Need help choosing a sharp wide angle lens

[Emil]

I have been shooting more landscapes lately and I find that I am in need of a new wide angle lens.

Ever since I sold my 600D and got a 6D I have been wanting a new wide angle lens. The EF 28mm f1.8 which a used as a 50mm eq. with my 600D just isn't very sharp on a full frame. I borrowed the 24-105mm f/4 for a while and thought the performance on the wide end was ok when stopped down a bit. However, I rarely need the zoom and I would prefer something more compact. What are your opinions on the following lenses:

EF 24mm f2.8
EF 28mm f2.8
EF 17-40mm f4
Sigma/Tamron other wide angle options?

First and foremost I would like a wide angle lens that gives sharp and crisp images. I can spend up to 500USD, but affordability is a plus.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions!

Emil

 

[Random Orbits]

How wide do you want to go?

Samyang 14mm is a popular choice at the UUWA range. The 24 f/2.8 IS and 28 f/2.8 IS are both nice lenses, and it primarily comes down to which focal length you prefer, and both are small.

 

[Northbird]

For a general purpose Canon landscape lens and without spending significantly more money the 17-40 L is tough to beat. Several of the landscapes on my Flickr site are shot with that lens. I've been pleased with it.

Also worth reading:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I understand what you mean sharp even in the corners of the image. In this case, Canon 17-40mm needs to be used with aperture F11. The new Canon 16-35mm F4 is quite sharp in aperture F4. Canon 24mm and 28mm F2.8 IS is quite sharp in aperture F2.8.

There is also the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 that is quite sharp in F4.

 

[pwp]

If you're on a budget, the EF 17-40 is fantastic. Mine out-performs my 16-35 f/2.8II from f/5.6-11. If you're more inclined to shoot wide open, the 17-40 is just pure mush at f/4 but snaps to attention just one click down.

On a stronger budget, the EF 14mm f/2.8II is pure gold. It's sharp wide open and has very appealing characteristics. If you're looking at a pre-owned 14 f/2.8, avoid the early model like the plague. Most copies deliver mushy files at all apertures on something like your 6D. Modern FF sensors just punish this lens. The MkII is all-new and delivers the goods. Check out some reviews on any of the lenses you're interested in over at Fred Miranda. You'll see the 14mm ranks very high.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/334/sort/7/cat/2/page/1

-pw

 

[Ruined]

I have been shooting more landscapes lately and I find that I am in need of a new wide angle lens.

Ever since I sold my 600D and got a 6D I have been wanting a new wide angle lens. The EF 28mm f1.8 which a used as a 50mm eq. with my 600D just isn't very sharp on a full frame. I borrowed the 24-105mm f/4 for a while and thought the performance on the wide end was ok when stopped down a bit. However, I rarely need the zoom and I would prefer something more compact. What are your opinions on the following lenses:

EF 24mm f2.8
EF 28mm f2.8
EF 17-40mm f4
Sigma/Tamron other wide angle options?

First and foremost I would like a wide angle lens that gives sharp and crisp images. I can spend up to 500USD, but affordability is a plus.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions!

Emil

Out of the ones you listed EF 28mm f/2.8 IS is the sharpest... The 17-40 is nowhere near as sharp as the 24 IS or 28 IS, and I'd say the 17-40 is also less sharp than the 24-105.

The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS isn't as sharp as the 28mm, but it is close and I like 24mm better than 28mm for wide angle so personally I'd get the 24 IS - but if sharpness is your main priority get the 28 IS, which is also a bit more compact than the 24..

 

[ULFULFSEN]

when you don´t need the zoom as you say go for the 24mm IS.

that would be my choice.

 

[lintoni]

The 17-40 is a good choice for landscapes - as pointed out, it's a bit soft at f4, but once stopped down, you'll get very good results, and if you're using a tripod, you'll lose nothing from the longer exposures needed. I'm not sure what price it goes for in the US, will $500 be enough? Used?

The Samyang/Rokinon 14mm is a genuine bargain of a lens. It's manual focus, but don't let that put you off - depth of field is so large, it's an effort to get things out of focus! It's very sharp, but does suffer from a peculiar "moustache" distortion. Depending on what you use for post-processing, this can easily be fixed. It can be "too much" of a wide-angle, if you're not used to such a wide-angle perspective. Worth playing with though! I find that I use mine more often in a "portrait" orientation - it begs to be used that way if you have an interesting sky. As a bonus, coma is very low so it makes an excellent lens for nighttime landscapes under clear, moon-less skies - and as the nights are currently drawing in in the Northern hemisphere..

*Edit*
Dustin Abbott reviewed the Rokinon 14mm and started a thread with a link to his review. There are some excellent photos taken with the lens, by Dustin and others in the thread, plus a lens correction profile for Lightroom (on p.12, if memory serves)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17252.0

 

[shutterwideshut]

Among the lenses you have mentioned, I would suggest the 17-40mm lens. Though it is an outdated lens, I am happy shooting landscapes with that lens. Here are some of my images shot with that lens:


Azure by shutterwideshut on Flickr



Embarkation by shutterwideshut on Flickr

In connection with this, my mentor who was featured in the Singh Ray website shot most of his awesome landscapes and seascapes with the 17-40mm lens. You can check out his awesome photos here: http://www.singh-ray.com/pro_gallery_template/edwin-martinez

 

[Emil]

Thank you for all the good suggestions I'm leaning towards the 24mm 2.8 IS or perhaps a 17-40mm if I get a decent price on a used one. I do tend to use a tripod when I'm out doing landscapes, so it's not crucial for the lens to be tack sharp at the wider appertures.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Finding a $2,000 lens for $500 is not likely, and that's what you are hoping for.

One low cost alternative that I have, is a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime. If that focal length is what you need. You can pickup one (USED) for well under $500, and it will beat the sox off of a 17-40L both sharpness wise, and the construction is supurb. Its not a $2,000 Zeiss, but its very good and inexpensive. They are discontinued and only available used.

I picked mine up from a Craigslist ad locally for $150, but they sell for a lot more on ebay. I was amazed at the visible difference over my 17-40L the first time I used it. (I sold the 17-40L)

Do a search to read opinions.

Here is a start.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=233