Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2012 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II
  
 
AFC168
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


Hi all,

Was wondering what everyone thinks about a good wide angle to go with a 24-70 II and 70-200 II (both of which I think are fantastic) ...

My first thought was to get a 16-35 II, but I had one years back and it seemed to always focus soft and have corner issues ... did I just get a bad one? Should I buy another one?

I do have a Zeiss 21, but manual focus is an issue. There are many times when I need AF, so I'm going to sell the Zeiss eventually.

I wish Canon would make a 12-24 like Nikon's, and I hear it's time for Canon to upgrade it's wide angle zoom, but nothing appears definite.

Thanks for any info!



Dec 17, 2012 at 07:24 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


Yeah, it depends on how desperate you are; a want or a need?

If you simply fancy the idea of something wide, then why not wait? But Canon's rumoured 14-24mm will be EXPENSIVE, to say the least.

The 16-35 will always have mushy corners wide open. Really, the ideal is to keep important information out of the corners and concentrate the viewers attention on the centre.



Dec 17, 2012 at 07:28 AM
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


Sigma 12-24 II


Dec 17, 2012 at 08:04 AM
Chiefdog72
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


It all depends on the type of shooting you want to do. I have the 16-35 II and Iím very happy with mine. I wasnít that impressed with it at first so I sent it in to Canon Irving for calibration. It was like a different lens when I got it back.

You will have a lot of overlap between the 16-35 and 24-70 but thatís not necessarily a bad thing.

You donít want manual focus so that knocks out the TS-E 17mm; that leaves the 14mm II. I have the 14mm II and love it, but it is really wide. You might consider renting both the 16-35 and 14mm to see which one matches the type of shooting you do.



Dec 17, 2012 at 08:28 AM
Massimo Foti
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


You may consider Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. It's big, heavy and using filters becomes pretty complicated. Everything else, it does pretty well.


Dec 17, 2012 at 01:23 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


Chiefdog72 wrote:
You might consider renting both the 16-35 and 14mm to see which one matches the type of shooting you do.


+100

Forum advice is great but in the end only you will know what lenses feel right for your particular shooting habits.
I like the 16-35 because it works well for crowd/fan shots at games. I like the extended FL range for framing and the lack of bulbous front element for filter use/protection. Pretty rare that I use it for landscapes so corner sharpness is not an overriding concern to me.



Dec 17, 2012 at 01:50 PM
saneproduction
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


Massimo Foti wrote:
You may consider Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. It's big, heavy and using filters becomes pretty complicated. Everything else, it does pretty well.


This is what I did.



Dec 17, 2012 at 02:29 PM
chris78cpr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


I think the release of a Canon 14-24F2.8L is pretty near on the horizon. I know it's currently just a rumour but Nikon have shown how well that lens can do optically and it wouldn't take too much from Canon to match it.


Dec 17, 2012 at 02:46 PM
Gunzorro
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


I have the 16-35 II and it is one of my favorite lenses. I did send mine to Canon CPS in Irvine, CA, and the like Chiefdog, had the major issues of edge sharpness remedied. It's still soft on the edges wide open (so is the Zeiss ZE 21), but great center and pretty sharp overall at f/5.6. Perhaps you were expecting too much from the lens? For me it is one of my most used lenses and a great match for the 28-300L.

Chris -- I've not heard anything verifiable about an EF 14-XX L zoom, other than photographer's wishful thinking. I'm sure Canon has been working on lenses that will sell more broadly, as that is a very specialized lens. Personally, I like the filter thread on the 16-35, and not interested in a general purpose zoom lens with a bulbous front (14mm, and 17mm TS-E excepted). I find multi-shot panoramas more useful and higher quality than going to Ultra-UWA lenses.



Dec 17, 2012 at 03:05 PM
AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


Gunzorro wrote:
I find multi-shot panoramas more useful and higher quality than going to Ultra-UWA lenses.


Jim, it is sometime scary how much we think alike . With a little practice you can do it without even any tripod (gosh forbid ). Of course with a tripod and proper setup, you will have to crop less. I have done that quite a bit using my 24-70mm at portrait orientation.



Dec 17, 2012 at 03:14 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


Massimo Foti wrote:
You may consider Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. It's big, heavy and using filters becomes pretty complicated. Everything else, it does pretty well.


saneproduction wrote:
This is what I did.


Me too. I'm thrilled with it.

The Tokina is almost as sharp as the Canon 16-35 L Mark II. It has better (less) barrel distortion. The 16-35 beats it on chromatic aberration, is a little lighter, a little smaller, but more than twice as expensive.



Dec 17, 2012 at 03:23 PM
retrofocus
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


On full frame the 14/2.8 II is fantastic if you want to go wider than 24 mm. Especially for indoor or architecture shots it is a great tool.


Dec 17, 2012 at 03:30 PM
zlatko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


The current 16-35/2.8 II is a great lens for photojournalists. If you need a wide lens for architecture or landscape, look at the 17TS-E and 24TSE II. I'm not very interested in a 14-24/2.8 lens because it will be too wide, too big and too expensive.


Dec 17, 2012 at 03:31 PM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


AFC168 wrote:
My first thought was to get a 16-35 II, but I had one years back and it seemed to always focus soft and have corner issues ... did I just get a bad one? Should I buy another one?


