My wideangle saga - 17-40mm and beyond (Zeiss 21, TSE, Tokina 16-28)

LongLensPhotography

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
18,837
Name
LongLensPhotography
Edit My Images
No
I need to bring a little bit of common sense back to the wider part of my kit. In short I need something around 17mm, with filters and good optics, ideally zoom and AF when required.

Many of you may remember me being a bit fed up with Canon 17-40mm. Mine is nowhere near my 24-70mm mk1, but neither were another 2 I tried on separate occasions.

Then I tried getting new 16-35mm II. Junk, centering defects on 2 copies, awful 35mm. If there are a few good ones I am not likely to come across them. I've given up. I see why many of you say 17-40mm is just as bad but at half price. I have to agree now. :|

So back to 17-40mm. I could service mine at Canon at £100+. I could also buy another, but would this make any positive change? I am rather curious what the best copy of this lens is capable of at 17mm between f/5.6 and f/8 (sure they will all be fine at f/16 but that's not the point. I am fed up with shooting f/16). I'd be grateful if you point me towards some good example shots, full size or with 100% crops. I need to decided whether I should be spending any further money on this lens.

I may also need to weigh up getting another killer fixed wideangle in addition to a zoom when I need the IQ. It's not an easy decision as I need to put my limited funds to 5D3 first and foremost. The contenders are Zeiss 21mm and the L TSEs. I am not yet sure what would be the most significant upgrade as I could just about get one.

P.S. Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is quite interesting - but has anyone managed to fit Lee filters on top? I am also not sure about flaring and supposedly poor QC.
I could always consider sourcing another cheap Tokina 12-24 DX, which was quite nice to use, but with minor flaws like being flare prone, and not overly sharp edges (but clearly better than 17-40mm under f/11), and obviously limited to 18 and 24mm
 
Last edited:
I'd be happy to see some examples from a 17-40 at around f5.6-f8 as I'm thinking about getting a WA for my 5D3. I've already got a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM and a near redundant 24-105 f4L (since I got the Sigma) but would like to get something a bit wider (mainly for stationary aircraft/vehicles) but don't want to compromise IQ too much.
 
If you want I can email you a RAW file from my Canon 5D2 with 17-40 shot at 17mm f8
Shot was also taken on a tripod which would eliminate hand shake but then it was in a tunnel so it is a 25 sec exposure.

Let me know if you want it.
 
stupar said:
If you want I can email you a RAW file from my Canon 5D2 with 17-40 shot at 17mm f8
Shot was also taken on a tripod which would eliminate hand shake but then it was in a tunnel so it is a 25 sec exposure.

Let me know if you want it.
Click to expand...

Yes please.

username @gmail.com is the easiest way to find me.
 
A 17 TS-E is your best option there. People even adapt the Nikon 14-24 to work on Canon.
 
Unfortunately I can't send you the RAW file tonight as it's a 31mb file and my blueyonder/Gmail accounts cap attachments at 25mb and I didn't have time to do a full size conversion to a smaller file size.
 
Laudrup said:
A 17 TS-E is your best option there. People even adapt the Nikon 14-24 to work on Canon.
Click to expand...

without filters it could be only an additional lens... I am sure the day is coming when sensors can simulate grad filters, but until then I can't be asked to manually blend multiple exposures for every shot. Therefore sadly these 2 are towards the bottom of my list until that day

stupar said:
Unfortunately I can't send you the RAW file tonight as it's a 31mb file and my blueyonder/Gmail accounts cap attachments at 25mb and I didn't have time to do a full size conversion to a smaller file size.
Click to expand...

a good jpeg would do, or if you have google drive / dropbox that may be the easiest way. Thanks
 
JPEG file sent.
Just a straight save from the RAW file and saved at level 12 in CS6.
 
stupar said:
JPEG file sent.
Just a straight save from the RAW file and saved at level 12 in CS6.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I'll have to think about it. Canon could make it very easy on the 22nd of March by bringing out a new UWA. PLease...
 
daugirdas said:
I need to bring a little bit of common sense back to the wider part of my kit. In short I need something around 17mm, with filters and good optics, ideally zoom and AF when required.

