Full frame wide-angle lens

Eddzz!!

Eddzz!!

Messages
1,120
Name
Eddy
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently got myself a Canon 6D (full frame). I kept my 7D as a backup, but I sold my EF-S lenses as I knew I wouldn't get as much use out of them. Among those I sold was one of my favourite lenses the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. It is an absolutely great wide-angle lens. However, I figured seeing as I have bought a full frame camera I should really start using that for landscapes due to the wider field of view. I know there are a few wide-angle lenses out there for full frame Canons, but I don't want to spend a ridiculous amount on buying one. For instance, I wouldn't be able to afford the 16-35mm f/2.8L ... I'm preferably looking for a lens with a 77mm thread for my ND filters I really like the look of this lens - I've used a wide-angle Tokina before (for APS-C) and it was a solid piece of kit with incredible image sharpness. This full frame variant, sadly, lacks a filter thread...

So, recommendations please! :D
 
Find the money for a 16-35F2.8 or find even more money for a Ziess 21mm is the best advice I can give.

17-40mm L is a possible budget solution. I've not shot with one, but I know someone who has, he wasn't complimentry.
 
A Sigma 12-24mm would give you a very wide lens on full frame and a quite wide lens on your 7D, not too far off what your 10-22mmgave you on APS-C.

I had one, actually it replaced my Canon 10-22mm which I never really rated and I thought that the Sigma was a much better lens. it worked very well on both my 20D and 5D. You can't use filters at the wide end though, only at the longer end.
 
Eddzz!! said:
The 17-40 is indeed tempting, but I've heard very mixed reviews about sharpness!
Click to expand...

Some people print only 5x7" and some people have fairly poor eyesight. That's why.
 
Another vote for the 17-40L

I think it gets a bit of stick as people buy it (cheap L option) stick it on a crop body and expect miracles as an everyday lens at f4.

Used for landscapes (say f11 and up) and it's fine. I actually use it on a SLR as well as 1.3 crop 1D3 which I find a decent bomb proof combo when out in the lovely Scottish weather.
 
daugirdas said:
Some people print only 5x7" and some people have fairly poor eyesight. That's why.
Click to expand...
What would you recommend instead? :)

dinners said:
Another vote for the 17-40L

I think it gets a bit of stick as people buy it (cheap L option) stick it on a crop body and expect miracles as an everyday lens at f4.

Used for landscapes (say f11 and up) and it's fine. I actually use it on a SLR as well as 1.3 crop 1D3 which I find a decent bomb proof combo when out in the lovely Scottish weather.
Click to expand...
I think it's an OK optic, not the best by any means but OK for the regular joe for personal use.

I hear good things about Canon TS-E 17mm and 24mm lenses, as well as the Zeiss 21mm - I'm also in the market for an FF wide angle, preferably something optically better than my aging 17-40mm L, so curious as to what others recommend who discount the 17-40mm from their recommendations to you.

Canon has a new 16-35mm f4 coming out - might be worth a look ??
 
Zephyr said:
What would you recommend instead? :)


I think it's an OK optic, not the best by any means but OK for the regular joe for personal use.

I hear good things about Canon TS-E 17mm and 24mm lenses, as well as the Zeiss 21mm - I'm also in the market for an FF wide angle, preferably something optically better than my aging 17-40mm L, so curious as to what others recommend who discount the 17-40mm from their recommendations to you.

Canon has a new 16-35mm f4 coming out - might be worth a look ??
Click to expand...
Ok for regular joe?? I use the 17-40 professionally and have no issues with it at all neither do my clients. The 16-35 is good but just doesn't justify it's price compared. If you are looking at Ts I have the samyang 24mm. It's very good but it's fully manual, no electronics at all! So you have to know your onions to get the best from it. But at half the price of the canon it's a belter!
 
Zephyr said:
What would you recommend instead? :)


I think it's an OK optic, not the best by any means but OK for the regular joe for personal use.

I hear good things about Canon TS-E 17mm and 24mm lenses, as well as the Zeiss 21mm - I'm also in the market for an FF wide angle, preferably something optically better than my aging 17-40mm L, so curious as to what others recommend who discount the 17-40mm from their recommendations to you.

Canon has a new 16-35mm f4 coming out - might be worth a look ??
Click to expand...

