Wide zoom option for 5d mk ii?

[anewman143]

I see a Canon 10-22, but it's an EF-S, so that's a no-go for my 5d.

Yes - there is an "L" option, but right now out of the budget (I have other L lenses and LOVE them). Currently, I use my 24-105 4 as my "go to" daily lens, but also have the 70-200 4 and 100 macro (all L's)

Other ideas? I've been doing more hiking to waterfalls and have a really wide option in my bag would have been quite nice on a few occasions. Doesn't have to be an ultra wide zoom - I'm OK with a prime wide angle.

Ideas?

 

[Sebct]

Get the 17-40. Since buying it, It's pretty much been welded onto the front of my 5D Mark III. Great bit of glass for the price!

 

[MCAsan]

Definitely 16-35 or 17-40. The 17-40 is F4 and around half the cost of the F2.8 16-35. Canon USA may have refurbed ones.

 

[I AM THE MAN]

I see a Canon 10-22, but it's an EF-S, so that's a no-go for my 5d.

Yes - there is an "L" option, but right now out of the budget (I have other L lenses and LOVE them). Currently, I use my 24-105 4 as my "go to" daily lens, but also have the 70-200 4 and 100 macro (all L's)

Other ideas? I've been doing more hiking to waterfalls and have a really wide option in my bag would have been quite nice on a few occasions. Doesn't have to be an ultra wide zoom - I'm OK with a prime wide angle.

Ideas?

Kind of a stretch but maybe the 24-70mm 2.8 I or II.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I am going through the same dilemma as the OP at the moment, except that instead of just 16 or 17mm on the wide end I am looking for something as wide and cheaper than a Zeiss or Canon 14mm prime.

At the moment I am using my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 from my 7D with my 5D II, but can only use it from 15-16mm because it's designed for cameras with cropped sensors such as the 7D. It still works fine on the 5D-series as long as it's kept near 16mm, but in my view 16mm is not wide enough.

What i plan to do for the moment is to buy a Vivitar/Rokinon (Sanyang) 14mm f/2.8. It costs around $349.00, and it's a manual lens (manual everything). I will use this lens this year, and then buy a Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 for about 1/3rd the cost of the Canon version.

A problem with the Tokina lens is that no filters can be used with it, except for a very expensive adapter (around $400.00), but it's supposed to be quite sharp compared to the Canon and Nikon versions.
---------
To the OP: the Canon 17-40 f/4L is reasonable priced (a lot cheaper than the 16-35). If you feel that 17mm on the wide end is plenty for you, go for it.

 

[/"\/oo\/"\]

Pickup a used 17-40 for a song (relative to a new 16-35) and see if the wide end works for you and is wide enough. IMO, the 17-40 is one of the more underrated lenses in Canon's lineup and a great value on full frame cameras that can compensate to some extent for the smaller max aperture with better high ISO performance.

Optically, both the 17-40 and 16-35 are far from perfect, but if you ask me, that's part of what makes wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses so much fun to work with. Depending on the compositional values you're looking for, it may be worth looking into a tilt-shift lens since UWAs really start to shine once you move past the initial, "look at all the stuff I can fit in the frame!" phase.

 

[Kebabselector]

Kind of a stretch but maybe the 24-70mm 2.8 I or II.

He already has a 24-105 so your suggestion isn't going to improve the wide angle.

 

[someoldguy]

I am going through the same dilemma as the OP at the moment, except that instead of just 16 or 17mm on the wide end I am looking for something as wide and cheaper than a Zeiss or Canon 14mm prime.

At the moment I am using my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 from my 7D with my 5D II, but can only use it from 15-16mm because it's designed for cameras with cropped sensors such as the 7D. It still works fine on the 5D-series as long as it's kept near 16mm, but in my view 16mm is not wide enough.

What i plan to do for the moment is to buy a Vivitar/Rokinon (Sanyang) 14mm f/2.8. It costs around $349.00, and it's a manual lens (manual everything). I will use this lens this year, and then buy a Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 for about 1/3rd the cost of the Canon version.

A problem with the Tokina lens is that no filters can be used with it, except for a very expensive adapter (around $400.00), but it's supposed to be quite sharp compared to the Canon and Nikon versions.
---------
To the OP: the Canon 17-40 f/4L is reasonable priced (a lot cheaper than the 16-35). If you feel that 17mm on the wide end is plenty for you, go for it.

If you've gotta go really wide on full frame , there's the Sigma 12-24 . My experience is with the original version shooting interiors for real estate propaganda . At 12mm its insanely wide . Even though its rectilinear , it needs adjustment via PT Lens or Photoshop as regards distortion. Can't get a filter on the front due to lens bulge , and it works best stopped way down ( f11+) , and on a tripod . Maybe a lot of compromises . Although I still have it , its' been replaced in my camera bag with the 17-40 , which is all around much more usable.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Pickup a used 17-40 for a song (relative to a new 16-35) and see if the wide end works for you and is wide enough. IMO, the 17-40 is one of the more underrated lenses in Canon's lineup and a great value on full frame cameras that can compensate to some extent for the smaller max aperture with better high ISO performance.

Optically, both the 17-40 and 16-35 are far from perfect, but if you ask me, that's part of what makes wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses so much fun to work with. Depending on the compositional values you're looking for, it may be worth looking into a tilt-shift lens since UWAs really start to shine once you move past the initial, "look at all the stuff I can fit in the frame!" phase.

Tilt-shift would be the best.

----------

If you've gotta go really wide on full frame , there's the Sigma 12-24 . My experience is with the original version shooting interiors for real estate propaganda . At 12mm its insanely wide . Even though its rectilinear , it needs adjustment via PT Lens or Photoshop as regards distortion. Can't get a filter on the front due to lens bulge , and it works best stopped way down ( f11+) , and on a tripod . Maybe a lot of compromises . Although I still have it , its' been replaced in my camera bag with the 17-40 , which is all around much more usable.

