Going Wide on FF but which.

[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.

 

[katwil]

I’m facing the same issue several other posters are. Moving to the 5D mk II means my Sigma 8-16 is very limited. While it will attach to the mk II, the lens petals (I guess that’s what Sigma calls them) protrude onto the image up to about 14mm. I had expected the 24-105 to handle the wide stuff, but I’ve been shocked to see how prominent the barrel distortion is at 24mm.

Sigma makes a big brother to the 8-16, the 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 AF II DG HSM, that gets good reviews for FF. If this lens is close to what the 8-16 is on APS-C, at under $1,000 it might be worth a look, especially as it becomes an entirely different animal (19-38mm) on APS-C.

 

[ejenner]

Yup, choices are painful.

But for $700, if you are using the lens on a tripod most of the time, the 17-40 is a decent lens. OK, corners suck at f4, but really who needs corners at f4? Well, I guess some do. 77mm filters, cheap, weather-sealed and decently sharp at f8 and smaller (and actually OK in the center at f4-5.6). If you thought the 10-22 was OK, I don't see you having a problem with the 17-40. It's also fairly light and not too big, so great if it's not a FL you're going to use all the time.

But I do landscape as my primary 'most-fun' shooting, so I recently got a TS-E 17mm so maybe I can affort to be upbeat about the 17-40. The TS-E is also sharp enough for me with a 1.4TC. Actually i think the biggest benefit is the shift, but lets just say I have to change my PP and printing sharpening for this lens.

 

[briansquibb]

Yup, choices are painful.

But for $700, if you are using the lens on a tripod most of the time, the 17-40 is a decent lens. OK, corners suck at f4, but really who needs corners at f4? Well, I guess some do. 77mm filters, cheap, weather-sealed and decently sharp at f8 and smaller (and actually OK in the center at f4-5.6). If you thought the 10-22 was OK, I don't see you having a problem with the 17-40. It's also fairly light and not too big, so great if it's not a FL you're going to use all the time.

But I do landscape as my primary 'most-fun' shooting, so I recently got a TS-E 17mm so maybe I can affort to be upbeat about the 17-40. The TS-E is also sharp enough for me with a 1.4TC. Actually i think the biggest benefit is the shift, but lets just say I have to change my PP and printing sharpening for this lens.

+1 for the 17-40 @f/5.6 - f/13

 

[Flake]

I'm sure this won't win any friends, but seeing as Canon is incapable of making a decent wide angle lens, then it's necessary to look to other suppliers. Thom Hogan has been using the Nikon 14 - 24mm f/2.8 with an adaptor, and getting much better results than with the Canon wide angles. It's a lens which does perform, and fortunately for us we are able to use Nikon lenses, something which is not possible the other way around. The lens is well built & holds its value well should (perish the thought) Canon manage to produce a wide angle which does have decent performance.

 

[Caps18]

I just went to the NAIAS auto show with a 5Dm2 and a 16-35mm II, and it was perfect. 20-24mm was the most typical, but sometimes you had to get close to the cars, and still frame the shot.

If I had to take one lens from my kit, the 16-35 would be my choice. You can increase the ISO and not need a flash as well.

 

[BornNearDaBayou]

I don't know why more people aren't suggesting the Tokina 16-28/f2.8 or 17-35/f4. The 16-28 is supposed to be extraordinary. But of course you cannot use any filters

I have the 17-40L and although I haven't compared it to the 16-35, I hear they are almost the same in IQ. I am mostly happy with the 17-40, although yes, wide-open it is a dog.

It does sharpen up nicely from f/8-11, which is where I use it all the time. Nice lens for the price. Internal zoom or focus--however you describe it.

I will rent or buy the 17-35 Tokina eventually, and sell my 17-40L if the Tokina is better in IQ. I know the Tokina supposedly has almost zero distortion.....the 17-40L has A LOT at 17mm, some at 18mm, and neglible at 19mm.