I'm with Kevin! I have all the lenses he mentions here, with the exception of the Nikon 14-24 and the 17TS. The reason I don't have the Nikon is for the exact reasons he's stated. The 17TS is at the top of my "Want List".
Although I love my Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, it is getting very little use and becomes redundant with the 16-35L II and 24TS II.
There are always compromises in handling and IQ, but I don't see how you can go wrong with 14 Samyang, 16-35L II, 17TS and 24TS II if you want to cover UWA landscape or architecture.
The only lens I'd add to that is the Canon 15FE -- now out of production, so grab one if you want an outstanding and amazingly sharp lens at a bargain price.
The 16-35mm is noticeably sharper in the corners than the 17-40mm. Many people seem to have forgotten this. It seems that when a new lens comes out, it is heralded as the best thing ever --- gets great reviews, and people sell body limbs to upgrade. A few years later, people don't so much as give that same lens a nod because it is no longer the latest and the greatest. It's like clockwork how this has happened from the 20-35mm L --> 17-35mm L -->16-35mm L --> 16-35mm L II
Maybe so wide open. From about f5.6 and up, I don't see a visible difference in the corners. Center and mid-frame actually looks sharper to me on the 17-40L.
Ben Horne wrote:
The 16-35mm is noticeably sharper in the corners than the 17-40mm. Many people seem to have forgotten this. It seems that when a new lens comes out, it is heralded as the best thing ever --- gets great reviews, and people sell body limbs to upgrade. A few years later, people don't so much as give that same lens a nod because it is no longer the latest and the greatest. It's like clockwork how this has happened from the 20-35mm L --> 17-35mm L -->16-35mm L --> 16-35mm L II
Bobby -- I agree with Ben. In comparing my 17-40L to 16-35L II, the latter was the obvious winner throughout the focal and aperture range. Besides, it has the one stop advantage. The 17-40 was close in quality, and I considered keeping it to use on smaller crop sensors, but practicality won out, and I sold the 17-40.
Ben -- you pretty well tracked my UWA zoom history: FD 20-35L, EF 17-35L, and then this year, 17-40L and 16-35LII. Each of these steps was a distinct improvement. The only ones I missed were the EF 20-35L and first version of 16-35L.
kevindar wrote:
I have a comparison of 16-35II and 14-24 http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=36845899 the nikon is better even at f11, but they are close. Wide open in the corners, there is no comparison. In return, the canon is much less flare prone, takes filters, is weather sealed, has a great range, good star burst, has autofocus, is smaller and lighter, is a more useful range (for me), aberrations are easy to fix in acr due to profile, and again, at f11, they are very close. It remains my most used ultrawide landscape/indoor lens.
Either you were comparing a substandard copy of 16-35 Mark II with a great copy of Nikkor 14-24 or I got a substandard Nikkor 14-24 and compared it with a great copy of 16-35mm Mark II. Even at f/11.0 my first copy of the 16-35mm Mark II couldn't even touch the Nikkor's performance. On the other hand, the performance of my second and current copy of16-35mm Mark II is so good starting at f/5.6 that I finally gave up the Nikkot since I didn't want to put up with adapters and inconvenience of alternative lenses anymore. I agree with you that the corner performance up to and including f/4.0 of the Nikkor lens was better, although the center area of the 16-35mm Mark II was no slouch even at f/2.8. But when stopped down to between f/5.6 to f/11.0 or so, the whatever minor advantages of using the Nikkor completely disappear in my book. Again, it is possible that we are talking about copy-to-copy variations between yours and my findings here.
Scott Stoness wrote:
Anyone have thoughts on 14L ? Would you choose it over the 17TS?
I rented both and ran a few test for myself.. The 14 was nice and sharp but IMHO, has a lot of distortion.. The 17 was really sweet but Expensive with a learning curve.. Difficult chose..
Scott Stoness wrote:
17-40 is not strong iq at 17mm even at f11 on edges. Usable but way better at 20mm.
