Full Frame wide angle

MattyW

MattyW

Messages
2,954
Name
Matty
Edit My Images
No
Hi,
Fairly simple question, but i am switching up from a 400d to a 5d, and want to get the best wide angle for the full frame body.
I have been getting a lot of use from the Sigma 10-20mm and want to replicate this focal length.
I would have thought the canon 17-40mm L lens would be the obvious contender, but are there any others which may be better suited.? 16-35mm perhaps??

cheers
 
If you don't need the 2.8, then I'd say just go with the 17-40. What are you using it for mainly?
 
16-35mm or 17-40mm seem to be pretty much spot on and the only ones I can think of to add to the list would be a 20-35mm and the amazing Siggy 12-24mm which although wastly wider than the 10-20mm sort of range on APS-C might be worth a look.

All other things being equal I think that wider apertures always give you more options so given the choice between af2.8 and a f4 I'd go for the f2.8.
 
Value for money choice would be the 17 -40 L, if your flush with cash then the 16-35 L assuming you are looking at landscapes.
 
Alan and I will disagree again on this. I have both the Sigma 12-24 and Canon 17-40. The Canon is clearly sharper than my Sigma and has far better colour rendition and pop. My experiences with the two lenses match pretty much the sharpness tests on SLR gear http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php even down to the bizarre 1 sided sharpness hump at 17mm on the 12-24. I'm keeping both though as the sigma is insanely wide at 12mm and is rectilinear. You have to be careful not to get your feet in the shots sometimes...

Your only other options are primes - the insanely expensive 14mm or the far better priced 20mm - but then that doesn't go as wide. You could also go manual focus (did think of buying a Samyang 14mm but decided to keep the 12-24).

As to 2.8 vs 4, the 16-35 doesn't appear to be that much better than the 17-40 and I don't really see the usefulness of f 2.8 as a creative tool for the practical purposes a wide angle will get used for.
 
I have a 17-40L on my 5D2 and it's a great lens, good colour rendition, crisp and sharp.

If I had the money I'd go for the 16-35 but bang for buck I plumped for the 17-40L
 
arad85 said:
Alan and I will disagree again on this. I have both the Sigma 12-24 and Canon 17-40...
Click to expand...

Our experiences differ... such is life :) but the Siggy is always worth throwing into the mix as it gives options that others including the 17-40mm simply can not match... amazing width and low to non existant levels distortion and vignetting.
 
ChrisH said:
I have a 17-40L on my 5D2 and it's a great lens, good colour rendition, crisp and sharp.

If I had the money I'd go for the 16-35 but bang for buck I plumped for the 17-40L
Click to expand...

:plusone:

i have the same combo after coming from a 50D with the 10-22mm. its a great lens and cant fault it!
 
Hi Matty
Pleased you got a 5d after I pipped you to one.
I,m having the same debate at the moment although I already had the 24/105.
Before you jump have a look at what FL's you use most on your 10/20. When I looked at mine I found that a large proportion ( over 70%) were at 15mm and above.
That equates to 24mm on a 5D,at the moment I am finding the 24/105 fine,but I may end up going for the 17/40 further down the line

Cheers

Chris
 
5D or 5D2?

As I'm about to take the same path myself I would consider the Zeiss 18mm Distagon T or the Zeiss 21mm Distagon T. I can't think of any other WA that will suit the 5D2/3.

If it's the classic 5D you're getting then you can add to the above mentioned the 16-35mm Lii. The 17-40 would not be an option for me, but it's a great budget lens.
 
Last edited:
Another vote for the Canon 17-40mm as I think it a great lump of glass. I purchesed mine from here last year, not to expensive and well worth it the investment.

Ian
 
thanks for all the responses, in response to some questions, it will be mainly used for landscapes/seascapes, but may also try and get into some interior photography, for which i wouldn't have thought the f2.8 of the 16-35 would matter all that much.
It will be sat on a 5d Mk 1, price isn't necessarily an issue, so either of the two would fall in budget, but am i going to notice the difference in quality between the two lenses? I appreciate it is a step up going from 400d to 5d, and i will have much to learn, but i would like the best possible equipment to propel me to a higher level.
I know neither of the two mentioned are bad lenses, and so in that sense it is a good place to be, as i can't really go wrong. But would like to make the "righter choice"
 
Matty2 said:
But would like to make the "righter choice"
Click to expand...
Most reviews/tests put the 16-35 and 17-40 at about the same sharpness (I've seen some reviews that suggest the 17-40 is actually sharper) with the 16-35 I seem to remember being slightly more contrasty. Certainly it's marginal once you stop down to landscape type apertures.

