Wide lens for 5D MKII

D

drb5

Messages
1,404
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Over the past couple of weeks, i've been considering a wide angle for landscape pics. Going to Cyprus for 2 weeks on the 1st Spet and would have liked to have had something by then.

The obvious choice is the 17-40, but for the price difference, i reckon it's worth considering others.

The Sigma 17-35 or Tamron 17-35 are my other options. The Sigma tends not to get too good a write up, but the Tammy sounds pretty decent.

Can anyone give their opinions on these lenses?

I've been looking about and the Tamron is very thin on the ground....dunno if anyone has seen one for sale anywhere?
 
drb5 said:
Over the past couple of weeks, i've been considering a wide angle for landscape pics. Going to Cyprus for 2 weeks on the 1st Spet and would have liked to have had something by then.

The obvious choice is the 17-40, but for the price difference, i reckon it's worth considering others.

The Sigma 17-35 or Tamron 17-35 are my other options. The Sigma tends not to get too good a write up, but the Tammy sounds pretty decent.

Can anyone give their opinions on these lenses?

I've been looking about and the Tamron is very thin on the ground....dunno if anyone has seen one for sale anywhere?
Click to expand...

Just get 16-35 mk2 and you are sorted ;)
 
good luck trying to find a tamron!

onestop have been out of stock for ages and dont know when they will be getting more in.

has it been discontinued???

id like either the tamron or canon, most likely my next lens in the next month or so.
 
Yep, had tried Onestop, but they aren't sure if/when they'll get more in. AFAIK it's discontinued.

Just had a try of a 17-40 in Jessops today. Certainly soft at the out edges at 17mm/f4, but wasn't bad imo and didn't have much distortion at all.
 
Well... as you said in the first post Dave "The obvious choice is the 17-40"
I know it's only f/4 but you'll certainly stop it down for landscapes, and for anything else I'm happy to use mine wide open anyway. Build quality is decent too, you could do a lot worse.

cheers
 
davidbridges said:
+1 for 16 - 35 :)
Click to expand...

Lol, not gonna happen....i can dream though. :)


Garnock, a prime has sailed through my mind a couple of times, but losing IS AND zoom scares me a bit.

Besides, the widest prime is 20mm before spending even more more than the 16-35 and get the 14mm.
 
Sigma 12-24 EX DG. With your 28-135 IS should cover most of your needs.
 
Bill Roberts said:
Well... as you said in the first post Dave "The obvious choice is the 17-40"
I know it's only f/4 but you'll certainly stop it down for landscapes, and for anything else I'm happy to use mine wide open anyway. Build quality is decent too, you could do a lot worse.

cheers
Click to expand...

Lol, it had to come back and haunt me those words. ;)

In all seriousness, i loved the feel and how quick it locked focus. I only had a play for 10 mins or so, but compared to the 28-135 i currently have and 17-55 i had in the past, it amazed me how wellbuilt it was. I know for a fact the third party lenses won't impress me as much. Just wish i could get a play with them for a direct comparison...
 
EdBray said:
Sigma 12-24 EX DG. With your 28-135 IS should cover most of your needs.
Click to expand...

I intend on replacing the 28-135 at some point soon, so that isn't a biggy, but i haven't thought much about the 12-24. Do you have one yourself? I'm curious to know more about this option. Not sure how the corners would be at 12mm on the 5D2.
 
drb5 said:
The Sigma 17-35 or Tamron 17-35 are my other options. The Sigma tends not to get too good a write up, but the Tammy sounds pretty decent.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I still have no idea where or why people have had bad experience with the sigma 17-35mm?!

I'd had two now, the first one was replaced for the new Full Time manual focus version last year. I used both of them in possibly the worst environments in terms of focus (nightclub) and both returned stellar results considering the cost. Sharpness and contrast were good, whilst the only thing I didn't particularly like on the original was the 82mm filter size (77mm on the newer one) and the rather slowish (not mega slow by any stretch though) AF. Another ball ache was the non-constant aperture which is a pain if you're shooting in manual and constantly adjusting the zoom, but otherwise it's great. I'd buy another without a second thought if they still existed new.

