Inexpensive wide angle for 5dmk2 Advice needed.

aztec

aztec

Messages
578
Name
Shaun
Edit My Images
Yes
Would like to here experience of people using a inexpensive wide angle lens on the 5dmk2, using an older format of say a 19-35mm lens as opposed to the newer 17-40mm, the use of Auto focus etc, lens flare when used outside in bright sunshine (not that we get a lot of that in Britain) I plan to use it doing Landscape and some interior shots.
 
aztec said:
Would like to here experience of people using a inexpensive wide angle lens on the 5dmk2, using an older format of say a 19-35mm lens as opposed to the newer 17-40mm, the use of Auto focus etc, lens flare when used outside in bright sunshine (not that we get a lot of that in Britain) I plan to use it doing Landscape and some interior shots.
Click to expand...

Olympus 24 2.8 with an EOS adapter- its a well documented sharp lens , I got one recently and have been shocked at just how sharp it is. They can be had for under £100.

Edit: it is of course manual focus but for your uses it doesn't sound like you will need af anyway.
 
19-35mm? Have Canon ever made one of those? If so, I've never heard of it.

Personally, I think you've got your priorities the wrong way round.

Poor body + good lens = good results (so long as the body can handle the conditions, e.g. weatherproofing, AF speed, frame rate, high ISO handling, etc.)

Good body + poor lens = poor results
 
StewartR said:
19-35mm? Have Canon ever made one of those? If so, I've never heard of it.

Personally, I think you've got your priorities the wrong way round.

Poor body + good lens = good results (so long as the body can handle the conditions, e.g. weatherproofing, AF speed, frame rate, high ISO handling, etc.)

Good body + poor lens = poor results
Click to expand...

Inexpensive primes doesn't mean poor lens you know.... Just look at the Samyang lenses for instance - and older manual focus primes. They are much better value for picture quality than most zooms.
 
menthel said:
I would save up for the 17-40 having spent all that money on a 5DII! They go for silly prices second hand and are very good lenses.
Click to expand...

I was never that convinced about the 17-40 to be honest... Sure it's very convenient and a good all round lens but I didn't get any enjoyment out of using it, and the picture quality was fine but nothing to shout about for me. But that's just me!
 
StewartR said:
Good body + poor lens = poor results
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I dont see why you would want to put a cheap lens on to such an awesome camera. Surely the 17-40 is an inexpensive decent lens to put on a decent camera?!?
 
StewartR said:
19-35mm? Have Canon ever made one of those? If so, I've never heard of it.

Personally, I think you've got your priorities the wrong way round.

Poor body + good lens = good results (so long as the body can handle the conditions, e.g. weatherproofing, AF speed, frame rate, high ISO handling, etc.)

Good body + poor lens = poor results
Click to expand...

The 19-35mm is a Cosina/Tamron/Vivitar and some people claim to get very good results from it. Google and you shall find :D

Canon do a 20-35mm USM, I have one and it seems ok.
 
I know I have a decent camera which I have spent most of my cash on so I either wait and buy an expensive or go down the road of a less expensive wide angle and get out taking pictures if the quality is very noticeable I may wait, I did want to buy zoom for the indoor shots I know that it wont compare to primes etc just asking the question as some of these lenses seem very good valve for money against some canon lenses.
 
Type "19-35mm images" into your search engine and look at some pictures.

I know you can't always tell by looking at stuff on line but they look ok to me.
 
Alan(woof woof) I have googled the cosina/tamaron/vivitar etc and lots of the people seem happy with the results but a lot of the data is over six years old which I would expect from an old lens just wondered if any people on talk photography where using this lens. I checked out the canon here http://slrlensreview.com/web/canon-...-canon-ef-20-35mm-f35-45-usm-lens-review.html and the conclusion was it was just ok. Its so confusing buying lenses at the best of times wondering if you have paid too much just to say you have the latest model to me it looks like some lenses may have just been passed over because of the name dose not fit in with the rest of your equipment,that does not bother me.Anyone with any pics using a cheaper lens?.
 
Those cosina 19-35's are not great. I had one and it was badly made, loose zoom and focus rings and severe distortion as well as not being very sharp at all. I would not go for one unless you really only have £50 to spend. The general view on here is that the 17-40 is a good lens, with good image qualities and that if you don't need the f2.8 that the 16-35 offers then you get the 17-40. They go on here all the time for sub £500 and that to me seems a bargain, having handled and played with one on a 5DII. If I was going to go full frame and wanted an UWA the 17-40 would win out every time.
 
Agree with Stewart, though he didn't say or I think meant to imply, that cheaper primes were no good. However, from a practical point of view I think the current vogue for fitting old primes on modern camera - because you can, and it's cheap - is not all it's cracked up to be.

