as it is slightly sharper and it can use my standard 77mm filters.  The 16-35 f/2.8 requires the larger 82mm filter of which I'm not going to buy any just for 1 lens.

[00Q]

canon is lacking in wide zoom L lenses. hands down. this is where nikon kicks the crap out of canon.

come on canon, give us a FF 10-20mm f/2.8 L

[cfargo]

Nikon's 14-24 is awesome but again you couldn't pay me to buy a Nikon.

[00Q]

Nikon's 14-24 is awesome but again you couldn't pay me to buy a Nikon.

+1

me neither. But thats the exact lens I am talking about. It is hell of a lens. Shame on canon!!

[cfargo]

Nikon's 14-24 is awesome but again you couldn't pay me to buy a Nikon.

+1

me neither. But thats the exact lens I am talking about. It is hell of a lens. Shame on canon!!

Canon has the 8-15 and Nikon doesn't. 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon has the 8-15 and Nikon doesn't. 

...and the TS-E 17mm, and the MP-E 65mm.  But...Nikon has a 200-400mm f/4 VR (a real, purchasable lens, not a 'we announced development of one but we haven't announced it for real and even if we do it'll be well over a year before you can buy one' lens).

[KurtStevens]

I have 16-35 and 50, 85, and 135 and will be adding another body to the mix (probably a 7d or something crop body just to push that 135 to 200+)  and I have to say I love my 16-35.  Yes its 82mm but if you're going to want the best expect the cost to come with.

What do the pro's use? 

[K-amps]

Canon has the 8-15 and Nikon doesn't. 

...and the TS-E 17mm, and the MP-E 65mm.  But...Nikon has a 200-400mm f/4 VR (a real, purchasable lens, not a 'we announced development of one but we haven't announced it for real and even if we do it'll be well over a year before you can buy one' lens).

What's the huge deal with the 200-400?  It is a nice range to have ... and Canon has 400mm covered in 4-5 lenses at different price points  does it not?

[Gumbum]

The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 seems good for landscapes, but probably not for architecture - it's got massive barrel distortion, and it's moustache-type which means it's a challenge to correct in post, so straight lines and that lens don't play nicely together.

Well..it's not that great for landscapes either since you can't use filters on it...extremely sharp lens though.

[Axilrod]

Haven't tried the 50 f/1.4 yet, although it's on my list to buy (replace the 50 f/1.8 I have). 85 f/1.8 I love as well. Classic portraiture length, and pretty large aperture. Great value for the money in my book, even if supposedly it isn't as good as the 85 f/1.2.

The 85mm 1.2 isn't supposedly better than the 85 1.8, its a much better lens, no question.  The 85 1.8 is a great value and performs very well, but after using the 85L I could never go back. 

[Policar]

canon is lacking in wide zoom L lenses. hands down. this is where nikon kicks the crap out of canon.

come on canon, give us a FF 10-20mm f/2.8 L

Really?  Not just by far the widest rectilinear lens ever made (excluding pinholes), but with a 2x zoom range and fast?  I'm sure they'll get right to that.

As for the first question, for architecture and landscape a T/S lens is the easy choice since you'll need to correct perspective for either.  I'd prefer 24mm to 17mm for outdoor stuff but both have great reputations.  The 14mm is fun but overpriced for what it is and the Samyang seems to have an awful lot of distortion, plus 14mm is kind of a gimmick focal length...  Not that I'm above gimmicks or even use it was well as most.

[ferdi]

What's the huge deal with the 200-400?  It is a nice range to have ... and Canon has 400mm covered in 4-5 lenses at different price points  does it not?

It has a built-in 1.4x extender which makes it a 280-560mm f/5.6 lens as well.
That's 900mm on a 1.6x body, with AF.

[K-amps]

What's the huge deal with the 200-400?  It is a nice range to have ... and Canon has 400mm covered in 4-5 lenses at different price points  does it not?

It has a built-in 1.4x extender which makes it a 280-560mm f/5.6 lens as well.
That's 900mm on a 1.6x body, with AF.

Thats nice... but it is $7G's too... For that price; Perhaps one could get a EF 400 F2.8 mk.ii, slap a 2x mk.iii and stay at F5.6 for 800mm on FF or  1280mm on crop . Yes you get zoom with the Nikon... but it is not like Canon does not have coverage on the long end. Maybe I am missing something else...

[Maui5150]

I was definitely thinking of the 400 2.8 and with the extender my 70 - 200 would fill the gap, albeit at 5.6 from 200 - 400 and then the 400 could be either 400 at 2.8 or 800 at 5.6. 

Love the TS-Es but I am also trying to stay a little cheaper since I don't shoot that much here.  I need to find a local buddy I can borrow from or bribe with beers.

[Axilrod]

canon is lacking in wide zoom L lenses. hands down. this is where nikon kicks the crap out of canon.

come on canon, give us a FF 10-20mm f/2.8 L

As fun as that would be, it would take some serious engineering to make that happen.  But I do agree that the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a bad ass lens and I really wish Canon would make one.