I can stick up some unprocessed sample pics if you'd like?

cheers! :D

Ads
 
Go for it Ads, thats what i was hoping for. :)

So you have the newer EX DG HSM model? The way i see it, a good number of people get bad copies first time around and of course you only ever hear the bad stories and not the good ones. ;) Just seems such a hit and miss and no-one wants to waste their hard earned on a bad copy. :)
 
drb5 said:
Go for it Ads, thats what i was hoping for. :)

So you have the newer EX DG HSM model? The way i see it, a good number of people get bad copies first time around and of course you only ever hear the bad stories and not the good ones. ;) Just seems such a hit and miss and no-one wants to waste their hard earned on a bad copy. :)
Click to expand...

No worries man :D, Yep its the EX DG HSM... I'll stick some up in a jiffy when I've got some 100% crops for you. Where did you read the reviews from out of interest? I don't know of anyone else that owns the lens and always found it a bit of a pig to locate new when it was available, so I doubt there are many in photographers bags. I'm always dubious about the 'first hand' reviews by some, especially over the pond, as the americans get over dramatic in some sort of attempt to get their '15mins of fame' and generally hate sigma, which I've never understood.

Anyway... pics are coming...
ads :)
 
drb5 said:
I intend on replacing the 28-135 at some point soon, so that isn't a biggy, but i haven't thought much about the 12-24. Do you have one yourself? I'm curious to know more about this option. Not sure how the corners would be at 12mm on the 5D2.
Click to expand...

I have the Siggy 12-24, 24-70L, 50 f1.4, 85L, Siggy 105 Macro and 135L I use whatever I need on my 5DMk2 with no hesitation.

Images from my 5D and 12-24 here.

Images from POTN 12-24 thread here. some great shots later in the thread.
 
Pmsl at the Americans. :D

I have a feeling the reviews were based on different versions though the review i'm thinking about just now(and can't find!), was definately the version you have. There can be bad copies of anything though.
 
Garnock said:
The corners are much softer than the 17-40 and more distorted.
http://www.pbase.com/lamlash/image/109379239/original
Click to expand...

I think that shot looks great, soft corners or not. I'd be happy having it as a canvas on my wall :)

The Siggy 12-24mm is what it is. It's clearly pushing lens design to the absolute limit, and IMO it's amazing that any manufacturer makes a zoom that goes that wide, let alone one that's relatively affordable. As I understand it, if you want a full-frame compatible rectilinear 12mm, you've got a choice of the Sigma, or paying silly money for the equivalent Nikkor - if you happen to own a Nikon.

A.
 
Yep, indeed!

Panorama shots are excellent on that link, especially the Lochan Urr.

Great shots too EdBray. For some unknown reason, i'm loving the big old door shot. :D
 
right, hope I've done this right...

I rarely use the 1d2 with the 17-35, but I might have some knocking about if you require something with a bit less crop factor?

These were on taken on a 40d, f/4 ISO 800, straight off the camera shutter speed and focal length will be different, but i hope it's off some use to you.

IMG_0992e1.jpg


IMG_0992-2.jpg


IMG_1032.jpg


IMG_1032-2.jpg



edit... the crops do look rather sharpened, that'll be the processing by the camera to jpg :wall:

ads
 
2nd shot certainly appears crisper, but thats probably as he's not layered in make-up. :D

Not much distortion there...and chance of a couple with the 1D? Mainly to see if there is a difference in sharpness to the 40D, thanks. :)
 
Sorry, but you cannot compare any crop image from a lens to a FF image. There will be considerably more distortion and vignetting on the FF image, even from the difference between 1.3 crop and FF.