Many of you may remember me being a bit fed up with Canon 17-40mm. Mine is nowhere near my 24-70mm mk1, but neither were another 2 I tried on separate occasions.

Then I tried getting new 16-35mm II. Junk, centering defects on 2 copies, awful 35mm. If there are a few good ones I am not likely to come across them. I've given up. I see why many of you say 17-40mm is just as bad but at half price. I have to agree now. :|

So back to 17-40mm. I could service mine at Canon at £100+. I could also buy another, but would this make any positive change? I am rather curious what the best copy of this lens is capable of at 17mm between f/5.6 and f/8 (sure they will all be fine at f/16 but that's not the point. I am fed up with shooting f/16). I'd be grateful if you point me towards some good example shots, full size or with 100% crops. I need to decided whether I should be spending any further money on this lens.

I may also need to weigh up getting another killer fixed wideangle in addition to a zoom when I need the IQ. It's not an easy decision as I need to put my limited funds to 5D3 first and foremost. The contenders are Zeiss 21mm and the L TSEs. I am not yet sure what would be the most significant upgrade as I could just about get one.

P.S. Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is quite interesting - but has anyone managed to fit Lee filters on top? I am also not sure about flaring and supposedly poor QC.
I could always consider sourcing another cheap Tokina 12-24 DX, which was quite nice to use, but with minor flaws like being flare prone, and not overly sharp edges (but clearly better than 17-40mm under f/11), and obviously limited to 18 and 24mm
Click to expand...

I'm not too happy with my 17-40L and have been seriously considering an upgrade to 16-35, now you've cast serious doubts on that upgrade
 
good_fella7777 said:
I'm not too happy with my 17-40L and have been seriously considering an upgrade to 16-35, now you've cast serious doubts on that upgrade
Click to expand...

Do NOT do it, unless you can go through a few copies in the store with your laptop. There may be a good one eventually. First copy was pretty impressive on the left but terrible on the right, the second was the reverse and less sharp overall. At 35mm f/2.8 the second was very hazy, but I didn't check the first one. I tested another one on Canon stand and that also turned out a bit soft anywhere but the centre (focusing on their staff with outer points).. so 3/3 duffers.

My initial test is dead simple and easy. Pick some building or some other big detailed object outside, set your aperture, faster than 1/200s, etc, focus on it with the centre point. Take the shot, then recompose (do not refocus) and shoot the same object on each edge or corner if you wish. It can be done quickly and almost anywhere and usually picks up the very worst problems.
A good lens will have sharp centre. The edges may be slightly less sharp (but reasonable!) and MUST be EVEN/same. If they are not you have a lemon for sure. Be critical, do not try convince yourself that you are imagining things as you may have to do just that for years to come.
There are many more tests you can do after that.

P.S. In what way do you find YOUR 17-40 lacking?
 
mine is just soft overall, but then again thats something that may be sorted by getting it calibrated (which unfortunately I have not done and something I should definitely try before giving up on it completely.
I was persuaded to consider 16-35 simply becuase 17-40 gets a lot of bad press and the former would offer a bigger aperture.
Would love to have the Zeiss but for the manual focus:-(
 
daugirdas said:
without filters it could be only an additional lens... I am sure the day is coming when sensors can simulate grad filters, but until then I can't be asked to manually blend multiple exposures for every shot. Therefore sadly these 2 are towards the bottom of my list until that day



a good jpeg would do, or if you have google drive / dropbox that may be the easiest way. Thanks
Click to expand...

Zeiss does a 15mm too, quite pricey though.
 
good_fella7777 said:
mine is just soft overall, but then again thats something that may be sorted by getting it calibrated (which unfortunately I have not done and something I should definitely try before giving up on it completely.
I was persuaded to consider 16-35 simply becuase 17-40 gets a lot of bad press and the former would offer a bigger aperture.
Would love to have the Zeiss but for the manual focus:-(
Click to expand...

I don't see why one would need AF with such a wide lens (although you wouldn't sell me MF 35mm). And you still have AF confirm and most likely live view.
My problem with Zeiss is the COST, considering that it would not even replace 17-40.