A Mark II or the original? The Mark II came out in 2007, which is "years back" but not that long ago. The reason I ask is because the Mark II is not a simple upgrade but is much better optically and in every way than the original (except 35g (1 oz) heavier and the odd 82 mm filter size).



Dec 17, 2012 at 03:32 PM
retrofocus
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


zlatko wrote:
The current 16-35/2.8 II is a great lens for photojournalists. If you need a wide lens for architecture or landscape, look at the 17TS-E and 24TSE II. I'm not very interested in a 14-24/2.8 lens because it will be too wide, too big and too expensive.



My experience is that especially indoors and for architecture the 24 mm focal length (including the T/S version which I also own) is not wide enough. 17 mm is borderline indoors, but yes, with the 17 T/S you can stich photos vertically or horizontally if needed. The 14/2.8 II prime lens is nearly distortion-free and amazingly sharp wide open at f/2.8. But I agree that a future potential 14-24/2.8 lens will be heavy and - considering the current Canon practice with new gear - very expensive. On the other hand I could see it fitting better in Canon's lens line than the latest updated 24-70 versions.



Dec 17, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Will Patterson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


I shoot with my Tokina 16-28 all the time on my 1D X and 5D II and it does GREAT. Love that lens. Can't beat it for the price.


Dec 17, 2012 at 04:57 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


Just got the 16-35 f2.8 mk2. Not a bad lens, just not in the same class with the 24-70 f2.8 mk2.

I have always wondered if Canon lens mount to sensor geometry made UWA harder to design than for Nikons? But then Nikons 14-24 can be adapted to a Canon so I guess that answers it.

Or maybe a Canon paradigm prevents it. I always think Canon designs lenses to front focus since I have never owned one that did not. What I call front focus may be just a preference for near stuff over infinity.

Why f2.8? F4 is sufficient, but from my personal experience, the best UWA are f2.8 with the exception of the 17 and 24TSE which I think may be the best UWA made for DSLR.

A 14- or 15 shift lens might be a great UWA. I don't think tilt is required below 17 but shift is very valuable.



Dec 17, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Gunzorro
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


Ben -- I previously owned the 17-35L f/2.8, the 17-40L f/4, and now the 16-35L II f/2.8. Probably 2/3 of all photos I've taken with these lenses have been handheld, and many at f/2.8, which absolutely makes a huge difference at low ISO and low shutter speeds compared to f/4 minimum -- may as well get the tripod for everything at that point! The 16-35L II is better optically than the other two (less vignetting than the 17-40).

Yes, if tripod mounted, and shooting at f/8 to f/11, no reason not to get a slower lens. But I always buy in case of eventualities, and then the eventualities seem to turn into routine!

Joshua -- I totally agree! I've gotten a good sense of being able to rotate around the "nodal point" handheld, by envisioning my rotation, and doing one or two practice scans, watching through the viewfinder as I turn. It's pretty amazing what you can accomplish in brightly lit outdoor scenes without prominent foreground objects (and no moving subjects). Saves a ton of gear and weight, and even time changing lenses (which I abhor in outdoor conditions -- most debris gets on my sensor at such times). Tripod works great when exposures lengthen, but otherwise, that's part of my on-location "gonzo" photo technique.

And. . . those multi-shot panos have such amazing resolution, for just a few extra seconds of work! A five to eight shot pano is like looking at a large format scan. Some people sneer at "pixel peepers" that look at 18MP images at 100% -- well this sort of image quality must seem absolutely insanely unnecessary to them!

This is a great use for the "ultimate 35mm lens" (used in vertical format) we've both been thinking about. Canon's new IS leads the pack for me in this sort of use, followed by the gorgeous new Sigma. But I'm sure the Canon will win out for me (when the price comes down a bit), as the IS adds a whole new dimension to the IQ race for holding ultra-sharp and steady panos at maybe 1/30 sec. That's hard to argue with and takes the outer edge rez advantage away from the Sigma.



Dec 17, 2012 at 06:45 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


I have started doing star scapes which is a UWA fast lens game. But I still get my best results with my 17TSE at f4. Of course this is tripod work. I seldom hand hold.

The 16-35 is probably a very good UWA general purpose lens.

For us landscapers, a 14-15 shift only f4 might still be a great addition. Might be good for architecture as well.

But I am near the end of photography so I had to get what was available.



Dec 17, 2012 at 06:56 PM
zlatko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Canon Wide Angle to match with 24-70 II and 70-200 II


ben egbert wrote:
I have always wondered if Canon lens mount to sensor geometry made UWA harder to design than for Nikons?


I think it is just economics. Excellence costs, and every lens is designed for a price point. Canon's 16-35 II is about $1,400. Nikon's 14-24 is about $2,000. For 43% more money, you get a better lens. It was the same when Canon's 24-70 (original version) was about $500 cheaper than Nikon's 24-70. People asked, Why can't Canon's 24-70 be as good as NIkon's? The new Canon 24-70 II answers that question, but of course it comes with a higher price. If Canon builds a large, bulbous, expensive 14-24, it will likely be just as good as Nikon's, but then people will complain about Canon's pricing.



Dec 17, 2012 at 08:09 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password