So what do you folks think is the best zoom to put on a 5D in this focal length? I don't need or want a f/2.8 lens unless it's lighter and costs less... so in other words... not looking for an f/2.8 zoom


Thanks for your input.

Then 17-40 should work well for you.

17-40, clear case for you.

Probably should have mentioned I'm open to "alt gear" suggestions, but the 17-40L was the lens that I had in mind.

You've answered your own question - 17-40L is hard to beat in an UWA zoom. Can't think of anything that's not f/2.8 that's better in a zoom.

Apart from the 16-35/17-35 what other options exist?

17TSE, 12-24 sigma... Sigma do a 15-30 and a 17-35 also ...

I've had the 17-40 for 4 years now and been very happy with it. Never missed 2.8 for what I shoot.

RobDickinson wrote:
Apart from the 16-35/17-35 what other options exist?

I own the Canon EF 20-35 F/3.5-4.5. I like it a lot and it can be had for < $200 used from places like KEH. Unfortunately, it is missing a few mm of focal length on both the short and long end, but on the bright side, it's much smaller than the 17-40 (and many of the UW zooms for that matter) and much cheaper.

17-40L is your best bet. Mine is even better than some highly respected atlernative primes: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/830786

17-40L is an outstanding lens. Very sharp, great color, lightweight, fast AF, weathersealed. Beautiful image quality, even on high density full frame bodies. The only downside is barrel distortion on the wide end, but it's easily fixed with a click with PTLens.

kakomu wrote:
I own the Canon EF 20-35 F/3.5-4.5. I like it a lot and it can be had for < $200 used from places like KEH. Unfortunately, it is missing a few mm of focal length on both the short and long end, but on the bright side, it's much smaller than the 17-40 (and many of the UW zooms for that matter) and much cheaper.

Unfortunately there is a big difference in wide-angle focal range between 20 mm and 17 mm. A couple of mm give you a very different view there. Otherwise you are right in your statement that the 20-35 mm lens is much more affordable and also smaller.

Jman13 wrote:
17-40L is an outstanding lens. Very sharp, great color, lightweight, fast AF, weathersealed. Beautiful image quality, even on high density full frame bodies. The only downside is barrel distortion on the wide end, but it's easily fixed with a click with PTLens.

Ditto, great lens. Very lightweight and compact as well.

I mostly used mine stopped down for landscapes, but I don't hestitate to use it wide open.

Thanks all. I pretty much figured the 17-40 was the lens to get, but I don't keep up with all the latest info on zooms, especially the third party lenses so I thought I'd ask the experts

The 20-35 sounds like a bargain, but I really want something with an UWA for landscape work. Out of curiosity, do any of you use the 17-40 on a crop body as a wide-to-standard length zoom? How do you like it on crop body? (I don't own any APS-C but just wondering)

17-40mm is great glass for the money, all my landscapes are taken with this and some portrait work

I used to have a 17-40 and now have a 16-35. If you don't need f/2.8 get the 17-40. It's a L of bargain

I've used the 17-40 on a 10D, 20D, 30D, and now my7D and I absolutely love it. It makes a nice moderately wide zoom on the crop-bodies and a superb lens for landscapes. I do intend to purchase a 10-22 at some point but this lens has worked beautifully for me for a number of years and I'm in no rush to get that 10-22.

Andy

retrofocus wrote:
kakomu wrote:
I own the Canon EF 20-35 F/3.5-4.5. I like it a lot and it can be had for < $200 used from places like KEH. Unfortunately, it is missing a few mm of focal length on both the short and long end, but on the bright side, it's much smaller than the 17-40 (and many of the UW zooms for that matter) and much cheaper.

Unfortunately there is a big difference in wide-angle focal range between 20 mm and 17 mm. A couple of mm give you a very different view there. Otherwise you are right in your statement that the 20-35 mm lens is much more affordable and also smaller.

It's at times like this that one must question whether they do, in fact, need 17mm.

If you are trying not to spend alot...there is the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 DG
http://sigma4less.com/pd-productid-732-k-sigma_510101_sigma_zoom_wide_angle_17_35mm_f28_4_ex_dg_aspherical_hsm_autofocus_lens_for_canon_eos.htm

I bought this lens about 1.5years ago and it is very nice performer. Although the price has jumped alot as I only paid 300 for it new. My copy is very sharp and has never let me down. I think it was a bargain of a lens for what I got..Its smaller then the 17-40L
it doesnt focus as fast as the L but I dont really think of many times I need super fast AF on ultra wide stuff

i was at the-digital-picture pixel-peeping last night.

if you go the resolution charts, you will find that it is now updated with samples from the usual suspects like the tamron 17-35, sigma 17-35, sigma 15-30, sigma 12-24. i went through all of them, including the 16-35L II, and it seems tha only the 16-35L II beats the 17-40L.

jaetie wrote:
i was at the-digital-picture pixel-peeping last night.

if you go the resolution charts, you will find that it is now updated with samples from the usual suspects like the tamron 17-35, sigma 17-35, sigma 15-30, sigma 12-24. i went through all of them, including the 16-35L II, and it seems tha only the 16-35L II beats the 17-40L.
You will go blind if you pixel peep non stop.
I also feel thsoe shots over there are weighted in canons favor..It seems most of the non Canon shots seem out of focus to help give canon the edge.