The difference between 17mm (FF AOV 27mm on 1.6x and 22mm on 1.3x) on crop and 17mm on FF is really marked!
 
yeah no worries man... I shot some at with the 1d at the weekend and thought I'd deleted them... Although I don't think I removed them off the card. The 1D does practically bog-all sharpening compared to the 40d... brbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
 
EdBray said:
Sorry, but you cannot compare any crop image from a lens to a FF image. There will be considerably more distortion and vignetting on the FF image, even from the difference between 1.3 crop and FF.

The difference between 17mm (FF AOV 27mm on 1.6x and 22mm on 1.3x) on crop and 17mm on FF is really marked!
Click to expand...

it's the closest he's going to get to seeing any actual pics from the lens, without reading subjective reviews full of garbage. I know which I'd prefer... :D
 
Anorakus said:
I think that shot looks great, soft corners or not. I'd be happy having it as a canvas on my wall :)

The Siggy 12-24mm is what it is. It's clearly pushing lens design to the absolute limit, and IMO it's amazing that any manufacturer makes a zoom that goes that wide, let alone one that's relatively affordable. As I understand it, if you want a full-frame compatible rectilinear 12mm, you've got a choice of the Sigma, or paying silly money for the equivalent Nikkor - if you happen to own a Nikon.

A.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
At 12mm on a FF camera skies can look awesome and the impact this lens gives is well worth the money, soft corners or no.
That's why I still have it.:thumbs:
 
IQ is straight away better and impressed. :)

Back in the running tis the Sigma. :D Many thanks fella. :thumbs:
 
no problem at all man. It's certainly not the best lens but it gets along alright, but I can't justify to myself the need/cost for the 16-35L when I get along absolutely fine with the sigma... I should really use the lens a bit more when I'm out in daylight too :lol:

good luck with the wide angle hunting :thumbs:
 
The EX DG HSM is still pretty pricey compared to it's Asherical brother. It makes it a tough descision when you can get the 17-40 for not a lot more...

Just too many options! ;) :D
 
I thought they were unobtainable new these days man? Sigma have certainly discontinued it. Where are you looking? And how much are you looking at?

I paid £135 (cheers Jessops) for a new EX DG HSM new, and London Camera exchange gave me £140 for the older aspherical version :lol:
 
Ooo, that puts a bit of a spanner in the works then! lol Warranty certainly is a big impact with me atm.

Do you think the lens is worth £300?
 
drb5 said:
Ooo, that puts a bit of a spanner in the works then! lol Warranty certainly is a big impact with me atm.

Do you think the lens is worth £300?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't pay £300 for a new one, I don't think! But then again f/2.8 at the wide end is nice. Similarly I wouldn't sell mine for £170 or whatever they apparently go for on here and ebay. Do you need a fast aperture? else I'd say go secondhand, I can bet my arse that if any of the latest versions pop up on ebay the owners don't even know about the 3 year warranty, hope that everyone believes the horror stories and ignores the lens. So there could be a bargain there if you're willing to sit it out for a bit.

Or get the 12-24 which is just a mad lens quite frankly... or play it safe and expensive and get the 17-40

:shrug:
 
I'm going to just try the lens outside whilst we have daylight... see out it fairs as it focuses towards infinity.
 
right, me again,

straight off the camera, contrast seems a bit lacking wide open. Having thought about it, there isn't really anything else that comes close for the price. Although it'd be nice to do a comparison between it and a 16-35, 17-40 and a tammy version.

no processing on these. The cropped pics are from a RAW image converted in Lightroom.
1.3x 17mm f/2.8, near MFD
JL8B22712.jpg


100% crop
JL8B2271.jpg


1.3x 17mm f/2.8, at infinity
JL8B22822.jpg


JL8B2282.jpg


1.3x 17mm f/4.5, at infinity
JL8B22862.jpg


JL8B2286.jpg



I have to say this little test has pleased me even more about owning the sigma now.

all the best,

ads
 
:D Some man, i appreciate the effort!

Trouble is i'm wanting something for a week on Tuesday, but i can always sell whatever i plump for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top