Advice 5d3, wide angle

HarryWintergreen · Nov 16, 2012

It's a whole lot of money but take the ts 24 II. In a way this is the most versatile wide angle lens Canon does offer. Not to mention its extremely satisfying sharpness and contrast. Take the Tokina 11-26 as a APS-C back-up and you're gonna master all wide-angle prone situations.

e-d0uble · Nov 16, 2012

I know it wasn't one of your choices, but I have to echo the poster who suggested you get the 17mm f4 TS-E. This lens is absolutely fantastic, even when fully shifted and wide open. Manual focus never bothers me as I "grew-up" with manual. It's spendy,that's for sure. Also, I know it's not on your list either (and I've never tried the 24mm f1.4), but the 24mm f3.5 TS-E (II) is unbelievable as well. I find next to nothing wrong with the 25-105: sure the corners aren't spectacular but I'll never let it go as it's a great 'almost all purpose lens'.. Regarding the 50/1.2: I find that this lens can be magic or tragic. Most shots I take with it justify its cost while others make me contemplate throwing it out the window. Also - not to nit-pick, but I don't consider 50mm to be too terribly wide ;D

michi · Nov 16, 2012

I had a 17-40L about eight years ago I think. I absolutely hated it. Terrible image quality, I returned it the next day. I now have a 16-35L II. I have seen some fierce arguments on the net over this lens. Someone here in this thread brought up a few interesting points. I do agree that the quality control with this lens must have been poor. I know I'm not crazy, my lens was bad, but so many people wouldn't argue that they like this lens. And more recent tests/reviews show it to be quite capable. So maybe Canon did make a subtle change, or they really improved quality control. Not sure.

I think a used 17-40L might be an interesting option. It can always be sold again for pretty much what you bought it for if you don't like it. I'm happy with my 16-35L II, it's not perfect either, but certainly does the job well. If you can afford it, might as well get that and benefit from the increased low light ability.

TommyLee · Nov 16, 2012

Hello Half-way
I had a 50D (sold) with a Canon 10-22...which revealed to me ...I wanted wide lenses...good ones...

some thoughts for what they are worth..things I have tried...
I am suggesting the 14mm f2.8L II
(maybe try the Samyang...but the Canon is very small and autofocuses...
this is a great difference IMO)

I also have a 5D3...sure is a good camera
I have had 16-35 II for a couple yrs now (used on 5D2)
...recently got the 14mm f2.8 II... just WOW..

the 14mm II is my new fav lens..
no distortion...very sharp...small and handy..
a little more CA than 16-35 II but corrects in LR

for me I plan to use it in 2 ways
as the wide add-on to the bottom of a zoom
...24-70 or 24-105 (I have this one)
and with something longer on top if needed ......like a 70-200 f2.8 II (love this one)

ALSO
the 14mm fills the widest end of a prime kit in my mind
.... 14L, 35L, 85L/100L/135L/ arrange the tele end .. any way you want (I dont do 50's)
I have the 24L mk I, but I find that lens less useful than my 35L which I think of as the 'normal' lens for a kit...

all this seems to 'bump' my 16-35 II .....as useful...as good as it is...
but not really... the 16-35 is a very fine lens... IF you want that zoom in that range...
I have neglected mine...and take it out...occasionally...

but
my ideal kit will end up
14L 24-70 II (with the fast 35L II (waiting) in the middle... if needed)
then a specialized longer lens above 70... like 85L, 100L macro or 135L (they do different things)

I like the 24-105...but want the f2.8 aperture(wish it had I.S.)

so all this talk..back to my point
the 14L is big-time quality and crazy fun .....if you want REALLY wide

the 16-35 is MAYBE more useful IF you want zoom in the range
(I used mine at 16mm mostly ... and thus KNEW I wanted the 14mm)

as you choose variations...
I recommend you keep the 24-105... for now
I keep going to mine IN SPITE of all the others ...
when I want a simple ... camera-at-side.....
add the 14mm to get real width..... or 135 f2 to get lovely fast reach.....

so again for ME 14mm ...if not the SOLE LENS....is the first hitchhiker...it rides 'shotgun' ...
when I go out... with 24-105 (future 24-70) or other primes...

a few recent 14mm shots....
you cant really see the amazing detail, sharpness and pop....here...
so download the samples... they are just snapshots on a walk thru the city

I see the 14L as my main walk-about ...in the city....

in the dark mornings as the sun rises...
I FIRST use the 85L f1.2 II for the weakest light... shoot at f1.2
then as the sun spills...... out comes the 14L....

those two are just great!

rent a 14L II.....

