Author Topic: Help me choose a Wideangle please (Read 8809 times)

Giuseppe Parisi · « **on:** April 07, 2010, 12:22 »

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!

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

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.

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

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.

Giuseppe Parisi · « **Reply #3 on:** April 07, 2010, 12:44 »

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

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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

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.

Giuseppe Parisi · « **Reply #6 on:** April 07, 2010, 13:25 »

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...

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

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.

Giuseppe Parisi · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2010, 14:59 »

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...

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

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.

Giuseppe Parisi · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2010, 15:02 »

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

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.

Thank you for your suggestion

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Giuseppe Parisi · « **Reply #16 on:** April 07, 2010, 17:26 »

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?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Help me choose a Wideangle please (Read 8809 times)

Giuseppe Parisi

sharply_done

PeterChigmaroff

Giuseppe Parisi

lisafx

Xalanx

Giuseppe Parisi

gostwyck

Giuseppe Parisi

cdwheatley

Giuseppe Parisi

gostwyck

vonkara

Xalanx

PaulieWalnuts

Xalanx

Giuseppe Parisi

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors