Which wide angle for my 5D Mk2

jetpack

jetpack

Messages
929
Name
Lyle
Edit My Images
No
Guys,

I've got a Sigma 10-20mm lens which doesn't work well on the new 5Dmk2, I get a lot of dark spots in the corners (probably a more tech term than that!).

Anyway, I'm looking for a better alternative for Landscape shots and have a few in mind:

Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Lens
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens

I like the idea of the 20mm but wondered if anyone had any feedback or any alternatives for me. I don't have a great deal of cash to spend hence me liking the look on the 20mm.

Thanks!

JPJ
 
Vignetting is the word you're looking for...

Samyang 14mm f2.8 is another alternative. Manual focus, but at 14mm it's pretty irrelevant. I keep toying with the idea of selling my 12-24 Sigma for one of these, but can't bring myself to do it.

Personally, I think the 17-40 is great. Yes, it's a bit smeared at the edges wide open, gets better at F5.6+ though. I sometimes pop the Sigma on instead when I want wider than 17mm, but the pictures aren't quite as sharp and colours don't pop quite as much.
 
Thanks guys, been meaning to get back to this post. OK so I would really like to stick with Canon, I've had a bit of experience from Sigma and I don't love it. I'd be willing to stump up more to go Canon too.

What about the 24-70mm, do you think that's worth splashing out on?
 
I don't think the 24-70 is worth the cost for landscape work really. Most of the time you'd be shooting at f8-f11 so the faster lens is a waste. If 24mm is wide enough, why not consider the 24-105mm L? It's a great little lens and very versatile. I have a Zeiss 21mm that I love and 21mm is wide enough for me on my full frame.
 
I use the 17-40 on a 5D. wide open= soft edges, vignetting and good centre sharpness. f/8-16 it's great though, sharp, minimal chromabs and vignetting and so long as you zoom in slightly distortion is minimal. DXO optics corrects 17mm distortion perfectly too giving great images.

My advice, get one second hand and try it. You can always sell it on again for the same price if you don't get on with it.
 
Another vote for the 17-40 here :) Its a great lens and I've been very happy with it.

I used to have the Sigma 10-20 on my cropped sensor DSLR just as you did and moving to the 17-40 on the 5D Mk II was a great progression. It is very wide at 17mm but also has a fairly large zoom ratio going to 40mm, so if you're going out with your camera and only want to mount one lens it is fairly versatile.
 
happy haggis said:
I don't think the 24-70 is worth the cost for landscape work really. Most of the time you'd be shooting at f8-f11 so the faster lens is a waste. If 24mm is wide enough, why not consider the 24-105mm L? It's a great little lens and very versatile. I have a Zeiss 21mm that I love and 21mm is wide enough for me on my full frame.
Click to expand...

24-70 can work really well for landscapes, depending on style. Many of my best shots are taken with one. I didn't enjoy 24-105 quite as much as wide end is very distorted, and long end is not sharp enough compared with 70-200.
 
I have a few alternatives to think about :D

Sigma 12-24mm. I have one and it's amazing on FF.

Sigma 20mm f1.8. I bought this to use on an APS-C camera where it gave a FoV of about 32mm but it's a different beast on FF.

Canon 20-35mm. I bought this used. It's not a well loved lens but I've had no problems with it and plus points include it's compact and light and it has USM.

Maybe you could also look at a 24 or 28mm f1.8?

PS. Forget anti Sigma feelings and just buy the best lens at the price you're willing to pay.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
Vignetting is the word you're looking for...

Samyang 14mm f2.8 is another alternative. Manual focus, but at 14mm it's pretty irrelevant. I keep toying with the idea of selling my 12-24 Sigma for one of these, but can't bring myself to do it.
Click to expand...

The samyang is exceptional, ridiculously sharp, and on a 1.3 crop camera it's like a zeiss 21mm!

manual focus is a pain though, a total pain- in practice it's incredibly difficult to get in focus shots at f2.8
I don't know why people keep saying "manual focus isn't a problem with a wide angle", maybe if you're doing landscapes at f8 it isn't, but at f2.8 it's hard to focus
distortion is also insane, but it's correctable


jetpackjack said:
Cheers fellas.

woof woof, do you get much vignetting on the 12-24mm?
Click to expand...

no vignetting or distortion, but you do get terrible image quality wide open that doesn't improve much on stopping down, I know because i've shot 3 copies, and all were under par. Still, 12mm, is impressive
 
mrjames said:
I don't know why people keep saying "manual focus isn't a problem with a wide angle", maybe if you're doing landscapes at f8 it isn't, but at f2.8 it's hard to focus
Click to expand...

See the OP ;)

jetpackjack said:
Anyway, I'm looking for a better alternative for Landscape shots and have a few in mind:
Click to expand...
 
Have a look around and see if you can find a Sigma 15-30, they are cracking bit of glass and a lot cheaper than the Sigma 12-24, I picked mine up on this forum for £150 boxed as new.

No complaints at all on FF (5DII), and still a nice wide angle on the 1DIV

And as its less than half the price of the Sigi 12-24 and 1/3 of a Canon 17-40 its a great bargain if you can find one.