I will indeed buy the new 16-35 f/4 - just hoping for a cashback offer or a slight price drop and some more detailed reviews. I owned both 17-40 and 16-35 f/2.8 II (brand new just for a day - it was that bad!) and I honestly cannot recommend one for anything larger than A5-A4 printing, unless you compose all your shots in one very particular way. Zeiss and TSEs seem to be a safe option if your budget allows.

edit: - actually 24-70mm serves mosts needs pretty well and 5 months after dumping 17-40 I only missed the wide end about 2 times...
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
I will indeed buy the new 16-35 f/4 - just hoping for a cashback offer or a slight price drop and some more detailed reviews. I owned both 17-40 and 16-35 f/2.8 II (brand new just for a day - it was that bad!) and I honestly cannot recommend one for anything larger than A5-A4 printing, unless you compose all your shots in one very particular way. Zeiss and TSEs seem to be a safe option if your budget allows.

edit: - actually 24-70mm serves mosts needs pretty well and 5 months after dumping 17-40 I only missed the wide end about 2 times...
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the new 24-70 f4 or f2.8 II?
I am also awaiting reviews on the 16-35 f4 before investing.
I don't like the quality of the 17-40 as L glass but i think i have been spoilt by the likes of the big supertelephotos which has distorted my view of good glass forever!
 
if your budget is ok go with zeiss ..if not the canon 17 40mm at say f 5.6 to f8 is sharp .and its a cheap lens if your on a budget...a prime like the zeiss 21mm will be a lot sharper and in the corners will be far better than the canons..but it comes at a price
 
Having researched the standard of images on Flickr taken with the 17-40 I'm amazed at the slating it gets. Anybody can take a poor picture with any lens, but with the following it has, I'm surprised that people say it's a poor performer. Agreed, it's a little older in design, but so is the 24-105, and that has a large following too.
 
Zephyr said:
Are you referring to the new 24-70 f4 or f2.8 II?
I am also awaiting reviews on the 16-35 f4 before investing.
I don't like the quality of the 17-40 as L glass but i think i have been spoilt by the likes of the big supertelephotos which has distorted my view of good glass forever!
Click to expand...

I've never had a chance to shoot 24-70 f/4L but I believe it is also top rate glass when 2.8 is not necessary. Both f/2.8 mk2 and mk1 are great as long as it is a good copy. In direct comparison with either one - the 17-40mm really stinks - no need to even mention the excellent super teles.

Jelster said:
Having researched the standard of images on Flickr taken with the 17-40 I'm amazed at the slating it gets. Anybody can take a poor picture with any lens, but with the following it has, I'm surprised that people say it's a poor performer. Agreed, it's a little older in design, but so is the 24-105, and that has a large following too.
Click to expand...

I would much much more comfortably shoot with 24-105 than 17-40. The reason is simple - the edges of 17-40 will be focused at around 0.5-1m (and that may vary between left and right even on canon's own demo copy) when the centre is at infinity. That is pretty shocking, isn't it? I suppose you didn't own the wideangle?

I remember a while back there was even an 8x10 ratio "professional" focus screen that helped to deal with poor edges. In this day cropping every frame so severely no longer meets the demand.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
I would much much more comfortably shoot with 24-105 than 17-40. The reason is simple - the edges of 17-40 will be focused at around 0.5-1m (and that may vary between left and right even on canon's own demo copy) when the centre is at infinity. That is pretty shocking, isn't it? I suppose you didn't own the wideangle?

I remember a while back there was even an 8x10 ratio "professional" focus screen that helped to deal with poor edges. In this day cropping every frame so severely no longer meets the demand.
Click to expand...

I've just bought one actually and did some research before hand. Let's hope that my photo's will not be of a significant standard to feel the effects of such a poor lens ;)
 
buy the 17mm I've got listed in the classifieds - I'll include a nikon to canon adapter for free :)
 
Out of curiously I know you mentioned the APS-C Tokina so presumably 11-17mm, I'm sure I've read somewhere that this works on FF but only at the upper end. No idea what happens at the wider end! I have this lens on a Nikon D90 and it's great but getting tempted by a D610 so wondered what might happen!
 
Eddzz!! said:
The 17-40 is indeed tempting, but I've heard very mixed reviews about sharpness!
Click to expand...

I did a lot of research on this lens a couple of years ago. Seems that it is a very good lens when you get a good copy but there were a lot of bad copies out there. I came across a lot of complaints that this lens was hit or miss when it came to quality control. Just what I saw, not interested in a big heated debate. Thanks.
 
shaylou said:
I did a lot of research on this lens a couple of years ago. Seems that it is a very good lens when you get a good copy but there were a lot of bad copies out there. I came across a lot of complaints that this lens was hit or miss when it came to quality control. Just what I saw, not interested in a big heated debate. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's the same with the 24-105 I believe. I'm quite lucky in that I've got an ultra-sharp copy of the 24-105!
 
Im having the same problem right now and waiting to see more reviews on the new 16-35mm F4. Apparently it has sharper image quality than the F2.8 II but then again i love photographing Northern Lights and the F2.8 will be more handy there. I was set on the 17-40mm but i think i will raise some more cash to go one better.

The Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 gets very good reviews I'm not entirely sure what the canon equivalent is (if any). You could get a Nikon> Canon adaptor but it wont take filters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top