Given the 16-35 is 2x the price of the 17-40, the only reason I'd get the 16-35 is if I needed 16 vs 17, or I needed 2.8...
 
Cheers Andy, thats the sort of post that will send me packing to the camera shop for a 17-40mm, and some extra cash to spend on zooms and primes!
cheers
 
If the very widest setting is your goal I'd much rather buy 16-35. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d vs http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d

Both look pretty awful at 16-17mm but 17-40mm much more so, and both quite good from 20mm.
I have a similar dilemma. I need a proper wideangle to cover UWA to moderate wide to stop me taking Tokina 12-24 (sharp and non-distorted at 18-24mm - so a bit short sometimes) and 24-70mm brick. I'd much rather take a proper UWA, 50/1.4 and 70-200/4 when it comes to landscapes.
 
daugirdas said:
If the very widest setting is your goal I'd much rather buy 16-35. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d vs http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d
Click to expand...
Just goes to show... the plots at: 16-35 and 17-40 show the 17-40 to be basically better than the 16-35 at landscape apertures. It's certainly at the level where you have to pixel peep though. It's more clear cut with the 12-24 though: here

Fist select the "Full-Frame Results" tab and then select the 3D plot which gives you the sharpness across the lens. As I said above, the plots match my results well... (at least on the 17-40 and 12-24)
 
"...but on full-frame the lens showed the most corner shading we've ever seen."

A bit of an odd statement really, unless they've tested lots of 12mm zoom lenses :lol:
 
Tokina do a 16mm-28mm f2.8 lens for full frame cameras. I had the tokina 11mm-16mm lens and it was superb.
 
arad85 said:
Just goes to show... the plots at: 16-35 and 17-40 show the 17-40 to be basically better than the 16-35 at landscape apertures. It's certainly at the level where you have to pixel peep though. It's more clear cut with the 12-24 though: here
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. At f/4-5.6 16-35mm still comes out as a winner at wider settings. This is important for star shots, crazy lighthouse pictures, moonscapes and even things like aurora Borealis. Clearly they are both perfectly sharp by f8 and above, but if Tokina 12-24 can be very sharp at f/4 Canon L's should at least match it. Distortion at 16-17mm looks bad in L's, so if it has to be corrected - it's better to start wider.
 
daugirdas said:
Thanks for the link. At f/4-5.6 16-35mm still comes out as a winner at wider settings.
Click to expand...
Yup... wider than 24, faster than 5.6, the 2.8 lens wins. But for most of the pretty specialist (i.e. astro ones) applications you mention, I'd be using a faster prime ;) I still say at general landscape apertures, you wouldn't notice a difference...

AFAIK, the Tokina isn't FF... The Sigma definitely ISN'T sharp at F4...
 
arad85 said:
Yup... wider than 24, faster than 5.6, the 2.8 lens wins. But for most of the pretty specialist (i.e. astro ones) applications you mention, I'd be using a faster prime ;) I still say at general landscape apertures, you wouldn't notice a difference...

AFAIK, the Tokina isn't FF... The Sigma definitely ISN'T sharp at F4...
Click to expand...

Wide fast primes of course are great if you have another £1.5k to spare. TSE17L and 24/1.4L combo would be nice :help:, but I first need to afford a two week trip to Iceland and Norway.

Tokina, as they tell you, is for APS-C cameras. It turns out it puts a few L's to shame from 19mm onwards on full frame cameras (15mm on 1.3x).


18mm 1DsII, cropped only to fix perspective and remove unwanted corner.
 
I've got the 17-40 with my 5D and think it's a great combination for landscape photography. The only time I wished I'd gone for the 16-35 is when I've been shooting indoor snowboarding. However if I had to choose between the two again I'd still go for the 17-40.
 
It's a bargain compared to the 16-35 or the Zeiss lenses ;)
 
For a bargain there's always the 20-35mm USM. I have one on my film body and it seems to be fine with no nasties visible. I paid £150 for mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top