This was taken at 15mm FF Wide open at f3.5 straight out of the camera,,

IMG_8616.JPG
 
Last edited:
jetpackjack said:
Cheers fellas.

woof woof, do you get much vignetting on the 12-24mm?

Also, the 17-40mm is a good shout. Anyone selling one by any chance?
Click to expand...

Not really. I have a 5D which tends to give vignetting anyway no matter what lens is fitted to it but with the 12-24mm IMVHO it's nothing to worry about and is within the capabilities of processing software to correct. The biggest issue with this lens is that you can't really use filters. If you leave the bucket in place you can fit filters, in my case a Cokin holder, but it'll be visible right up to something like 20mm.
 
12-24mm...

mrjames said:
...no vignetting or distortion, but you do get terrible image quality wide open that doesn't improve much on stopping down, I know because i've shot 3 copies, and all were under par. Still, 12mm, is impressive
Click to expand...

Your milage obviously does vary.

I only have the one copy but it's perfectly useable at 12mm and at the widest aperture. I suppose if you're going to pixel peep you can nit pick but the next question is what to compare this lens to. It'll be a short list :D

In real world use rather than at 100%+ pixel peeping on the computer, it's fine.
 
woof woof said:
12-24mm...



Your milage obviously does vary.

I only have the one copy but it's perfectly useable at 12mm and at the widest aperture. I suppose if you're going to pixel peep you can nit pick but the next question is what to compare this lens to. It'll be a short list :D

In real world use rather than at 100%+ pixel peeping on the computer, it's fine.
Click to expand...

In other terms it won't print to a sharp A3 and no chance for A2. 6x4 is a different matter :exit:
 
I see you're an objective and unbiased as ever :naughty:

OP. Just check one out and make your own mind up.
 
mipevo6 said:
What about the 16-35 ?
Click to expand...
Other than the extra stop of light, it doesn't guive any real advantage over the 17-40. It's also twice the price.
 
arad85 said:
Other than the extra stop of light, it doesn't guive any real advantage over the 17-40. It's also twice the price.
Click to expand...


Any difference in sharpness or contrast ?
 
mipevo6 said:
Any difference in sharpness or contrast ?
Click to expand...
I've not tested it personally, but none of the reviews say it is much better. The 17-40 is a pretty good lens TBH.
 
daugirdas said:
16-35 is certainly sharper but not quite sharp enough to justify 2.5x price. 17-40 has v. good contrast
Click to expand...
At f8 (which is where I take my pictures generally), the 17-40 is sharper.....
 
The 16-35 is sharper in the corners apparently
Never shot one myself

The 12-24, yeah it looks ok at web size but pretty bad at 100%- which means pretty bad at a big print too
If you're looking to sell commercial landscape prints, they have to be perfect- edge to edge sharp, tbe sigma just won't do

I had a 15-30 too, mine was terrible, again really bad qc issues as I've seen others which were great, but mine was awful, it was so bad that an entire holidays worth of shots turned out awful, I climbed up a mountain and the shots the sigma gave me (even at f8) made my cry. I shot it against the canon 17-40 and the canon was literally 3x sharper and 12x better in the corners, and that pens is known for being terrible in the corners, perhaps my sigma was diff, by all means play the lottery if you wish, they are cheap and wide, but deceptively badly made, I dropped mine and it didn't survive
 
arad85 said:
At f8 (which is where I take my pictures generally), the 17-40 is sharper.....
Click to expand...

mrjames said:
The 16-35 is sharper in the corners apparently
Never shot one myself
Click to expand...

At f/5.6 16-35 is much sharper in the corners, but not good enough for pin sharp large print. 17-40 gives only a smear at that point. Extreme field curvature is to blame. But I didn't have a chance to use 16-35 at f/8 or above. 17-40mm is acceptable from f/11

In comparison Zeiss 21mm is pin sharp at f/2.8 even in the extreme corners.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
In comparison Zeiss 21mm is pin sharp at f/2.8 even in the extreme corners.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it isn't a zoom, and it doesn't autofocus AND it costs more than both the 17-40 and 16-35. So what :shrug:
 
jetpackjack said:
Guys,

I've got a Sigma 10-20mm lens which doesn't work well on the new 5Dmk2, I get a lot of dark spots in the corners (probably a more tech term than that!).

Anyway, I'm looking for a better alternative for Landscape shots and have a few in mind:

Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Lens
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens

I like the idea of the 20mm but wondered if anyone had any feedback or any alternatives for me. I don't have a great deal of cash to spend hence me liking the look on the 20mm.

Thanks!

JPJ
Click to expand...

Canon 17-40L is the obvious choice - and a very good one. But you are aware that your Sigma 10-20 is not intended to be used on a 5D2? It's made specifically for crop format cameras, not full frame.
 
HoppyUK said:
Canon 17-40L is the obvious choice - and a very good one. But you are aware that your Sigma 10-20 is not intended to be used on a 5D2? It's made specifically for crop format cameras, not full frame.
Click to expand...

Yeah dude, that's why I'm ditching her for a new FF compatible lens x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top