Mine is certainly sharp over APS-C area, but when it comes to calibrating I am not too sure what to do when you open up the guts.
 
The Nikon 14-24 does have the SW150 filter kit from lee and I've seen it adapted to Canon on some forums with a Novoflex adapter. Canon really doesn't have anything spectacular in a wide zoom flavour. The 17-40 and 16-35 are nothing to write home about, but look to be your only option based on your requirements.
 
There's no free ride when it comes to wide angles.They all have problems,inc the Zeiss 21mm and Nikon 14-24mm.

I've been in the situation you are in ,looking for the holy grail.It took me a long time but I eventually realised it doesn't exist.The best thing that ever happened to my photography was the day I said sod it and stopped pixel peeping things at 100% and just enjoyed taking pictures.

I've owned multiple copies of the 17-40 and 16-35 F2.8 Mk2 and would take the 16-35 any day over the 17-40.It's more versatile and just takes nicer looking pictures.
I had a Zeiss 21mm for a while and that was very nice.It does suffer from distortion and although very good it isn't pixel peeping sharp at 100% across the frame at F2.8.

I haven't owned the 24TS&E but until 4 weeks ago was a very happy owner of the 17mm TS&E.That was my favourite of the lot.Unbelieavably versatile and the ability to create easy pano shots is supurb.I stopped using filters years ago so the lack of filter use on the lens for me was moot.Why spend £2000 on a lens and then put a cheap piece of plastic or glass in front of it when all you need to do is take a couple of shots at the time,a couple of clicks in Photoshop and hey presto.

Hope you get sorted soon.Don't let the hunt for perfection in a lens stop you enjoying taking pictures.Unless you are printing huge most people will never know a lens isn't sharp at 100%

Gary
 
What do the David Notons, Charlie Waites of this world use? I would think if it is good enough for them (or whoever you favourite landscape photographer is) then it should be one to look at.
 
vulcan2912 said:
There's no free ride when it comes to wide angles.They all have problems,inc the Zeiss 21mm and Nikon 14-24mm.

I've been in the situation you are in ,looking for the holy grail.It took me a long time but I eventually realised it doesn't exist.The best thing that ever happened to my photography was the day I said sod it and stopped pixel peeping things at 100% and just enjoyed taking pictures.

I've owned multiple copies of the 17-40 and 16-35 F2.8 Mk2 and would take the 16-35 any day over the 17-40.It's more versatile and just takes nicer looking pictures.
I had a Zeiss 21mm for a while and that was very nice.It does suffer from distortion and although very good it isn't pixel peeping sharp at 100% across the frame at F2.8.

I haven't owned the 24TS&E but until 4 weeks ago was a very happy owner of the 17mm TS&E.That was my favourite of the lot.Unbelieavably versatile and the ability to create easy pano shots is supurb.I stopped using filters years ago so the lack of filter use on the lens for me was moot.Why spend £2000 on a lens and then put a cheap piece of plastic or glass in front of it when all you need to do is take a couple of shots at the time,a couple of clicks in Photoshop and hey presto.

Hope you get sorted soon.Don't let the hunt for perfection in a lens stop you enjoying taking pictures.Unless you are printing huge most people will never know a lens isn't sharp at 100%

Gary
Click to expand...

I do submit some to agencies and occasionally sell some fairly large prints (A3, had some A1s too). There comes the 'need' to deliver sharp pics, I guess. When it comes to weddings, surely the pressure is off of the extreme corners :lol: and the prints are more like 8x12"

I had Tokina 12-24mm and I was nearly happy with it. I swapped for 17-40 because I had a crazy idea that it would stop me taking 24-70mm on most landscape trips. I didn't. 24-70mm mk1 outresolves 17-40mm very easily.

The least I can do is get another Tokina, and they're cheap and 77mm. I'd have to again deal with more flare and slightly broader vignetting (17-40 is one of the better lenses in that regard). I considered 11-16, but probably 12-24 is a better option?

Anyway, this Tokina 12-24 / 1DsII shot at f/4

Portland Bill in Moonlight
And it doesn't look bad at 100%. I'll eat my socks :gag: if 17-40 can do the same


Blending is not something I am comfortable with. I've tried a shot or two a couple years ago and boy that was really time consuming! I am not sure if there is now an easier workflow with lightroom, but it's the fact that it always requires tripod and very careful shooting puts me off. Anything with changing conditions can't be done either.
 
