Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2012, 10:34

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » Photography Equipment » Cameras / Lenses » Canon » Help me choose a Wideangle please

Microstockgroup Sponsors

« previous next »

Pages: [1]

Topic: Help me choose a Wideangle please

(Read 2211 times)

Giuseppe Parisi

« on: April 07, 2010, 12:22 »

#link

Hi guys!
Time has come to purchase a L lens and this time is a wideangle.

Let's get it straight, there are three possible choices for my 5dMkII I came up with:

Canon 17-40mm L f/4
Canon 16-35mm L II f/2.8
Canon 14mm L f2.8

Now I sadly have to exclude the 14mm because of a budget reason... golly it's 2.000 euros!!
The 17-40mm is much less expensive than the 16-35mm but it is designed - if I am not mistaken - not for full frame cameras, so the images it produces are very soft in the corner of a 35mm sensor.
All the roads seem to lead me to the 16.35mm II , which I know it is a great lens with a lot of flaws being fixed after the release of the second model.

What really bothers me it's the weird circumference of the lens that has changed in the II version: it went from 77mm to 82mm.
My filters - Hoya Moose's Cir Pol, Hoya ND400 - are 77mm. You will say "Fine, buy the 82mm version", alright but Hoya does not produce a 82mm version of the ND400, not even B&W.. hmm tricky situation.

Anyway I'd like to receive an opinion about which lens would you purchase is you were me.
Thanks in advance!


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2010, 12:39 »

#link

I used to have the 16-35mm, but found that I didn't use it very often - I found the zoom range of the 16-35mm very limiting, and I routinely bumped against the 35mm end. My 24-70mm offers much more flexibility in that regard.

I bought the 16-35mm to shoot interiors, and it is a good lens for that purpose. I eventually decided I didn't like doing that sort of work very much (too finicky), and once I stopped seeking it out I had very little use for this lens. My gf found a nice home for it: shooting landscapes with her Rebel XT. My only wide angle lens these days is a 15mm fisheye.


	Ignore \| Logged

Zeus

« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2010, 12:43 »

#link

I bought the 17-40 and sold an older 17-35, The 17-40 is pretty good, smaller than the 16-35 by quite a bit. I wouldn't hesitate getting one. The lens to buy is the new 17TSE but of course you need to sell the house to get one.


	Ignore \| Logged

Giuseppe Parisi

« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2010, 12:44 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on April 07, 2010, 12:39

I see what you mean but I started as a landscape photographer, so I use that range of focal length very much and that is my purpose, other than some reportage shooting here and there (not for stock) which the wide aperture of this lens will make even more effective.
Gosh your gf has some great glass for the good old 350! Tongue

(I own the Rebel too, my first DSLR)
Thanks Sharply


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2010, 12:48 »

#link

I don't own a real wide angle for the same reason Sharply mentioned. 24-70 on a FF is plenty wide enough for me.

I did own the 17-40 at one time, though, and ended up selling it because the images were soft. I have heard there are some very good copies of that lens out there, but apparently the softness issue is pretty widespread.


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2010, 13:18 »

#link

if you got cash and you're not scared of primes then go for TS-E 24mm f/3.5L
if not, get the 17-40, it's best bang for the buck.


	Ignore \| Logged

Giuseppe Parisi

« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2010, 13:25 »

#link

I'm not a fan of TS lenses at all and 24mm is not as wide as I want. I think that the choice will fall on the 16-35mm since I used to shoot and love the Sigma 10-20 on my old 350D...


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2010, 14:29 »

#link

I'd agree with Sharply. I have the 16-35mm (Mk1, 77mm filter size) which I originally bought for landscape work before full-frame DSLR's were available. Nowadays I do a lot of interiors for a commercial client and that is the only time the lens gets used. It is however invaluable for such work as the client likes me to make tiny rooms appear roomy and palatial.

If your heart is set on the 16-35mm then I'd suggest you try and source a used Mk1 model from eBay __ there seems to be a few about. You'll save yourself some money and still be able to use your 77mm filters. It's less risk too as, if you get find much use for it, you can probably sell it on for about what you paid for it.


	Ignore \| Logged

Giuseppe Parisi

« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2010, 14:59 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on April 07, 2010, 14:29

If your heart is set on the 16-35mm then I'd suggest you try and source a used Mk1 model from eBay __ there seems to be a few about. You'll save yourself some money and still be able to use your 77mm filters. It's less risk too as, if you get find much use for it, you can probably sell it on for about what you paid for it.

Great hint, althought the MkI has great fringe flaws... Thank you
Probably the solution to the 82mm size can be a lee filters system...