16-35L 2.8 - $1600 would be twice as fast and similar IQ
14L 2.8 - $2200 would be twice as fast and better IQ and more wide but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
TS-17 F4 - $2500 would have better IQ than all of the above but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
Nikor 14-24 2.8 $1700 with adapter - has right range, is good IQ, but no auto focus, no metering
I could see very questionable comparison above. 17-40L lens is knowingly bad at 40mm end and pretty good at 17mm at F8-F11. 16-35L (mk 1 or 2?) is not similar in IQ but depends on aperture you compared, at F8 most lenses are sharp. 14-24 will be without AF with adapter, but TS17 with? Sounds like some extreme mix of opinions in your statements , what are you looking? Also price seems off too ...
I am not sure why anyone will say the 16-35 f/2.8L II is about the same as 17-40 f/4L at f/4. The-digital-picture ISO 12233 chart comparison does not indicate that.
PS: Copy to copy variation really makes it difficult for folks to come to an agreement about lens quality as described here
Landscape photography is my serious hobby (addiction)..................Money is not the prime concern. In order of preference IQ = most important, 2nd/3rd is wider/versatility, and last is speed because it is for landscape.
Following your own logic I would say your best option is the 17TSE. I am sure if you learn to work with tilt and shift and creative possibilities of this, it will add more depth to your photography. There is a reason why so many landscape photographers worked and work with view cameras and tilt and shift the image producing optical systems of lens and media/sensor. A zoom may be versatile, but in most situations is not very necessary for landscaping. Inside or in small rooms zooming with the feet is not always possible. That is where the zoom comes in. Group shots indoor, interior photography, indoor architecture, weddings and receptions, etc. Part of good landscape photography is carefully choosing a point of view which is going to change of you learn to imagine/previsualise how a point of view works with a tilt and shift application.
From the lenses mentioned I have the Samyang, but I am not really very much into landscaping. This is why I bought the budget solution. It is as great as the best lenses except for distortion, which is a complicated moustache type of distortion. Still this is easy to postprocess with a Lightroom/Photoshop plugin or a PTlens correction. Add 25$ for a license of PTlens and you have better picture quality than Canon's 14mmL and that well reputed Nikon 14-24 zoom. As a budget solution it's a no brainer. If you want it better than that and hate the post processing you'll have to go less wide and take the 17TS or a Distagon 21mm. Money is no objection you said, but be sure you want to pay a lot more for the less wide Distagon that is better in it's correction for distortion and maybe a tad better correction of field curvature, but almost everything else is practically the same. No AF either. But really the Samyang is that good! Canon's 14LmkII can't touch image quality at close inspection. Micro contrast, resolving power and most of all CA is worse than the Samyang. The 17TS gives he same image quality as the Distagon (though different character) but adds that creative extra of tilt and shift. To me it would be the choice between the Samyang and the 17. And why not both of money is no objection? You could start with the 14 and see if you like it. You would find out if the FOV of a 14mm is really what you like. I would not be surprised if you found out that you would also like to have a 24mm, which is much more my personal favorite for landscapes. I find 17, 14 whatever belove 20mm really specialist lenses. Dramatic, much more complicated to control and a great distance between close subjects and infinity. Maybe that's what you're after, but give it a thought. Have you made an analysis of your must used settings of the 17-40 by researching your exif info? I would not be surprised if you found out that it's often a little less wide than you think. We seem to remember those situations where the extremes lack. So in this case, the situations where your 17 wasn't wide enough. But we often forget all those photos that are made intuitively without feeling any constraint by the lens. I bet you use the 17-40 more often around 20-28mm than you might have thought.
Lots of words to make you think again. But as I said in the beginning of this post, following your own logic it can't be hard. If your logic is right, buy the 17TS and start a new direction and add the dimension of the rules of Scheimpflug to your passion. Have EOSfun !
thw2 wrote:
I am not sure why anyone will say the 16-35 f/2.8L II is about the same as 17-40 f/4L at f/4. The-digital-picture ISO 12233 chart comparison does not indicate that.
It is different lens and 16-35L mk II for sure optically better lens. What happened is that much larger community of proud 17-40L owners start posting this nonsense any place and another millions of photographers reading it and repeat without even looking on results I own both and could say that 17-40L is OK lens for wide end and at F8-F11, pretty soft at F4 on any end and especially useless at 40mm.
ViscaB wrote:
The ts-E 24 II has fantastic center performance but the tse-17 beats it in the corners. This is my experience and I have read about several photographers who confirm it. Possibly it's field curvature.
The tse-17 ridiculously sharp in the corners. Fully shifted it beats even it beats a lens like the 17-40.