TOM

jrsforums · Nov 16, 2012

My wide angle mix, used on the 5D, 5D2, and, now, the 5d3 are:

Canon 16-35 2.8. (considered the II, but not enough difference foe the $s)
Samyang 14 2.8
Sigma 12-24 II
Canon 15 fisheye

None of these are perfect, but they each do what I need in specific situations.

John

s.yoo · Nov 16, 2012

Definitely the Samyang (or Polar, Bower, Rokinon, Pro-Optics, Vivitar...) 14mm f/2.8. Awesome optics in affordable price. And MF is kinda fun!

http://flic.kr/p/dgxGpo

pinnaclephotography · Nov 18, 2012

For those looking for a more moderate wide angle, the Zeiss Distagon 2/35 sits towards (or on) the top of image quality hill...Canikon cannot touch Zeiss in the microcontrast arena.

Autumn in The Narrows by posthumus_cake ([url=http://www.pinnaclephotography.net]www.pinnaclephotography.net)[/url], on Flickr

Dylan777 · Nov 21, 2012

Ricku said:
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.

+1....razor sharp at f2.8 + IS for handheld slow shooting.
[/quote]

crasher8 · Nov 30, 2012

14mm aps-c vs FF on B&H site

Does anyone know why B&H would advertise the Bower to be optimized for APS-C and not recommended for FF but yet they don't put the same info on the Rokinon and Samyang? They mention light falloff, distortion and apertures f/8 and above. iirc

dppaskewitz · Nov 30, 2012

I am equally as confused. I bought the Bower version at B&H when I was in NYC a couple of weeks ago. I am very unhappy with the results and am planning to return it. Did I just get a bad copy and should I order a new one? And, if so, which version? I now see that B&H is selling the Bower version for $299 (with $80 instant savings until December 5). I paid full price of $379. B&H wants $379 for the Rokinon version and $399 for the Samyang version. Are they really all the same? Or are there some differences that would explain the price difference? And, it appears that the Nikon version has a focus confirmation chip, while the Canon version does not. Although the lens is UWA and I will presumably be using it stopped down to some extent, giving a fairly wide depth of field, I can't see to focus all that well through the viewfinder and unfortunately still work with the 5Dc (and thus have no live view for focusing). Assuming I get a new copy, and it is acceptable, how do I add focus confirmation (reading other posts, it sounds like that is what others have done)? Thanks for any insight.

tron · Nov 30, 2012

Dylan777 said:
Ricku said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1....razor sharp at f2.8 + IS for handheld slow shooting.

I used to wish that, but then, I woke up.

Now I have all 3 mentioned primes. I bought one every year for the last 3 years.

pwp · Nov 30, 2012

Ricku said:
The 17-40 is rubbish, and the 16-35 is more of a workhorse for photojournalists. Sharp at the center but lousy edges and corners.

That's a mighty big call to say the 17-40 is rubbish. Maybe you have not owned one. It's mushy wide open but is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II from f/5 onwards. The 17-40 is a lens I've used with total confidence for demanding commercial work since they first came out in 2003. Read reviews...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3
http://www.lenstip.com/4.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_17-40_mm_f_4.0L_USM-Introduction.html
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0508/dw0508-1.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Also if you have been following threads about wide zooms on CR you'll see the 17-40 has delivered largely positive experiences for those who own one.

-PW

shutterwideshut · Nov 30, 2012

pwp said:
Ricku said:

The 17-40 is rubbish, and the 16-35 is more of a workhorse for photojournalists. Sharp at the center but lousy edges and corners.

Click to expand...

That's a mighty big call to say the 17-40 is rubbish. Maybe you have not owned one. It's mushy wide open but is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II from f/5 onwards. The 17-40 is a lens I've used with total confidence for demanding commercial work since they first came out in 2003. Read reviews...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3
http://www.lenstip.com/4.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_17-40_mm_f_4.0L_USM-Introduction.html
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0508/dw0508-1.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Also if you have been following threads about wide zooms on CR you'll see the 17-40 has delivered largely positive experiences for those who own one.

