Wide Angle for Canon FF

Jelster

Jelster

Messages
9,632
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
People, I need some advice....

I would like decent lens to shoot landscapes as I'm off to the Brecon Beacons in a couple of weeks and all I really have is my 24-105, which is a bit weak at the wide end. I've looked at both the 17-40 and the 16-35 f2.8, the latter being a bit more than I wanted to pay.

Can anybody advise if I'm missing an obvious choice from a 3rd party ? Or is there a prime that I should be considering ?

Thanks,
Steve
 
Bought the 16-35 MK2 & love it.
 
If you want to go extremely wide, I have a feeling that the Sigma 12-24 is the widest (non fisheye) available. Try before you buy, there have been reports of poor copies.
 
I have used both the Sigma 12-24 mm and Canon 17-40 mm on full frame and liked them both. I tend to use the Canon more but not by much. If you thinking prime and wanting to go wider than 24 mm then you would need to look at 20 mm or 14/15 mm. I have not used any of those so can't make any comment on how good they are.
 
Thanks all, the 16-35 is a bit rich for me right now, so I think I'll move towards the 17-40. It's not going to do anything other than landscapes, so I don't think I'll need the faster aperture.
 
Jelster said:
Thanks all, the 16-35 is a bit rich for me right now, so I think I'll move towards the 17-40. It's not going to do anything other than landscapes, so I don't think I'll need the faster aperture.
Click to expand...

I have used the 16-35 II and thought it was very good. Vulcan has a Zeiss 21mm for sale in the classifieds @ the bargain price of £850 - this is debatably the best Canon landscape lens available and comfortably surpasses the excellent 16-35 II, but perhaps more than you are looking to spend at the moment. The 17-40L is a good landscape lens too - I've used it on FF and crop bodies, but much preferred it on FF. This is one reason I prefer the 16-35 as it makes a decent walkaround on a crop and an good wide angle on FF.
 
philthejuggler said:
I have used the 16-35 II and thought it was very good. Vulcan has a Zeiss 21mm for sale in the classifieds @ the bargain price of £850 - this is debatably the best Canon landscape lens available and comfortably surpasses the excellent 16-35 II, but perhaps more than you are looking to spend at the moment. The 17-40L is a good landscape lens too - I've used it on FF and crop bodies, but much preferred it on FF. This is one reason I prefer the 16-35 as it makes a decent walkaround on a crop and an good wide angle on FF.
Click to expand...

I can definitely recommend the Zeiss 21mm 2.8.
 
Don't think you can really go wrong with the 17-40mm, usual canon L quality and as always if you pick up a decent condition 2nd hand copy it'll hold it's value forever if you decide to resell at some point.
 
The 16-35 is better than the 17-40, but it's not "twice as much money" better.

I've got a 17-40, and do most of my landscape work with it. I currently partner it with a non-L 28-135, but my intention is to swap that out for a 24-105.
 
Jelster said:
Thanks all, the 16-35 is a bit rich for me right now, so I think I'll move towards the 17-40. It's not going to do anything other than landscapes, so I don't think I'll need the faster aperture.
Click to expand...

That's the way I'd go

I never even go near f4 on my 17-40 as it's used only for landscapes.
 
Mrrikki said:
I use the 24-105 L on my 6D, I find it wide enough on FF.
Click to expand...

I just find it a bit weak at the edges, and I think the 17-40 at 20mm will give better performance. (It's also not as heavy, quite important if I'm going hill walking in Wales :eek: )
 
Thread tidied and as Steve @Jelster said, "Play nice".
He doesn't bite, but I just might.

This has been a public service announcement
Thanks for your attention
 
Jelster said:
I just find it a bit weak at the edges, and I think the 17-40 at 20mm will give better performance. (It's also not as heavy, quite important if I'm going hill walking in Wales :eek: )
Click to expand...

I love my 24-105, don't find the edges soft at all?
 
Yes, but it's possibly the best general purpose FF lenses going IMO, and I find it great for landscapes, the detail it resolves on my 6d is staggering.
 
simonbarker said:
Comparatively, it's a great lens but falls under the jack of all trades, master of none saying.
Click to expand...
Then you've had a poor copy. I've found mine pin sharp on my 5d mk3 at all focal lengths. A great lens.

However for wide, I use a 14 mm samyang. Fully manual but that's actually a bonus at times. F11 gives you focus from 1.5 feet to infinity. i paid £265 new at focus, but you can get them for about £200 second hand.
 
Byker28i said:
Then you've had a poor copy. I've found mine pin sharp on my 5d mk3 at all focal lengths. A great lens.

However for wide, I use a 14 mm samyang. Fully manual but that's actually a bonus at times. F11 gives you focus from 1.5 feet to infinity. i paid £265 new at focus, but you can get them for about £200 second hand.
Click to expand...
I'm after one if these for my 6d, though I'm finding second hand ones rarer than rocking horse doo!
 
I have found that my 24-105 is a little soft at the edges, and suffers from barrel distortion when used wide. It's a very good lens, but I want something that is designed to work well at around 20-25mm, and the 17-40 (or 16-35) seem to fit the bill nicely.
 
odd jim said:
I'm after one if these for my 6d, though I'm finding second hand ones rarer than rocking horse doo!
Click to expand...

I ended up buying new as I think it's one of those cheap lenses that people hold on to. The good news is that they are only around £300 new. I was lucky and picked one up at the last focus show for £265
 
Problem solved ! I've picked up a 17-40 in the classifieds. Good old TP to the rescue again.

Thanks for the input folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top