Do you use Canon's DPP for processing your images?

I ask because if you use a recent version, Canon has made available a lens optimisation module, DLO - link explaining it http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/004nS0.

The DLO module corrects a range of defects for many Canon lenses, including edge sharpness. I use it with my 17-40 and find it improves my images considerably. Works very well with a 28mm f1.8 USM making it a useable lens at wider apertures.

Suspect that some type of DLO processing may be what smartens up M43 lens performance.

It's a totally free way to improve Canon lens performance, suggest you give it a try to see whether the results are acceptable before forking out on a new lens that may bring its own problems.
 
Single lens solution, Canon 16-35 Mk2. If you're not happy, send it to Canon and get them to optimise it, and pay the bill with a smile :)

If that's not good enough, it's primes, plus cost and inconvenience and quite likely still some frustration. Pin sharp corners at all apertures just doesn't happen with super-wides of any description*, though I suspect your A1 print customers may not notice ;)

*T&S probably comes closest, if you don't shift it.
 
Last edited:
fulwood said:
Do you use Canon's DPP for processing your images?

I ask because if you use a recent version, Canon has made available a lens optimisation module, DLO - link explaining it http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/004nS0.

The DLO module corrects a range of defects for many Canon lenses, including edge sharpness. I use it with my 17-40 and find it improves my images considerably. Works very well with a 28mm f1.8 USM making it a useable lens at wider apertures.

Suspect that some type of DLO processing may be what smartens up M43 lens performance.

It's a totally free way to improve Canon lens performance, suggest you give it a try to see whether the results are acceptable before forking out on a new lens that may bring its own problems.
Click to expand...

I had a quick play with a few selected 17-40 and 50/1.4 shots. DPP/Canon got a bit closer to truth but in reality they are still many lightyears away from Adobe/Lightroom. It is miraculous how much extra LR can pull out. :thumbs:

ecniv said:
If you don't mind manual focus, have you considered the samyang 14mm ?

Might be worth borrowing to try?
Click to expand...

Got one already. Sharp - yes, easy to fix distortion - yes, way too wide - yes, no filters - yes. You get the point. I hardly come to use it. I only bought it for skylines and some tricky interiors; it won't see any further use despite extra resolution.

HoppyUK said:
Single lens solution, Canon 16-35 Mk2. If you're not happy, send it to Canon and get them to optimise it, and pay the bill with a smile :)

If that's not good enough, it's primes, plus cost and inconvenience and quite likely still some frustration. Pin sharp corners at all apertures just doesn't happen with super-wides of any description*, though I suspect your A1 print customers may not notice ;)

*T&S probably comes closest, if you don't shift it.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't know if proper 16-35mm exists, but for one I will not bet MY £1000 on UK Canon sorting out flawed optics. As the store pointed out they love to use "within spec" excuse.

I have never mentioned pin sharp corners at all apertures, but I would like to see reasonable resolution, and particularly after f/5.6. Please refer to my Tokina f/4 (wide open) shot of Portland Bill of what I consider perfectly acceptable
I may sort out some 100% crops to illustrate this better.

Anyway, can we get the thread back on track please. Does a pretty sharp 17-40mm exist, and if so I'd love some more examples? :thumbs:
 
daugirdas said:
I had a quick play with a few selected 17-40 and 50/1.4 shots. DPP/Canon got a bit closer to truth but in reality they are still many lightyears away from Adobe/Lightroom. It is miraculous how much extra LR can pull out. :thumbs:



Got one already. Sharp - yes, easy to fix distortion - yes, way too wide - yes, no filters - yes. You get the point. I hardly come to use it. I only bought it for skylines and some tricky interiors; it won't see any further use despite extra resolution.



As I said, I don't know if proper 16-35mm exists, but for one I will not bet MY £1000 on UK Canon sorting out flawed optics. As the store pointed out they love to use "within spec" excuse.