If you buy used and well, you can sell-on for no loss so that may be an option, but 17-40L is a great super-wide on full frame and pretty good value as these things go.
 
aztec said:
I know I have a decent camera which I have spent most of my cash on so I either wait and buy an expensive or go down the road of a less expensive wide angle and get out taking pictures if the quality is very noticeable I may wait, I did want to buy zoom for the indoor shots I know that it wont compare to primes etc just asking the question as some of these lenses seem very good valve for money against some canon lenses.
Click to expand...

I promise you that the £100 or less olympus 24mm 2.8 will take sharper pictures than the 17-40 at 24mm at any aperture!!!!!!!!!! Or what about the Samyang 14mm which is documented to be better optically than Canon's 14mm L lens?

Why is everybody jumping to the conclusion that inexpensive = poor lens? you don't have to spend £££'s for decent glass if you know what you are looking for.

By all means get the 17-40 if it's what you want and it fits your budget but know that it is possible to get better glass at a lower cost... But at the cost of versatility.
 
menthel said:
If I was going to go full frame and wanted an UWA the 17-40 would win out every time.
Click to expand...
Yup. Every time...

If you want to see what it is like on a 5D2, have a look through these threads for my posts and pull up the jpegs (RAW files straight out of camera converted to JPEG via lightroom at 70% quality - no extra sharpening and Lightrooms default sharpening is much less than DPPs)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=367709
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=367628
 
aztec said:
Alan(woof woof) I have googled the cosina/tamaron/vivitar etc and lots of the people seem happy with the results but a lot of the data is over six years old which I would expect from an old lens just wondered if any people on talk photography where using this lens. I checked out the canon here http://slrlensreview.com/web/canon-...-canon-ef-20-35mm-f35-45-usm-lens-review.html and the conclusion was it was just ok. Its so confusing buying lenses at the best of times wondering if you have paid too much just to say you have the latest model to me it looks like some lenses may have just been passed over because of the name dose not fit in with the rest of your equipment,that does not bother me.Anyone with any pics using a cheaper lens?.
Click to expand...

Link is to an old Canon 20-35. Of the 17-40L, the same site says "Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is probably one of the best ultra-wide zoom lenses available on the market." Here http://slrlensreview.com/web/canon-.../25-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4l-usm-lens-review.html
 
I suppose it's difficult with older lenses as you might have to take a leap of faith and buy without trying.

If you're lucky you might find a supplier who'll take it back if you're not happy.
 
travellingcello said:
I promise you that the £100 or less olympus 24mm 2.8 will take sharper pictures than the 17-40 at 24mm at any aperture!!!!!!!!!! Or what about the Samyang 14mm which is documented to be better optically than Canon's 14mm L lens?

Why is everybody jumping to the conclusion that inexpensive = poor lens? you don't have to spend £££'s for decent glass if you know what you are looking for.

By all means get the 17-40 if it's what you want and it fits your budget but know that it is possible to get better glass at a lower cost... But at the cost of versatility.
Click to expand...

Its a nice idea but I think the OP may want to go wider- he already has a sigma 24-70 according to his profile. The OM lenses are nice and sharp, I had an adaptor that I used with my 50mm f1.8 and 28mm f1.8 (both oly) but they were not better than the modern decent lenses that I have used.

Although if you do want that OM 24mm Mifsuds have one at present for £150. Make sure you get a good adaptor though, spend out a bit rather than a £10 ebay special and get one with focus confirm.
 
Last edited:
travellingcello said:
I promise you that the £100 or less olympus 24mm 2.8 will take sharper pictures than the 17-40 at 24mm at any aperture!!!!!!!!!! Or what about the Samyang 14mm which is documented to be better optically than Canon's 14mm L lens?

Why is everybody jumping to the conclusion that inexpensive = poor lens? you don't have to spend £££'s for decent glass if you know what you are looking for.

By all means get the 17-40 if it's what you want and it fits your budget but know that it is possible to get better glass at a lower cost... But at the cost of versatility.
Click to expand...

Better optically? That'll be a world first. Better value maybe.

Edit: to add some substance, Samyang 14mm (and it's really not a bad lens at a great price) has strong barrel distortion which is bad news for architecture and if you correct it the field of view is no longer what it should be at 14mm, and it's flare handling isn't so good, which is a serious flaw in a super-wide.
 
Last edited:
Andy
checked out your photos using Canon 17-40mm and the lens looks sharp to me. I used to have a 10-20mm sigma on my old 450d and I suppose I am missing my UWA lens
 
I'm pleased with it :) The photos do brush up a lot better than that once you've done some post on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top