Wide Angle Lens for outdoor landscape & occasionally indoor

[Dylan777]

I need a wide angle lens for outdoor landscape and occasionally indoor. The two lenses I have in mind are Canon 16-35 II and 17-40. The prices between these two are HUGE different.

I would love to have your feedbacks on these lenses: Pros Vs Cons - distortion, sharpness, soft edges etc…since I never own any wide angle before.

I will shoot with my 5D III.

Thanks guys, Dylan

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you stop them both down to f/8, the sharpness is not too different so for landscape use either would work. The 16-35 II is sharper wide open, and the f/2.8 is nice for handheld low-light shooting (DoF isn't much of an issue with a UWA lens). If you shoot the 17-40mm wide open, the corners are pretty mushy.

A big pro for the 17-40mm is that it's half the price!

What uses indoors? Both lenses have pretty bad barrel distortion at the wide end, meaning straight lines (common indoors, obviously) are a problem. It can be corrected in post, but the image will be cropped a bit as a result, and the corners will be even softer. Depending on budget, a great lens for building photography is the TS-E 17mm f/4L.

Personally, I went with the 16-35 II for the better corner performance and the extra stop of light (don't always need it, but it's come in handy many times).

 

[Dylan777]

If you stop them both down to f/8, the sharpness is not too different so for landscape use either would work. The 16-35 II is sharper wide open, and the f/2.8 is nice for handheld low-light shooting (DoF isn't much of an issue with a UWA lens). If you shoot the 17-40mm wide open, the corners are pretty mushy.

A big pro for the 17-40mm is that it's half the price!

What uses indoors? Both lenses have pretty bad barrel distortion at the wide end, meaning straight lines (common indoors, obviously) are a problem. It can be corrected in post, but the image will be cropped a bit as a result, and the corners will be even softer. Depending on budget, a great lens for building photography is the TS-E 17mm f/4L.

Personally, I went with the 16-35 II for the better corner performance and the extra stop of light (don't always need it, but it's come in handy many times).

Thanks neuroanatomist

 

[prestonpalmer]

The 16-35 II is probably your best bet. Fantastic lens!

 

[Physicx]

How often will you be shooting at 2.8? With the 5DIII, the ISO performance is so nice, there is little reason to need that extra 1 stop if you can increase your iso so easily. I shoot with the 16-35 II on the 5DII and its a nice lens. I was shooting with it yesterday at night walking around town and the highest setting I used was IS0 6400 to shoot at f/2.8. With the ISO performance of the 5DIII being 2 stops better than the 5DII you can shoot at ISO 12800 at f/4 and still be laughing knowing you have another stop in reserve over the 5DII in case you need that. If you shoot street photography, it will usually be on f/8-f/11 at ISO 1600 during the day. So never wide open.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the minimum focusing distance. The min. focusing distance of the 16-35 is half that of 17-40 so that can be a real plus. If you are not shooting pro, there is little reason to pixel perv and find faults of the 17-40 over the 16-35, esp if you print 6x4.

good luck,

 

[Physicx]

One thing I forgot to mention, as you said you've never used a wide angle before, is that don't expect the best image quality from a wide angle. I believe people only use the the 16-35 2.8 not because it is amazing, but because it is the best that is available on FF at 2.8. I don't think the amount of money we pay justifies what the lens gives out. It is a lot of money to pay for a lens.

You would want to compare the image quality to the 24-70 and you will realise how much shaper the 24-70 is. ( or in your case, the 70-200 IS II as you've got there which is an amazingly sharp lens. It just doesnt come anywhere remotely close. ) Nikon has the amazing 14-24mm 2.8. I would pay the amount of money for that lens however I am a canon shooter. So overall I dont think you will be blown away by what the 16-35 has to offer, it is only there for interesting perspective shots, thats what I use it for. Wide angle landscapes/portraits and indoors etc. But for the real workhorse, it will always be my 24-70.

good luck,

 

[UrbanImages]

I recently got the 17-40L and actually was out last night doing landscape/architecture shooting with it. I was shooting with a 5D II at ISO 1000-1600, f/4 with pretty good results, although as Neuro said the corners can be a little mushy. It was the first night shooting I've done with the lens and I'm impressed. I can see how the extra stop may help in low light, preliminary viewing does show me I have a little post production clean up, yet very usable. I don't use have a huge need for wide angle, this was a good choice for me. I think all in all it depends on how much you plan on using it and under what conditions.

 

[Dylan777]

Thanks guys,
Your feedbacks are very appreciated.

I pulled a trigger on 16-35 II

and

B&W filter
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756819-REG/B_W_66_1066112_82mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html