	Ignore \| Logged

cdwheatley

« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2010, 15:00 »

#link

Agree with sharply also. I have the 16-35 II and seldom use it. Bought to shoot landscape and underwater, but prefer the 24-70. The copy I have is a little soft on the edges also, I basically use for underwater stuff now since the setup I have is built around it. I wouldn't bother trying to use a circular polarizer on that lens, it won't work right at the wide end. You end up with crazy side to side gradients in the sky, unless that's the effect you want. If I had to buy another, I would get a used 16-35 I ,or spring for the 14mm if you want a better lens.


	Ignore \| Logged

Giuseppe Parisi

« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2010, 15:02 »

#link

Quote from: cdwheatley on April 07, 2010, 15:00

Thank you for your suggestion


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2010, 15:17 »

#link

Quote from: Giuseppe Parisi on April 07, 2010, 14:59

Great hint, althought the MkI has great fringe flaws...

Does it? I can't say it's ever been an issue in 100-odd commercial shoots and the hundreds of stock images I've had accepted. If L glass isn't good enough for you then you're going to have to spend serious money to get better!


	Ignore \| Logged

Vonkara

« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2010, 15:19 »

#link

It's true that 16-35 range is limited, but in my case, I shoot urban scenes most often with a 24-70. Almost 70% of my pictures are made at 24mm. Most of my other images, I could easily walk and shoot closer to the subject, which is a good way to get different angles also. Without a doubt, if I had the money I would choose the 16-35.

It's good for landscapes, city, self portrait with your friends and it's sexy

For the flaws, I learned to not care too much about it, as those lenses are the best you can get anyway


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2010, 15:51 »

#link

16-35 f/2.8 II is justified if you need that f/2.8. Otherwise for much less money you can get the 17-40 f/4 and you'll get same image quality.


	Ignore \| Logged

PaulieWalnuts

« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2010, 16:54 »

#link

I have a 17-40mm for my 5DMII. It's very sharp in the center but pretty soft at the edges. I like it though.

I also just picked up a 24-105mm and thought I'd never use the 17-40mm but still do. 24 to 17 is a bigger difference than I thought.


	Ignore \| Logged

Xalanx

« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2010, 17:13 »

#link

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 07, 2010, 16:54

24 to 17 is a bigger difference than I thought.

In terms of wide angle 7mm of focal length is very significant. Much less on longer focals, as in 207mm is almost the same as 200mm.


	Ignore \| Logged

Giuseppe Parisi

« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2010, 17:26 »

#link

thank everybody, now my only problem is the filter size but I think that I can't let a filter size winning me over to choose a different lens, so if the 16-35mm II is 82mm fine... I've seen the difference between the version I and the II and it's evident, fringe problems are almost gone and it appears to be less soft at the edges too, although this is problem of every wideangle, especially in zoom lens... however we are still talking about two wonderful glasses.
I wonder if Lee has a 9stop or similar filter to mount on... gotta find out. Any Lee users here?


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Jump to:

Related Topics
	Subject	Started by	Replies	Views	Last post
	what site to choose? General Stock Discussion	thijsone	8	1438	June 20, 2007, 05:18 by thijsone
	Which 70-200 lens to choose? Canon	miskolin	14	2615	April 16, 2009, 08:17 by Lcjtripod
	Who you choose to replace the Big 6. If you can ;) General Stock Discussion	Squat	22	2253	July 29, 2009, 21:22 by puravida
	Yay or Veer? What would you choose? New Sites - General	Stock_Fox	23	2702	January 01, 2010, 15:11 by fotoxalia
	Which Panthermedia commission should I choose? Panthermedia.net	icefront	1	858	April 28, 2011, 03:25 by MikLav

Microstockgroup Sponsors

MicrostockGroup Email Updates

Microstock Poll Results

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	100
iStock	66.6
Fotolia	34.9
Dreamstime	26.7

Middle Tier
DepositPhotos	21.6
123RF	16.1
Canstockphoto	11.2
Bigstockphoto	9.5
Veer	8.7

Low Earners
PantherMedia	6.7
PhotoDune	5.8
isignstock	3.7
Zoonar	3.6
GLStockImages	2.7
Stockfresh	2.2
YayMicro	1.7
FeaturePics	1.4
MostPhotos	1.3
ScanStockPhoto	1.2
Crestock	0.8
Cutcaster	0.6
ClipartOf
Pond5
RevoStock
Clipcanvas
ClipDealer
DrawShop
PhotoSpin
VectorStock
GraphicRiver
Pixmac
PhotoCase
The3dStudio
photaki
SuperHug
PhotoKore
AllYouCanStock
StockPhotoMedia
ImageVortex
Regimages
ViscoImages
Imagegate
Vivozoom
iRockStock

More Poll Results Updated: 2012-05-24

Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: [email protected]