You may well be right about the limitations of the 24 TS-E on a FF. I didn't see any softness on a 1DIV.
I have had 3 copies of 16-35II. the first one was bad. the next two were very close and I consider both very good, far better than my 16-35 orginal, and a copy of 17-40 that I tried. the 16-35II has a bit of field curvature with the corners focusing a little closer. At f 5.6 the corners are very close to the 14-24, but not to the extreme corners, that last 3% of image. and I agree that at certain apertures and focal length, in certain areas of the frame, it may perform slightly better than Nikon. and of course if there is any reason for flare, it really outperforms it.
My results are very consistent with 16-9 test, photozone, test, and much better than the digital picture test. So unless your lens was made by elves, or your Nikon was really substandard, ( a lot of people on Nikon forum complain about bad samples), I think my results are representative of a good copy of Nikon and Canon.
As I said, for most of my shooting, I still favor the 16-35 II. AGeoJO wrote:
Either you were comparing a substandard copy of 16-35 Mark II with a great copy of Nikkor 14-24 or I got a substandard Nikkor 14-24 and compared it with a great copy of 16-35mm Mark II. Even at f/11.0 my first copy of the 16-35mm Mark II couldn't even touch the Nikkor's performance. On the other hand, the performance of my second and current copy of16-35mm Mark II is so good starting at f/5.6 that I finally gave up the Nikkot since I didn't want to put up with adapters and inconvenience of alternative lenses anymore. I agree with you that the corner performance up to and including f/4.0 of the Nikkor lens was better, although the center area of the 16-35mm Mark II was no slouch even at f/2.8. But when stopped down to between f/5.6 to f/11.0 or so, the whatever minor advantages of using the Nikkor completely disappear in my book. Again, it is possible that we are talking about copy-to-copy variations between yours and my findings here....Show more →
Did it again at 17 on TS17 and 18 on 14-24 at f8 and they are pretty comparible. So 14-24 is not very sharp at 14. Less sharp in 14L and even the Samyang 14 at 14mm. Comparing to 17-40L at f8, Nikkor 14-24 might be slightly better.
Conclusion: Primes are sharper - no surprise. And although 14-24 is pretty good zoom it is not nearly as good as 14L at 14 or 17TS at 17.
Which takes me to the tentative conclusion - 14-24 is not that much better than 17-40L. So if I want better its either 14L or 17TS....Show more →
Well I'm sure there's some variability in the 14-24 but I've seen better results. IMO this is be ter review of what the 14-24 is capable of.
If you use the 17 TSE for stitch and shift 10mm to each side w/ your 5D2, you will get a FOV ~ equal to a 10.9mm lens. So the TSE is going to be very versatile if you want to use it for ultra wide view stitched photos.
If you got the excellent 24 TSE and shifted 10mm to each side, you'd get still be able to get a FOV ~ equal to a 15mm lens.
I'd take the 24 TS-E II over the 17 any day. I like using filters and stitched 14.4mm is plenty wide/tall enough for me. It might be worth also looking at Sigma 12-24 mk II.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well I'm sure there's some variability in the 14-24 but I've seen better results. IMO this is be ter review of what the 14-24 is capable of.
Scott Stoness wrote:
Here is a comparison of lens at widest angle/f8.
Is this only setting it will be used as zoom lens? Same as to compare crocodile and horse, both could run I would suggest to chech this FM thread shots for 16-35LII
Pixel Perfect wrote:
have too laugh, 24mm is too long apparently for photocrap.de.
Look at tests all day, but in the real world the 24L TS-E II is a superb lens probably only just behind the Zeiss 21 f/2.8 on IQ.
Better off looking on flickr or like at images taken with the lenses of interest.
My apologies for not being clearer- the comments are mine. I appreciate your perspective butI don't need a 24mm lens. I shoot in the mountains and am rarely at 24mm and usually under 20mm and my goal is to get something wider than my 17-40L. I was not saying the TS24m is not good, but that it is not good for me. The photozone numbers show that TS17 is close to the TS24 in IQ and if I put it on my 7d its a TS24. So if I want a tilt, its the TS17. Choosing a lens is particular to the chooser.
Each of these steps was a distinct improvement. The only ones I missed were the EF 20-35L and first version of 16-35L. 
!