What wide angle lens for full frame Canon

valb

valb

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,589
Name
val
Edit My Images
No
I have just purchased a 6D and my 10-22 will not fit. The widest full frame lens I have is 24-105. I would like something that bit wider to go with the 6D.

Can anyone recommend a quality lens that would fit the bill?
 
Canon 16-35mm f2.8
Canon 17-40mm f4

Latter lens is a good UWA for the money
 
Thanks guys.

I have read some pretty poor reports on the 17-40 saying it is not up to Canon L standards.

The 16-35 has much better press but it is expensive even second hand. This will be the least used of my lenses so I am looking for something a bit less expensive.
 
Have a look for a used Sigma 15-30

You can find a good used one for about £150 and quality wise its easily comparable with the 17-40, and probably the 16-35 at the centre although drops off at the edges more
 
VickyMids said:
Have a look for a used Sigma 15-30

You can find a good used one for about £150 and quality wise its easily comparable with the 17-40, and probably the 16-35 at the centre although drops off at the edges more
Click to expand...

That says a lot about 17-40, particularly the corners and the edges

What is L quality after all? FaiL or the hoLy GraiL? A bit of both I suppose... it depends... There are far more expensive and better lenses like Canon EOS cinema line, Zeiss cine primes, some leica glass, etc.

16-35 II is not the final answer but certainly better than 17-40. Unless Canon can release a new UWA soon, I will have to get this upgrade soon if I am to successfully take the majority of landscape shots planned for 2013
 
valb said:
Thanks guys.

I have read some pretty poor reports on the 17-40 saying it is not up to Canon L standards.

The 16-35 has much better press but it is expensive even second hand. This will be the least used of my lenses so I am looking for something a bit less expensive.
Click to expand...

There's many shots out there to disprove that theory. Have a look at Mark mullens images on Flickr (also a TP member) he uses a 17-40 with a 5D3 and his results are really good.
As for the 16-35 you are really paying more for the f2.8, I'd say IQ isn't much better than the 17-40. IMO obviously!
 
Thanks for all your comments they are appreciated.

The difference between a 24-105 and a 15-85 when compared with the 10-22 on the 7D is substantial. I have used the 10-22 a lot on holiday for landscapes and general views.

The 10-22 on a cropped sensor is of course equivalent to 16-35 on FF and I think I will miss not having that wide end range.

I don't think I will find a 16-35 within my budget but I will certainly explore the 15-30. Perhaps I will also look more closely at the 17-40.
 
Last edited:
stupar said:
There's many shots out there to disprove that theory. Have a look at Mark mullens images on Flickr (also a TP member) he uses a 17-40 with a 5D3 and his results are really good.
As for the 16-35 you are really paying more for the f2.8, I'd say IQ isn't much better than the 17-40. IMO obviously!
Click to expand...

shoot at f/5.6 or f/2.8! and compare the differences!

of course by f/16 everything is evened out and getting soft due to diffraction
 
daugirdas said:
shoot at f/5.6 or f/2.8! and compare the differences!

of course by f/16 everything is evened out and getting soft due to diffraction
Click to expand...

Sorry should have stated between f11 and f16 where most landscapers shoot with these lenses
 
Has anyone had any experience of the UWA Tokina lenses?
 
Last edited:
stupar said:
Sorry should have stated between f11 and f16 where most landscapers shoot with these lenses
Click to expand...

Shoot at f8 and most people won't spot the difference, he just has a real downer on the 17-40 and crops up in every thread about it!
 
The 17-40 f4L is by no means a bad lens.

To be honest, the criteria you should be considering is weight and size. UWA isn't going to be your main lens, so getting a heavy lens is counter productive. The lightest sub-20mm UWA lens on the market is the 17-40 f4L.

Another reason to consider Canon L zoom lenses is the weather sealing. It's a landscape lens, you will want to use it out there in the rain, on the beach and by a waterfall.

Step it down to f5.6 and it's as sharp as the 24-105. Landscape shots will be taken on a tripod at f11 anyway, so every lens will perform the same.



(bonus, 17-40 takes same filter as 24-105, and 17-40's hood is very slightly shorter than 24-105, so filter and hood are both interchangeable.)
 
stupar said:
There's many shots out there to disprove that theory. Have a look at Mark mullens images on Flickr (also a TP member) he uses a 17-40 with a 5D3 and his results are really good.
As for the 16-35 you are really paying more for the f2.8, I'd say IQ isn't much better than the 17-40. IMO obviously!
Click to expand...

Thanks Stuart.

The 17-40 is my main lens for landscapes, I considered buying the 16-35 instead but the extra stop is of no use to me and I heard from a couple of friends who'd owned both that the 16-35 suffered more from flare. I shoot into the sun a lot and that would be an issue for me.

It is sharp at the apertures I use (11-16), the corners are a bit soft on full frame but it's not a particularly dear lens so that is reasonable IMO.

My next purchase will be either a Zeiss 18mm (the 15mm would be perfect but for the filter issue) or a 24mm TS-E
 
Just to keep everyone up to date with my decision. I took delivery of a new 6D today and a 17-40. Now I need to get out and play with them both.

Thanks to everyone for their invaluable contributions.
 
Let me know how you get on with the 17-40 and what you date code is! I'm just about to buy mine for my Mk2!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top