I have never mentioned pin sharp corners at all apertures, but I would like to see reasonable resolution, and particularly after f/5.6. Please refer to my Tokina f/4 (wide open) shot of Portland Bill of what I consider perfectly acceptable
I may sort out some 100% crops to illustrate this better.

Anyway, can we get the thread back on track please. Does a pretty sharp 17-40mm exist, and if so I'd love some more examples? :thumbs:
Click to expand...

In the corners, no. Check Canon's MTF graphs that show optimum lens performance capability. Most Canon lenses are included in Canon LensWork III, here http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_10_EN.pdf
 
HoppyUK said:
In the corners, no. Check Canon's MTF graphs that show optimum lens performance capability. Most Canon lenses are included in Canon LensWork III, here http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_10_EN.pdf
Click to expand...

that probably settles the question. But it doesn't quite explain why for example some 24-70mm mk1s are great but many are down right terrible - i.e. is MTF some sort of "average" lens, or the ideal case?

What about Tokina 16-28mm. Can I fit Lee 100mm kit on top? 150mm is just too expensive to justify. Sharpness is OK on those.
 
daugirdas said:
that probably settles the question. But it doesn't quite explain why for example some 24-70mm mk1s are great but many are down right terrible - i.e. is MTF some sort of "average" lens, or the ideal case?
What about Tokina 16-28mm. Can I fit Lee 100mm kit on top? 150mm is just too expensive to justify. Sharpness is OK on those.
Click to expand...

Canon's MTFs are computer generated, as are Nikon's and Sigma's too I think, and show optimum performance, though a good copy should match them.

The published graphs don't reveal everything, but they do extend right to the extreme corners where sharpness is a fair way from max with any wide-angle, and the wider you go, the worse it gets.
 
Cool, it will be another tokina 12-24, or zeiss 21mm :cuckoo:

I think I will email my canon rep to enquire about wide newcomers

I can't believe that sigma doesn't even have a single current WA zoom with filter thread :shrug:
 
I've been following the thread with interest as I'm on the lookout for a wide angle for my 1D mkIV.

But I'm a little confused with your shot using a tokina 12-24 with the 1Ds as I thought the tokina was for ASP-C body's only.
 
daugirdas said:
that probably settles the question. But it doesn't quite explain why for example some 24-70mm mk1s are great but many are down right terrible - i.e. is MTF some sort of "average" lens, or the ideal case?

What about Tokina 16-28mm. Can I fit Lee 100mm kit on top? 150mm is just too expensive to justify. Sharpness is OK on those.
Click to expand...

You can't put filters on the 16-28 no thread. I believe you can bodge something onto it........... Sure I read it somewhere
 
acetone said:
I've been following the thread with interest as I'm on the lookout for a wide angle for my 1D mkIV.

But I'm a little confused with your shot using a tokina 12-24 with the 1Ds as I thought the tokina was for ASP-C body's only.
Click to expand...

Well you have a solid and hard proof that they work well from 17mm on FF, and about 14-15 on 1.3x bodies. If you intend to crop to 5x7 or 8x10 you could go even wider. The mount is standard EF and there is nothing sticking out. It is only marked APS-C because you get black corners at 12mm, and they want you to buy another more expensive lens

So for a 1D I strongly recommend either Tokina 11-16mm or 12-24mm. Of course the Canon zooms will also work fine and you will not even see the awful edges, but that will be a tad less wide. In fact even the cheaper 16-35mm mk1 might make a lot of sense (it's the edges that make it so "bad"). It's your choice.
 
Ah! So it's not a issue with the mirror hitting the lens, just the image circle not being big enough, so 14-24 on my 1.3 crop. That makes it worth looking at if the price is right.

I've considered the Sigma 12-24, which is designed for FF, but can't find a review for the newer mkII model
 
Last edited:
acetone said:
Ah! So it's not a issue with the mirror hitting the lens, just the image circle not being big enough, so 14-24 on my 1.3 crop. That makes it worth looking at if the price is right.

I've considered the Sigma 12-24, which is designed for FF, but can't find a review for the newer mkII model
Click to expand...

yes. I also forgot to mention that the lens hood is better kept off at the wider settings, but since I always had Lee kit that was not an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top