Wide Angle Lens for 5DMKII

[ausguitarman]

Well after selling the 50D and the 11-16 I've had the hankering for a wide angle lens.

I know the choice isn't vast but the two I'm leaning towards are the Canon 17-40 and the Tamron 17-35.

For the bucks the Tamron seems great value and the 2.8 is a bonus.

Has anybody used the Tamron are what are your general thoughts.

[bigdazzler]

How bout the obvious .. The 16-35L ... too much $$$ ??

Theres the Sigma 12-24 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/12-24mm-f45-56-ex-dg-asp-hsm-sigma) as well ..

[ausguitarman]

The price of entry on the 16-35 is too much :eek:.

[para]

How bout the obvious .. The 16-35L ... too much $$$ ??

agree with darren but the 16-35l is a awesome bit of kit

[Philr]

Its awesome on the 5DmkII though. My favourite lens.

[bigdazzler]

The price of entry on the 16-35 is too much :eek:.

Yea I figured thats why you left it off the list mate ...

Im having the same issue myself. Im after an UWA angle for my upcoming honeymoon to Europe. Id love the Sony Carl Zeiss 16-35, but same deal, very $$$$ :(

Im looking at the Sigma 12-24 as an alternative

[ausguitarman]

Im looking at the Sigma 12-24 as an alternative

I looked at this as well but for the price I think the Canon 17-40 is a better buy but maybe that's just me.

[ausguitarman]

agree with darren but the 16-35l is a awesome bit of kit

What's the difference between 16-35 MKI and MKII as the MKI's seem to be about for a reasonable price.

[James Axford]

the 24mm f1.4 mkII is also very nice. maybe a little too much too?

[DAdeGroot]

I use the 17-40L and find it to be plenty wide enough. If I wanted wider, I'd go the 14/2.8 or 15 fisheye.

The 16-35, while a very good lens, does have the disadvantage of an 82mm filter thread.

Is the Tamron a full-frame lens or is it only for cropped sensors ?

[andrask]

Another one happy with the 17-40 4L - great optics, can't fault it after using the Tokina AT-X 124 PRO DX 12-24mm F4. And it is more than adequate for a full frame sensor camera.

[James Axford]

I would say the 17-40 is fairly average compared to the primes in the same length, like the 17 and the 24.
costs more yes, but the difference is apparent

[Xenedis]

I own the 16-35/2.8L II, and while it's considerably more expensive than the 17-40/4L, it is a fantastic lens, and one I use almost exclusively for 'scapes, and almost exclusively at 16mm.

As Dave pointed out, it has an annoying 82mm filter size, and it was the first EF lens Canon introduced with that filter size.

If budget is a concern, the 17-40 is a very capable lens too, and if you don't need f/2.8 or the extra 1mm of focal length (16mm is noticeably wider than 17mm even though it doesn't sound like much on paper), then it's a very good buy.

I cannot offer any advice about third-party lenses, as I've not used them; but I have had experience with both of Canon's ultra-wide L zooms, and they are both excellent.

[ausguitarman]

Thanks for the responses so far :food04:.




Is the Tamron a full-frame lens or is it only for cropped sensors ?

Yep it's for a full frame. There's mixed reviews but for $450.00 :scrtch:.

[bigdazzler]

Where did you see the Tamron for that price mate ?

[ausguitarman]

There's a new Sony mount one here: http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Tamron-f-Sony-Alpha-SP-AF-2-8-4-17-35mm-Di-IF-LD-Asph-/280499492523?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_77&hash=item414f1296ab

That seems a tad high for one of these but an offer of Euro 280-300 might be worth a try :D.

[bigdazzler]

Yea... I'm gonna have a good read up on that lens tomorrow. Haven't heard much about it... Might be a good FF travel option... Cheers mate

[Xenedis]

There's a new Sony mount one here: http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Tamron-f-Sony-Alpha-SP-AF-2-8-4-17-35mm-Di-IF-LD-Asph-/280499492523?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_77&hash=item414f1296ab

That seems a tad high for one of these but an offer of Euro 280-300 might be worth a try :D.

A lens with a Sony mount won't be of much use to someone who owns a Canon camera. :-P

[JM Tran]

the 17-40 performs quite poorly on full frame in terms of corner to corner sharpness Im afraid, even more so than other third party lenses

if you want to go widest on full frame, I would suggest the Sigma 12-24, at f8 and beyond its sharper than the 17-40 across the whole frame, and more rectilinear than both Canon lenses which suffer from quite bad barrel distortion when shooting landscapes or buildings

[Xenedis]

if you want to go widest on full frame, I would suggest the Sigma 12-24, at f8 and beyond its sharper than the 17-40 across the whole frame, and more rectilinear than both Canon lenses which suffer from quite bad barrel distortion when shooting landscapes or buildings

That hasn't been my experience with the 16-35/2.8L II.