Thanks.

By the way, the 14mm Sanyang does show the "mustache" distortion on the photos. There are a couple of lens profiles that can be used with LightRoom to correct most of the problem, but I don't know if these are available for CS5.

 

[OreoCookie]

If you're on a budget, the only two options are Canon's 17-40 mm or Tokina's 16-28 mm. The Tokina is faster and optically as well as mechanically a very, very good lens. Photozone rates the Tokina's optics higher than the Canon, although I'd be cautious to use a single review using a single scheme to concatenate a lot of measurements into a single number. I've owned several Tokina lenses over the years, and their built quality is very, very high, so unless you absolutely need weather sealing, I don't think there is anything to worry about in that department.

To me, the most important differentiator is 17 mm vs. 16 mm. Even though that may not seem like much, with wide-angle lenses such small differences are much more dramatic than at the long end, the viewing angles are 104 degrees vs. 108 degrees. Speed is not as important, I think, as with tele lenses. For a long time, the 17-40 mm has been popular with crop sensor Canon shooters, because it was relatively inexpensive and was a solid performer.

If you want an inexpensive, but optically very good UW lens, get Samyang's 14 mm, though.

 

[throttlemeister]

I am going through the same dilemma as the OP at the moment, except that instead of just 16 or 17mm on the wide end I am looking for something as wide and cheaper than a Zeiss or Canon 14mm prime.

At the moment I am using my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 from my 7D with my 5D II, but can only use it from 15-16mm because it's designed for cameras with cropped sensors such as the 7D. It still works fine on the 5D-series as long as it's kept near 16mm, but in my view 16mm is not wide enough.

What i plan to do for the moment is to buy a Vivitar/Rokinon (Sanyang) 14mm f/2.8. It costs around $349.00, and it's a manual lens (manual everything). I will use this lens this year, and then buy a Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 for about 1/3rd the cost of the Canon version.

A problem with the Tokina lens is that no filters can be used with it, except for a very expensive adapter (around $400.00), but it's supposed to be quite sharp compared to the Canon and Nikon versions.
---------
To the OP: the Canon 17-40 f/4L is reasonable priced (a lot cheaper than the 16-35). If you feel that 17mm on the wide end is plenty for you, go for it.

If you don't mind manual focus, which I assume you don't since you mention the Vivitar/Rokinon/Samyang primes, you could also go for the wonderful Nikon 14-24 through an adapter ring.

----------

I see a Canon 10-22, but it's an EF-S, so that's a no-go for my 5d.

Yes - there is an "L" option, but right now out of the budget (I have other L lenses and LOVE them). Currently, I use my 24-105 4 as my "go to" daily lens, but also have the 70-200 4 and 100 macro (all L's)

Other ideas? I've been doing more hiking to waterfalls and have a really wide option in my bag would have been quite nice on a few occasions. Doesn't have to be an ultra wide zoom - I'm OK with a prime wide angle.

Ideas?

When I was shooting Canon, I loved my 17-40/f4 L. It's a great lens and it is cheap. It may not be optically perfect, but it has great color and contrast.

 

[MCAsan]

For a FF body such as 5DII, 5DIII, 6D, 1DX consider a basic trinity such as:

17-40 F4 or 16-35 (F2.8) 17-40 is much less expensive

24-104 and 100-400 ( my choice because I do wildlife and landscape)
or
24-70 and 70-200

With 5DIII we can now use 1.4TC with F5.8 lenses to get AF working on the center point. So with 100-400 it becomes 140-560. If purchasing a TC, get the newer model III versions.

 

[nburwell]

If you don't want to spend an arm and a leg, the 17-40mm is your best bet. That was my go to lens for years on my 5Dc and my 5DIII. However, I recently sold it in favor of the 16-35mm since I have gotten into astrophotography, and I wanted a faster wide angle lens. The 16-35mm is an excellent option as well, but it's priced about twice as much as the 17-40mm is. If you don't shoot in low light situations or if your camera is on a tripod the majority of the time, then you can't go wrong with the 17-40mm.

 

[MCAsan]

Get a refurbed 17-40 at Canon USA for a good savings. Most of our L glass is refurb.

 

[Edge100]

17-40. It's a brilliant lens; optically as good or better than the 16-35 (though one stop slower). Best value in L glass (perhaps tied with the 135/2).

If you like zooms and are wedded to FF, you should have:

17-40/4L
24-105/4L
70-200/4L IS

Add to that the Sigma 35/1.4 and 85/1.4, and you have an absolutely stellar kit.

My thinking: f/4 zooms + fast primes = DSLR heaven.

 

[Mattjeff]

I keep seeing good things about the 17-40. Does anyone have a photo to show off its quality and what that range looks like?

 

[someoldguy]

If you have a fast internet connection , I've got a series taken with the 17-40 .
One photo each at f4 and f11 at each of the focal lengths on the zoom ring . Taken on a tripod with a 5D2 and cable release , autofocused , converted from RAW via PS - CS5 with no adjustments . The images are part of a project to establish a baseline for all my gear by taking images of the same place at about the same time, with each lens , using wide open and stopped down images ( f8 or f11) at each focal length . This way I can check each lens for whatever optical nastyness it may contain and hopefully eliminate the lens as a source of blame for my mediocre images . Anyway , PM me if you want a set for , say 17 , 28 , and 40mm .

 

[anewman143]

After much hand-wringing, decided on the Canon 17-40 4.0L

Should be here tomorrow...VERY excited to add another L lens - LOVE the quality.