Hi guys, I have a 5DII and am trying to figure out what to upgrade to. I mainly do landscape photography. Right now, I have a 17-40L right now which is decent, but after looking through the forums, the Zeiss 21mm seems to produce some phenomenal results (especially corner sharpness). For those of you who had a similar UWA zoom and went to a prime, do you miss the flexibility of the zoom?
I have tried to look through old images to see what FL I use more often, but it is pretty scattered. A few at 17mm, a fair amount of 19-24mm, and a smattering of photos from 24-40mm.
I also am trying to prepare for a possible trip to Italy this summer, so I am trying to figure out what setup would be best/lightest/flexible. One possible setup I was thinking was Zeiss 21, Zeiss 35, and the canon 70-300L. The Contax N 17-35 looks might tempting, but may be out of my price range (and I haven't seen one for sale in forever). Or do I just keep my 17-40L for its flexibility and AF? Decisions, decisions!
The Oly 21/3.5 is rather popular option to the ZE. I've got it and a Nikon 20/2.8 AIS ... both of which I like for differing reasons. The Oly 24/2.8 is also a popular alt, as is the C/Y 28/2.8 and the Nikon 28/2.8 AIS has its own reputation (I've got all these currently).
For travel purposes ... the 17-40L with a C/Y 28/2.8 smack in the middle of the zoom might make a good travel combo.
Versatility and AF when you want it, optical excellence when you get the opportunity to go 'prime-time' (without breaking the bank).
The Oly 28/3.5 makes a nice bang for the buck option, and of course the Oly's are small.
C/Y 35-70 is nice (got one of those too) but I wouldn't call it UWA ... but plastic motif does make a nice point about switching around the zoom / prime relationship.
hmm...appreciate the feedback. i used to have the 35-70 and it was great except it broke on me from being tossed around. i don't throw my equipment around, but that lens didn't like being stored on the camera face down because the whole zoom mechanism almost fell apart.
i'm not sure about a 50mm as a walk around...i've played with 35 vs 50 and i like 35mm more. as far as f2 vs f1.4, i'd probably stick with f2 since i don't need the extra stop and weight.
i know the oly's are nice, but they don't seem to give the same PQ as the zeiss in my eyes. if i kept my 17-40, i probably wouldn't carry around a 28mm.
yesh, i'm not sure what was wrong with mine, but after several months, the whole lens almost came apart...maybe it was bad to begin with, but it deterred me somewhat from getting another
The 35-70 has some elongated screw holes that allow for movement ... stress the mount too much and the screws 'slip' (blue locktight) in the elongated holes rather than breaking things (i.e. breakaway feature). Pretty easy to put back in place and re-tighten.
Could this be part of your issue with the 35-70 ??
You mentioned concern over IQ Right now, I have a 17-40L right now which is decent ... might want to compare the C/Y, Oly's or Nikons to the L before you dismiss it. Drawing style / PP on each will be different but you can get some really good stuff out of any of those primes.
If you want a Zeiss and requires a focal length of 17-35mm, you aren't left with many choices.
How about C/N 24-85 with a ZE 21/2.8? You have the versatility of zoom and the goodness of one of the best WA. Best part, they both have 82mm filter threads.
i have thought about the 24-85 actually...and it sounds like a pretty good lens and probably better than the canon 24-105 as a walkaround. i haven't seen a lot of pictures/reviews from it.
Check around here. Some people claim it to be as good/better than the 35-70. It's got a much better range and the fact that it's N mount, well that's desirable of course too.
It's a pretty killer lens, no doubt.
I'm of the opinion that that the 35-70 is about the best lens ever. Price and image quality king.
plasticmotif wrote:
Check around here. Some people claim it to be as good/better than the 35-70. It's got a much better range and the fact that it's N mount, well that's desirable of course too.
It's a pretty killer lens, no doubt.
I'm of the opinion that that the 35-70 is about the best lens ever. Price and image quality king.
You might also consider the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 with an adaptor. I know of at least one well known landscape photographer who uses this setup on a Canon camera.
yeah, the 14-24 is pretty nice...but it is also very big. in addition, the cost of lens+adapter+lee filter holder adds up close to the price of the contax n 17-35 which is pricey for me.
I sold my 17-40 shortly after getting the ZE21, I only miss it for IR on my 10D.
Also looking through my old lightroom catalogue i'm always surprised by how good shots from the Tamron 28-75 are.
If I were in your position I might look at getting a Tamron 28-75 and a 20ish and 50ish prime to get me started.
It's also worth looking at the Voigtlander SLII lenses too, the 20 and 40 primes are very good and are tiny, great for travel.
johnahill wrote:
I sold my 17-40 shortly after getting the ZE21, I only miss it for IR on my 10D.
Also looking through my old lightroom catalogue i'm always surprised by how good shots from the Tamron 28-75 are.
If I were in your position I might look at getting a Tamron 28-75 and a 20ish and 50ish prime to get me started.
It's also worth looking at the Voigtlander SLII lenses too, the 20 and 40 primes are very good and are tiny, great for travel.
I couldn't make myself like the Voigt 20. It is tiny, but I didn't find it to be as good as the Oly offerings. They are both small, sure. It's only real advantage is the native EF mount.
To answer an above question: I didn't own both, no. The 24-85 was a lens I've only seen/held not shot with.
I think the native ef mount is not to be under-rated, it allows focus confirmation, aperture control, full exif, no metering problems (many manually stopped down lenses can give false exposure readings) and no adapter problems.
I have both - the 24-85 is very versatile, stupidly easy to use - plenty sharp, good color etc. - the 35-70 has a little extra on the IQ side - harder to use (darker, harder to focus) and much more compact / light weight - both have consistently better IQ over the 24-105, though the IS can be a benefit. There are a bunch of images of each in my uploads - the lenses are miles ahead of this photographer - the 24-85 in the first few pages - the 35-70 are farther back.
For an "Alt" light weight, no hassle travel kit - the Contax 24-85 - a 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 and the Contax 70-200 - use pano's if you need wider. jmo
johnahill wrote:
I think the native ef mount is not to be under-rated, it allows focus confirmation, aperture control, full exif, no metering problems (many manually stopped down lenses can give false exposure readings) and no adapter problems.
This is part of why I suggested TRAVELING with the 17-40L and augmenting with some of the well established alt primes. 17-40L for 'on the go' snapshots and one or two primes for 'nice & slow'. I shoot 99% primes, but keep a 17-35 around for when I'm traveling with the family ... helps keep things moving along.
For a single lens augmentation, the C/Y28/2.8 or the Oly 24/2.8 still 'splits the middle with the older stuff and the ZE 25 being a recent offering. For a two lens approach, the 20/21 and maybe the ZE 35/2. Of course, there's always the 18mm primes.
But it's beginning to sound like the OP is looking more for an upgrade / justification strategy to his 17-40L more so than a traveling solution for the upcoming trip, i.e. reminding that the ZE 21 weighs double the 17-40L.
The 17-40L will always be an easy sell. Add a prime or two and start shooting with them ... that's about the only way you'll get a feel for how much you miss the zoom or love the primes. Also, you can always rent a prime or two for a few days/week to help you figure things out.