In my experience, when you keep the axis of the lens parallel to the ground, straight lines remain straight.

Here are some of my images which demonstrate this:

http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=4386332397
http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=2139065477
http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=3194352480
http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=3976552577
http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=3164398946
http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=2181871855
http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=3192463333
http://www.xenedis.net/viewimage.php?i=2139057413

[bigdazzler]

A lens with a Sony mount won't be of much use to someone who owns a Canon camera. :-P

Good thing the link was intended for me then ... ;) Have you been skipping over posts again Johnny ?? :D

[ausguitarman]

Well I pushed the button on the 17-35 this morning. Should be here next week so we'll see how it goes.

With the change it allowed me to buy a 808RC4, 234RC and a Pro 300 DG 2X Converter.

Happy all round :D.

[ravescar]

I am under a similiar delimma with Wide Angle Lens on 5D, let me know how the Tamron goes.

[ausguitarman]

Turned up today so I'll let you know how it goes.

[ravescar]

In the end, after weeks of research, I snapped a Sigma 15-30mm EX DG off ebay to try out.

The reason i choose it over Tamron is extra 2mm on the short end for the most part, and is generally well spoken of despite lack of documentation.

Heard the optic of it is pretty good, people keep mentioning about flare problem though. So want to try it out and see.

[Assassin]

[QUOTE="DAdeGroot"]

The 16-35, while a very good lens, does have the disadvantage of an 82mm filter thread. [\QUOTE]

The 82mm filter thread is essential for a good wide angle lens.... I have no problem with that, but for me I think that 16mm is too wide for FF camera unless you want it for a specific reason. I find that 24-70 is perfect for most applications and more than wide enough for the full frame sensor....

[Xenedis]

but for me I think that 16mm is too wide for FF camera unless you want it for a specific reason. I find that 24-70 is perfect for most applications and more than wide enough for the full frame sensor....

I used to have a 24-105/4L IS, and when I moved to a full-frame camera in 2006, I thought 24mm was as wide as I would want.

I was wrong. I bought a 16-35/2.8L II and never looked back. I didn't use my 24-105 again, and I later sold it.

I shoot seascapes quite extensively, and my 16-35 rarely deviates from the 16mm focal length.

It comes down to personal preference, but for what I shoot, I like the ultra-wide view. I really brings you into the scene when you've got foreground interest up close and a wide vista.

Personally I have no use for a standard zoom, which is why the 24-70/2.8L is not a lens I own.

[wideangle]

I think that if you are used to the 16mm equivalent focal length on a crop form camera, then an equivalent of at least 16mm is going to be the go

[Andrew]

I find that 24-70 is perfect for most applications and more than wide enough for the full frame sensor....

Agree, but I also carry the Sigma 12-24 for the rare occasions I want/need to go wider. Have had the 12-24 for a couple of years now and have had very good results.

[ravescar]

Agree, but I also carry the Sigma 12-24 for the rare occasions I want/need to go wider. Have had the 12-24 for a couple of years now and have had very good results.

12mm end is crazily wide though on a full frame DSLR.

[Dylan & Marianne]

cant' comment on the other lenses mentioned here but I guess the thing to remember is that bodies come and go, a good lens is more forever than other bits of gear :)
that in mind, you might find yourself actually saving money by getting a great piece of glass like the 16-35 now rather than finding limitations with others along the way that you gradually upgrade ;)
Just depends on how committed you are to using it.
I love my 16-35 and that ain't getting replaced in a while!

[Andrew]

12mm end is crazily wide though on a full frame DSLR.

Crazy wide is good for vast landscapes, especially in the Aussie Outback

5D @ 12mm
http://www.4wdlinks.com.au/albums/andrew/le2.jpg

[ravescar]

Crazy wide is good for vast landscapes, especially in the Aussie Outback

5D @ 12mm


While it is good for vast landscape, IMO it is not really that different from using say a len on 17mm focal length and take a few steps back.

IMO It is more useful for cram in more detail in indoor shots, where your movement may be more limited.

There is significant perspective distortion at 12mm, inherit of a len this wide, so i think 12mm isn't really for me.

from what i see 12-24mm have negligible barrel distortion so it is good for architecture photography though Sigma 12-24 is still THE widest zoom in existence for full frame.

[chrisprendergast]

canon 16-35 2.8 i have one and use it with my 5d mk II nice little lens imho

[Assassin]

canon 16-35 2.8 i have one and use it with my 5d mk II nice little lens imho

Yep, I have same combo, but am used to using it on my cameras which are 1.3 crop. I guess I will just have to get used to using it on the ff sensor... I do love it though, but if I were to be completely honest, the 16-35mm has too much edge distortion for my liking, and I believe there is a Zeiss equivalent which is manual focus; i read a review on it some time back, very impressive. For architectural photography, my view is it's no good, so I wouldn't have it as a walk around lens...