-PW

Yep, indeed. Perhaps this guy haven't owned or shot with the 17-40. I am a happy owner of the 17-40mm and definitely I will still keep this lens!

shutterwideshut · Nov 30, 2012

One of my shots with the 17-40mm + 5D3 just a few days ago...

Cliché by [shutterwideshut] on Flickr

extremeinstability · Nov 30, 2012

Well there are as many or more on this forum alone that don't seem thrilled with the 17-40 on full frame.

As for the Samyang comment today above, perhaps it has something to do with original version?
http://www.lenstip.com/200.1-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_IF_ED_MC_Aspherical-Introduction.html

This wording to start off that review "Important! The review of improved vesion of this lens can be found here"

I'm not real sure how one knows if an older one is slipped in. But there's some rather high praise from them on the newer good version... http://www.lenstip.com/239.4-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_ED_AS_IF_UMC_Image_resolution.html

jrsforums · Nov 30, 2012

extremeinstability said:
Well there are as many or more on this forum alone that don't seem thrilled with the 17-40 on full frame.

As for the Samyang comment today above, perhaps it has something to do with original version?
http://www.lenstip.com/200.1-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_IF_ED_MC_Aspherical-Introduction.html

This wording to start off that review "Important! The review of improved vesion of this lens can be found here"

I'm not real sure how one knows if an older one is slipped in. But there's some rather high praise from them on the newer good version... http://www.lenstip.com/239.4-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_ED_AS_IF_UMC_Image_resolution.html

Note the different names.....

crasher8 · Nov 30, 2012

B&H do not list the lens they carry as the 'AS'….bummer

extremeinstability · Nov 30, 2012

jrsforums said:
Note the different names.....

I did but wasn't sure they were all that conclusive....

IF ED MC Aspherical
ED AS IF UMC

Both have IF and ED. Then Aspherical spelled out on one and AS used on the other. Then only difference left is UMC vs MC.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/698923-REG/Bower_SLY14MMF28C_14mm_f_2_8_Ultra_Wide.html
Least with the bower at BH it seems off naming it might be hard to tell.

http://www.amazon.com/Samyang-Manual-Focus-Aspherical-Cameras/dp/B006MI1XUA
Amazon naming doesn't seem helpful either. Guess if one researched enough to distinguish UMC vs MC. I never got that far.

@!ex · Nov 30, 2012

I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for my favorite current lens, the 14mm L II. I have shot most of the Sigma UWA lenses and actually find the 8-16mm one of the most outstanding lenses for a crop body that you can get, I shot the siggy 10-20 for a long time, and figured the 8-16 would be just as soft in the corners or even softer because it was much wider, but that is not the case. I usually only shot those lenses at their widest, and usually found myself wanting even wider (its how I see the world I guess). So when I moved to Canon this year and to full frame (5D mkiii) I first got the sigma 12-24, but was totally disappointed. I then sucked it up and bought the 14 LII and I have to say, this thing is nothing short of remarkable. The thing kills is in speed, especially useful for astrophotography, sharpness corner to corner (even wide open), color, and lack of distortion, and almost compete lack of flare. it is small, built like a tank, and a joy to shoot with. The rear gel filter is actually an advantage in my opinion, especially when using huge ND filters (you can also buy a system for using large grad filters on front if you want to go that route, I have it and don't use it much).

All and all it is a badass lens, my only small grip on it is because it has only 6 aperture blades the starburst when stopped down is only 6 pointed, but this is easily corrected in post if you really hate it.

enough talk, I'll just post some of my favorite images I've shot with it the last few months since getting it, and you can judge for yourself.

The Things You Find by @!ex, on Flickr

Last Ride by @!ex, on Flickr

Everything Peels... by @!ex, on Flickr

Fonda's Madonna by @!ex, on Flickr

Is Where I Drew Some Blood by @!ex, on Flickr

Empty at Rush Hour by @!ex, on Flickr

Sunset on a season by @!ex, on Flickr

Light Pollution by @!ex, on Flickr

DOF for Miles (literally) by @!ex, on Flickr

Sitting on the Dock by @!ex, on Flickr

Mile High 'Murica by @!ex, on Flickr

The Plunge by @!ex, on Flickr