Advice 5d3, wide angle
- Thread starter Half Way To Nothing
- Start date
- Status
A
aiai
Guest
get the 17-40L lens!
i was working with a 17-40L lens on my canon 50d for 2 years.
after getting a 5D MK III and putting the lens on a FF cam was amazing.
Nice wideangle lens. I wouldnt pay double the price for a 16-35L lens.
17-40 hast great sharpness beginning at f8.
My suggestions: GET IT!
i was working with a 17-40L lens on my canon 50d for 2 years.
after getting a 5D MK III and putting the lens on a FF cam was amazing.
Nice wideangle lens. I wouldnt pay double the price for a 16-35L lens.
17-40 hast great sharpness beginning at f8.
My suggestions: GET IT!
Upvote
0
Thanks for all the reply's, they echo what I have been thinking. I'm off to Gibraltar over the next few days, they have the 16-35mm for less then 1k. Going to try out the 17-40 tomorrow, up early to catch the Spanish Sun rise!
This is the worst bit about DSLR ownership, not knowing where to put your money! Nothing is cheep!
This is the worst bit about DSLR ownership, not knowing where to put your money! Nothing is cheep!
Upvote
0
A
aiai
Guest
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.
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.
Upvote
0
A
aiai
Guest
its built like a tank and is weather sealed, but note that a filter is required for weather sealing!
Have a look at
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
kr, aiai
Have a look at
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
kr, aiai
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1
There is one easy example. Yes vignetting can be corrected easily enough, but on higher dynamic range scenes it won't be as much fun opening up really really dark shadows(till Canon gets Sony class shadow lack of noise sensors I guess).
I never had a problem with my 17-40 on a crop other than F4 was kinda annoying. Then I got the 10-22 and never used the 17-40 basically. Then I got a 5D II and sold my 10-22. So back out came the 17-40, where I soon hated it now on full frame. F7.1 would be the max of getting rid of vignetting, as in no improvement past that anyway, but it was still there a good bit. Need it more open like F4 and well it was just stupid. I soon found myself iso'ing up the 5D II just because I was stopped down so much. I wished I had enough money to get the 16-35 II just over that issue alone. My copy of the 17-40 on a full frame had utter crap corners, which I have heard is more common than not(many may never have much important out there or notice I guess). The 10-22 was about impossible to get flares off of. 17-40 shooting at night with street lights and voila flares for each light source.
I've never owned the 16-35 but have seen it's flare is at least worse and doesn't sound like corners are that great. Least its vignetting full frame is in a whole nother class. On my 17-40, where you see the heavier vignetting on the above link, you could count on about an equivalent sharpness drop off. It was damn nice in the middle and at least a good ways out though. Even stopped down, if I had stuff in the corners that needed to be sharp, well it was disturbingly soft.
My thought always was, if I'm going to invest the cash to go full frame, I'm going to have to invest the cash to get a lens that truly makes it worth it. I constantly kept thinking, I was better off with my 10-22 on a crop than my 17-40 on full. I had to stop down to help the extreme vignetting to get it to where the 10-22 starts, resulting in more iso noise anyway. Then I added in having flare issues I never had with the 10-22. And again, least on my 17-40 that seemed great in the center, the corners were pathetic, fine on the 10-22. It just felt stupid to have made the "jump".
So I went back to crops as I needed money then and certainly didn't have the ability to spend more for the 16-35. Since then I've made the full frame jump again for the second time and this time I went with the Zeiss 21 for my go to wide angle. Really with these wide angle zooms, you aren't getting that much focal change. A great prime like the 21 Zeiss instead made more sense. I had the option this time around to get the 16-35 and it just didn't sound so appealing.
Here's one to consider on corners as well, Zeiss at F2.8 to the 16-35 stopped down to F5.6 even. Says something about the corners of even the higher priced(than 17-40) 16-35. Weird just how bad the corner vertical lines look.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=708&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3
It seems to me if corners don't matter, have at either zoom. If F4 and vignetting don't matter may as well go 17-40.
Upvote
0
I wish I could say "Go for the uber sharp 14-24L", but.. :'(
The 17-40 is rubbish, and the 16-35 is more of a workhorse for photojurnalists. Sharp at the center but lousy edges and corners.
If I were you, I would go for the Zeiss 21mm, or for the 17mm or 24mm TS-E.
Personally, I'm waitng for canon to release a better UWA-zoom for landscapers. I don't care if it is 14-24, 16-35 or 17-40. I just want it to be razor sharp across the whole frame.
The 17-40 is rubbish, and the 16-35 is more of a workhorse for photojurnalists. Sharp at the center but lousy edges and corners.
If I were you, I would go for the Zeiss 21mm, or for the 17mm or 24mm TS-E.
Personally, I'm waitng for canon to release a better UWA-zoom for landscapers. I don't care if it is 14-24, 16-35 or 17-40. I just want it to be razor sharp across the whole frame.
Upvote
0
Half Way To Nothing said:
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
Upvote
0
aiai said: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
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.
Upvote
0
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?
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
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
Upvote
0
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.Half Way To Nothing said:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Kernuak said:
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.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
