Going Wide on FF but which.

[Maui5150]

So did some cleaning of house on my lenses.

Out EF-S 10-22, 18-135, and EF 70-200 F/4L non-IS

Since I am focusing on the 5DMKII over my T2i which is now a backup body, my current stable of lenses are:

EF 24-105 F/4L
EF 50 F/1.4
EF 85 F/1.8
EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS II

Thinking down the road adding the 135 F/2, though the 70-200 is so capable, I think I can live with that to cover the range.

I still would like to do some Landscape / Architecture shots wide and have been weighing the 15 Fisheye, the 16-35 MK I or the 17-40 F/4L.  Price wise the 17-40 seems like a FF swap of the 10-22, but for the money and since it is slower glass, not sure if that is too much overlap with the 24-105. 

The 14 is obviously a sweet lens, but since this is not a need lens, and more of a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down. 

Also debating whether I go for some more length and weight the 300 or 400, though the 2X converter might give me similar results.

[mortadella]

So did some cleaning of house on my lenses.

Out EF-S 10-22, 18-135, and EF 70-200 F/4L non-IS

Since I am focusing on the 5DMKII over my T2i which is now a backup body, my current stable of lenses are:

EF 24-105 F/4L
EF 50 F/1.4
EF 85 F/1.8
EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS II

Thinking down the road adding the 135 F/2, though the 70-200 is so capable, I think I can live with that to cover the range.

I still would like to do some Landscape / Architecture shots wide and have been weighing the 15 Fisheye, the 16-35 MK I or the 17-40 F/4L.  Price wise the 17-40 seems like a FF swap of the 10-22, but for the money and since it is slower glass, not sure if that is too much overlap with the 24-105. 

The 14 is obviously a sweet lens, but since this is not a need lens, and more of a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down. 

Also debating whether I go for some more length and weight the 300 or 400, though the 2X converter might give me similar results.

I'm in the same boat, can't wait to see the replies you get.

I mentioned in another thread that I was going to get the 17-40L to cover my wide to ultrawide range on my recently purchased 5D, but that was met with plenty of lukewarm to negative responses.  Seems as though the only ultrawide zoom worthy for a FF is the 16-35L II which is twice the price, and that is actually the exact FF equivalent of the 10-22 FL on a crop.  Other recommendations were for the 24L - equivalent to 15mm on the crop...I hope you get some good replies!

[Drizzt321]

I've rented the 24 f/1.4, and it's amazing. I haven't really done detail checks at the corners vs center, etc, but it's got amazing bokeh, especially when you have something close. Good detail, I'd say pretty sharp, but didn't really look closely at it. Nice and quiet with fast USM focusing, and not too heavy.

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.

I rented the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II, amazing lens, pretty darn heavy, but awesome. However, I decided to spend my money otherwise. Specifically on the 135 f/2. Great lens, really awesome. I highly recommend it. About the same length & weight as the 24-105, but gorgeous bokeh at that focal length and wide open aperture.

[CowGummy]

Personally, I love my 17-40L. I was debating selling it when I moved over to the 5DII which I bought with the 24-105L. Interesting to hear you've seen negative posts about the 17-40L on some threads of this forum, because I mentioned selling mine in favour of putting the money towards the 24-105L, and was assured I'd be mad to get rid of it. And I'm really glad that I didn't - for the money I maintain it's a great lens - yes, no speed demon, and it will overlap with the 24-105L, but the range from 17-24mm is one that I love and use a lot.

So, if I was in your shoes (and trying to keep down costs as you mention) I would probably try and pick up a good second hand copy of the 17-40L, and if you find it's somewhat limiting, you can always sell it again without much of a loss and give the 16-35 a go instead.

[Kahuna]

My choice would be the 16-35.  I have the 16-35 II which I shoot on both my  5D and 5D II bodies.  Not sure of the 16-35 MKI?  never used it so can't make a comparative judgement.  Had the opportunity to play around with the 14  mm fisheye for awhile, have to say it was fun but it just didn't wow me enough to purchase.  The 16-35 has become my workhorse for landscape and my general walkaround lens when limited to a single lens selection. 

[Maui5150]

@CowGummy - The only thing that kept me from jumping on the 17-40 was I heard at 17 wide open it has a lot of issues and really only became useable once you got in the middle of the range. 

[K-amps]

The automatic choice is the 16-35 mk.ii  But pricey.

Sigma 12-24mm mk. 1  (Mk.ii has tri-polar distortion nodes), the Mk.1 is pretty good in distortion but is a bit soft on the edges. So choose your poison.

I had the 17-40L ... it was an ok lens. Nothing special, very average.

[briansquibb]

TSE-17 would be ideal for architecture and landscape

[dstppy]

"The 14 is obviously a sweet lens, but since this is not a need lens, and more of a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down. "

Too late and a dollar short with this answer, but I would have kept with the EF-S 10-22 and used it when you wanted to go ultra-wide.

Lots of good choices, lots of good answers, but unless you're going into business taking UW and/or changing your style, why switch?

