Canon UWA Lens Recommendations

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Nickwell24, Sep 25, 2014.

  1. Nickwell24 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    #1
    This past week I had the luxury of testing out a 10-22mm on my T2i and fell in love with the results you get from a UWA (Ultra-Wide Angle) lens. Now I'm debating on which to buy, I can't get the 10-22 because it's EF-S and I'm upgrading to the 6D this month.

    Here are the 3 lenses I'm seriously considering, so if anybody has experience I'd love your opinion. The primary purpose of this lens will be landscape and architecture (so I'm not considering the f/2.8 a huge advantage)

    Canon 16-35 F/4 ($1,200) -
    Pros: Image Stabilization, Corner to Corner sharpness, 77mm Filter
    Cons: Price

    Canon 17-40 F/4 ($850) -
    Pros: Cheaper, 77mm Filter
    Cons: No IS, Not as wide

    Tokina 16-28 F/2.8 ($650) -
    Pros: Cheapest, F/2.8 for if I ever want to shoot stars
    Cons: No IS, Unable to use filters, smaller zoom range

    I've seen a lot of professionals use the 17-40 with amazing results. I also know that for landscapes most shots will be on a tripod so IS is not very important. That being said, tripods aren't always practical on a photo walk or while shooting architecture in crowded streets.

    So I'd like anybody with some input to weigh in on this. Money being no option I'd go with the 16-35 f/4. But money being what is it, my thoughts are to go with the 17-40 and use the left over money on a decent tripod and gear bag.

    Here are two shots I took with the 10-22. I didn't have a tripod or monopod for these shots, they were all handheld and being dark some coming close to 1/8th of a second (This is one reason i'm considering paying the premium for the IS).

    [​IMG]Springfield-2 by Nickwell24, on Flickr
    [​IMG]Springfield-1 by Nickwell24, on Flickr
     
  2. Policar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    #2
    I personally don't like landscapes shot wider than around 50mm, and find tilt/shift necessary for architecture and most landscape, but it seems you've landed on UWA and know what you're after...

    I find the 17-40mm f4 L to be ok. Weather sealed, soft corners wide open then some CA in the corners throughout, but a good look and ok contrast. I'm sure the 16-35mm f4 IS is better and IS matters for landscapes if you don't plan to use a tripod. If you do plan to use a tripod, get a tilt/**** lens already!

    The issue with the Tokina is you can't use filters. Some people like ND grads and powerful NDs and polarizers for landscapes. I find polarizers and grad filters gross.

    Consider just getting the 10-18mm IS for the T2i. A LOT cheaper and sharper than the 17-40mm by all accounts, almost enough to make up for the difference in resolution between FF and APS-C. (But not quite... still... taking IS into account... close.)
     
  3. Nickwell24 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    #3
    If I did daylight photography I'd definitely consider sticking to the crop sensor and picking up the 10-18, however as I have a particular fondness of nighttime landscapes and architecture the full frame's larger sensor offers a lot of benefits.
     
  4. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #4
    Really? IS on a wide angle??????
     
  5. Nickwell24 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    #5
    IS can be beneficial for any lens when you're hand holding. I always have gone by the rule of your shutter speed should be a number faster than your focal range (1/200+ for 200mm) for a usable shot w/o blur but IS helps use a lower shutter speed and still get quality results.

    The night I took the pictures above I had to sacrifice depth of field and still use 1/4 @ 10mm. Many photos came out blurry but I had a couple that worked. With IS i'm sure more would have come out in usable.

    All of this said. I'm fairly sure I'm going with the 16-35 f/4.
     
  6. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #6
    We may disagree about IS (personally i think for your night images a tripod is much better option), but the 16-35 would be my preference - I did own the 17-40 and recently traded it due to lack of use. From what I've read the 16-35 is a great improvement over the 17-40.
     
  7. Policar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    #7
    Why else would they include it? Landscapes are typically pretty static and you want to shoot at a deep stop for depth of field. I see the 16-35mm f4 IS as landscape-targeted and the 16-35mm f2.8 IS II as more photojournalism-specific.

    Of course a tripod would be better still, but for landscapes I think IS is pretty useful if you can't bring the tripod. And you can't always. The combination of sharp corners and IS makes the 16-35mm f4 seem to me like the the best landscape lens going for those who like shooting wide angle near/far composition. I personally am a big fan of a tripod and very long exposures (a few seconds to a minute), but that's not always feasible.
     
  8. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #8
    Seems it gets included or else the lens will get slated. The 24-70 f/2.8 L MkII doesn't have it and people complained about that. I agree it's nice to have, but when I had the 24-105 f/4 L I found it was barely used.
     
  9. Policar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    #9
    I use it all the time on my 70-200mm f2.8 II IS (it's the IS, not the image quality, that compelled me to upgrade from the 70-200mm f2.8) and when I had the 17-55mm f2.8IS I used it frequently, too. I find that if I don't have a tripod I'll always keep it on.

    For landscapes it seems very useful since you want a deeper stop but steady hand. I think there's a reason people complained about its absence on the 24-70mm f2.8, though the fast aperture and moderate focal length makes it less necessary (the f4 models all have it).
     
  10. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #10
    I had the 17-40 f/4 before I sold it last month to get the new 16-35 f/4 IS. Both are excellent lenses, but the new 16-35 f/4 is worth the extra money if you can afford it. Better optics, better sharpness in the corners, and IS made it a no-brainer upgrade for me.

    If money is an issue, get the 17-40. If it isn't, get the 16-35. Either way you will not be disappointed. Also, keep in mind that due to the new 16-35 coming out recently, there are many 17-40 lenses for sale on the Canon boards at good prices, usually in the $500-600 range. You can also pick up a refurb from the Canon sore.

    ----------

    You realize the IS can be turned on and off, right? Don't want to use it, switch it off.
     
  11. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #11
    I don't think that was Policar's point, he wrote that IS is useful. The way I read it was to argue whether it's worth paying extra for IS.
     
  12. Policar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    #12
    I was advocating for its usefulness in landscapes, yeah, when someone else claimed it's useless for UWAs. Really confused about the previous reply... of course I get that it can be turned off.

    Very confused.
     

Share This Page