Right now the one lens I am lacking is a super wide (16-17mm).
I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on a canon mount lens that is fast and wide. I know the 16-35 f/2.8 L II is awesome, but for to me it seems a little high for the small amount of time I will be using it. I rarely have the need to go wider then 24mm, but at times I do need it.
Widest you can go (without fisheye's) is sigma 12-24 , its FF at 12mm.
Canon 17-40/4 is pretty dam wide on FF
Or you can use some of the Crop body designed lenses (not efs) like the tokina 12-24 or 11-16 (only works at about 15-16 I think so it becomes almost a prime).
You just loose the very wide end uptil about 14-16mm which is no worse than the 16-35 anyway. Also the earlier Canon UW like the 17-35/2.8 might be worth a look
If you can deal with F4, then the 17-40/4 L is excellent. The Sigma 20/1.8 looks great on paper, but sucks in practical usage. The 16-35/2.8 version I can be found for significantly less money than the version II, but its corners are a bit lacking compared to the 17-40/4 and 16-35/2.8 II.
The Sigma 12-24 is wide but not fast (I use one on a 5D). Good image quality, especially away from the corners. Very little to no linear distortion. 12mm on full frame is realy, wildly wide - much, much wider than say 16mm or 17mm. If you can sacrifice fast for wide, the relatively affordable Sigma may be the way to go. I also use a Sigma 20 f/1.8 on the 5D. Good (but not great) image quality, affordable, fairly wide and very fast. I use it primarily for auroras. There's always a 3rd party 14 f/2.8, like Sigma or Tamron (or is that Tokina?).
The Canon 17-40 may be a good compromise - not the widest or the fastest but a decent balance perhaps, depending on your needs.
shane jordan wrote:
Right now the one lens I am lacking is a super wide (16-17mm).
I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on a canon mount lens that is fast and wide. I know the 16-35 f/2.8 L II is awesome, but for to me it seems a little high for the small amount of time I will be using it. I rarely have the need to go wider then 24mm, but at times I do need it.
This will be for a 5D and 5DMII
I use the 16-35 II more than anything else on my 5D2. It was great on my 20D but I love it on FF. I would never sell this lens!
Bruce Sawle wrote:
If your shooting landscapes at F8 to F16 then I would recomend the 17-40 but on my 1DS MK III the 17-40 at F4 and F5.6 is not great.
I have had good results across the whole range with my 17-40L, although I of course tend to shoot mostly at f/8 or more. I checked the pictures I took at f/4 and they tend to be around 40mm for whatever reason, but I have quite a few keepers at f/5.6 and 17mm. But for low light I go for a fast prime anyway most of the time.
The alternative board has been talking about the Nikon 14-24 mounted on the Canon 5D2 or 1Ds3-- I bought this lens and am absolutely blown away! On my 5D2 -- Freakin' amazing for landscapes/cityscapes, etc. -Rob
My 16-35 II does not get really solid in the extreme corners until about f/8 or so. However, I find this quite acceptible for landscape work, architecture and so on, and for PJ and low light work its wide open performance is fine in the center.
The Nikon is apparently better in the corners at wide apertures, but I'm not sure how many people really extreme edge performance at wide apertures. If you're one of them, by all means look at the Nikkor.
My vote goes for the 17-40L. I love it on my 5D - provides a lot of versatility from being super wide to decent for portraits at 40mm. Mine's plenty sharp at f/4 and obviously better stopped down. Ever since I got it I rarely take it off the 5D.
Only gripe is I indoors I could really use f/2.8. But for the type of work I do it simply isn't worth the extra bucks for the 16-35.
And if you want REALLY wide, look into the Sigma 12-24mm. I've heard plenty of good things about that lens...but in my opinion the 17-40L is the better option.