Anyhoo, take a look at the shots you took that you liked the FOV on the UW you had before and apply the crop factor.  As for the 17-40, didn't see any problems with unusability from our good friends at lensrentals:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/canon-17-40mm-f4l

If you're going wide and don't want to break the bank, that seems like a reasonable FF choice.

[neuroanatomist]

I still would like to do some Landscape / Architecture shots wide and have been weighing the 15 Fisheye, the 16-35 MK I or the 17-40 F/4L.  Price wise the 17-40 seems like a FF swap of the 10-22, but for the money and since it is slower glass, not sure if that is too much overlap with the 24-105....a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down.

This is tough - ultrawide lenses for FF are amont the most difficult lenses to design, and thus, good ones are expensive.  The 17-40mm does have issues at the wide end, but by 20mm f/8 it's ok.  The 16-35mm II (which I have) is quite nice, optically better than the 17-40mm especially at the wide end and wide open.  The MkII was a significant improvement on the original 16-35mm, which was only slightly better than the 17-40mm.

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.

The best lenses for architecture are the TS-E 17mm f/4L and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.  Both are excellent optically (the 24mm is slightly better), so it comes down to focal length.  But, both are very expensive.

[awinphoto]

I still would like to do some Landscape / Architecture shots wide and have been weighing the 15 Fisheye, the 16-35 MK I or the 17-40 F/4L.  Price wise the 17-40 seems like a FF swap of the 10-22, but for the money and since it is slower glass, not sure if that is too much overlap with the 24-105....a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down.

This is tough - ultrawide lenses for FF are amont the most difficult lenses to design, and thus, good ones are expensive.  The 17-40mm does have issues at the wide end, but by 20mm f/8 it's ok.  The 16-35mm II (which I have) is quite nice, optically better than the 17-40mm especially at the wide end and wide open.  The MkII was a significant improvement on the original 16-35mm, which was only slightly better than the 17-40mm.

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.

The best lenses for architecture are the TS-E 17mm f/4L and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.  Both are excellent optically (the 24mm is slightly better), so it comes down to focal length.  But, both are very expensive.

From what I was aware of, the 17-40 was heads and shoulders better than the 16-35 mark1 especially in sharpness on the wide end... The mark 2 made the 16-35 better than the 17-40...  I use the 17-40 on my 5d2... just shot some airline interiors with it for a client... So far so good... Go to a camera store and see if you can take a few test shots with both lenses on your camera... Go home, anaylize to your hearts content and make your mind up then. 

[briansquibb]

I would use the 17-40 stopped down to at least f/5.6 - noticably better at f/8 than f/4

[CowGummy]

I still would like to do some Landscape / Architecture shots wide and have been weighing the 15 Fisheye, the 16-35 MK I or the 17-40 F/4L.  Price wise the 17-40 seems like a FF swap of the 10-22, but for the money and since it is slower glass, not sure if that is too much overlap with the 24-105....a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down.

This is tough - ultrawide lenses for FF are amont the most difficult lenses to design, and thus, good ones are expensive.  The 17-40mm does have issues at the wide end, but by 20mm f/8 it's ok.  The 16-35mm II (which I have) is quite nice, optically better than the 17-40mm especially at the wide end and wide open.  The MkII was a significant improvement on the original 16-35mm, which was only slightly better than the 17-40mm.

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.

The best lenses for architecture are the TS-E 17mm f/4L and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.  Both are excellent optically (the 24mm is slightly better), so it comes down to focal length.  But, both are very expensive.

From what I was aware of, the 17-40 was heads and shoulders better than the 16-35 mark1 especially in sharpness on the wide end... The mark 2 made the 16-35 better than the 17-40...  I just the 17-40 on my 5d2... just shot some airline interiors with it for a client... So far so good... Go to a camera store and see if you can take a few test shots with both lenses on your camera... Go home, anaylize to your hearts content and make your mind up then.

+1 That sounds like the most solid piece of advice here. Don't buy before you try and as suggested by awinphoto, if you can do it on your own body you've got the advantage of being able to compare shots in your own time.

[Bruce Photography]

I'm weighing in with Neuro - for Landscape the tilt-shift lenses beat almost every other Canon lens if you ignore not having AF and that they are slow.  On a tripod the 17 tse and 24 tse II are a dream to use.  I own the others as well but they just don't get used outside as much.  By the way, if you never used a tse type lens before, try one by setting setting both tilt and shift to zero and use it as a 17 or a 24.  Once you feel comfortable with doing that, try setting tilt to only 1/3 or 1/2 a degree (i.e. less that a full degree) on a eye level tripod doing a landscape with some sort of forground that you want in focus and see what you get.  Set to F8 or F11 on a full frame body and prepare to be amazed.  Check out the corners and compare it to any non-tse Canon lens.  Let us know what you find.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Unless you are doing indoor photography, the 17-40mm is fine, since you will be wanting to use f/8 in any event.  If you want low light, the 16-35 gives you a wider aperture.  I ended up with a older out of production Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that I bought off Craigslist for $125.  I liked it so much that I sold my 17-40mm L.

I'd like to have the 24mm f/1.4, but its too expensive for occasional use.