Which wide angle lens ?

S

Steveilad

Messages
2
Edit My Images
No
I am looking at buying a new wide angle lens for my Canon 5D mkIII

I have been looking at the canon EF 17-40 f4 lens or the canon EF 16-35 f2.8 lens mainly using it for landscape
Obviously the image quality will be better with the f2.8 lens but it comes with a price tag
Anyone using any of these lenses and any suggestions as to which to get
Thanks
 
Why do you think the IQ is better on the 16-35? If you are using it mainly for landscapes, why do you need the 16-35?

IMHO the 16-35 is just not worth the extra bucks as it is not matched by the bang. If you need a fast WA lens for low light hand held shots, then sure the 16-35 is the lens to go for. Otherwise save you cash for something else.
 
The 17-40 is a perfectly good lens - maybe not quite up to the pro-level quality of the 16-35, but very close and a lot cheaper. They're both L-series so are amongst Canon's best.
 
In my experience both are pretty bad, or something like 70-90% of them are shocking bad copies. So for the price 17-40mm definitely wins. You'll be stopping them down past f/11 and even then the edges won't be as good as some of the other lenses. Canon - because they can :lol:

So for the ultimate IQ you could get Zeiss 21mm, Canon TSE 24 II, 17mm TSE, or Tokina 16-28mm (no filters on the last 2)
 
daugirdas said:
In my experience both are pretty bad, or something like 70-90% of them are shocking bad copies. So for the price 17-40mm definitely wins. You'll be stopping them down past f/11 and even then the edges won't be as good as some of the other lenses. Canon - because they can :lol:

So for the ultimate IQ you could get Zeiss 21mm, Canon TSE 24 II, 17mm TSE, or Tokina 16-28mm (no filters on the last 2)
Click to expand...

Really? That's the first time I've heard that opinion, and on my experience of my own 17-40 I'd have to disagree. Primes are always going to be better as there are fewer compromises, but I've not found my 17-40 too bad at all.
 
magicolor1 said:
Really? That's the first time I've heard that opinion, and on my experience of my own 17-40 I'd have to disagree. Primes are always going to be better as there are fewer compromises, but I've not found my 17-40 too bad at all.
Click to expand...

I am surprised at daugirdas' comment too. My 17-40 is quite soft at the edges wide open, but stop down and I have had some razor sharp shots. Great value lens IMO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top