Which Wide Angle on Full Frame?

I just got a 5D II camera and I am unhappy with the performance of my new Canon 17-40 L with vignetting at 17MM even stopped down, and pretty bad softness and chromatic fringing on the edges. I am going to return it to B&H. Since I bought this lens just for the wide end and since I won't use it often, just for landscapes that require a super wide, I was thinking of a prime wide angle. The Canon 20MM F 2.8 is probably not wide enough (I have a 24-105) and gets horrible reviews. The 16-35 is not much better than the 17-40 from what I've read. However, I am interested in the Zeiss 18MM. manual focus only, but who cares in an 18MM? Kind of expensive, but cheaper than the Canon 16-35. The only other option I see is the Sigma 12-24. Anyone use either the Sigma 12-24 or the Zeiss 18MM?

What about the TS lenses? The 24 TSE and the 17 TSE get stellar reviews.

The Sigma 12-24 is pretty good lens. It's noted for no distortion.

quoting myself from another thread

The adaptable lenses are the best options for wide angles unless you want to spend LOADs.

The Samyang 14 is a fantastic lens in everyway, other than distortion. See quoted comment.

I am absolutely content with my 16-35 II, its as wide as it gets and its plenty sharp. But then again the 17-40 is regarded very sharp as well... so I dunno.

I had the same issue. After reading some reviews, I went with the Zeiss 18mm. Got it for a really good price. Would have rather had a Zeiss 21mm, but just out of reach price wise.

Just waiting for the 18mm to arrive so I can test it out.

JonK wrote in post #13015441
I am absolutely content with my 16-35 II, its as wide as it gets and its plenty sharp. But then again the 17-40 is regarded very sharp as well... so I dunno.

I ordered the 16-35L F2.8 II today after much hand wringing and reading reviews that are somewhat more positive than the 17-40. Hope I am as happy with my copy as you are. Thanks.

Canon 14mm!

Maybe your 17-40L is a dud and in need of calibration. Send it back and try another before giving up on it completely. I shoot landscapes with mine regularly on a 5D2 without any issue, and usually stopped down to f22 when conditions require it. Great performer on a FF camera, IMO.

Other options in order of wideness:

Canon 14mm L
Samyang 14mm
Nikon 14-24mm
Canon 17mm TS-E

I can sympathize with this - I just could not get the 17-40 to play nicely on my 5D. But, I have seen some truly fantastic images that are sharp edge to edge made with this lens at 17mm plenty of times.

I think that the issue for me was totally user error though - as I suspect it could be for many that say the 17-40 is "not sharp" at landscape apertures. Setting the proper focus without live view was the inhibitor for me - I know how to use hyperfocal distances, but a zoom lens just adds one more variable to the equation (focal length) and without Live View the poor focus window was tough to judge. My brain likes the simplicity of a prime with a good 'ol focus scale so I can just set the hyperfocal distance once (in about 1/2 of a second) and go.

One day, Ill upgrade to the 5DII just for live view...

newphoto wrote in post #13018785
I ordered the 16-35L F2.8 II today after much hand wringing and reading reviews that are somewhat more positive than the 17-40. Hope I am as happy with my copy as you are. Thanks.

Everyone is different, and it is difficult to purchase any camera equipment based soley on reviews. Make sure you get used to the lens and learn how to use it before you give up on it. I own it, use it and really like it a lot. The colors, sharpness, and creative freedom it offers makes this a great lens. Also, as has been mentioned this is a very wide lens, which takes some getting use to, especially when you are composing shots.
Good luck, I believe you have made a great choice.

In my experience, my copy of 17-40mm is very sharp but distortion is bad at 17mm on 5dII, comparing to 16-35mm at 16mm or Sigma 12-24mm at 12mm. With environment portrait, I've to be careful not to put my subject at the edge to prevent distortion. However, distortion is great for shooting landscape because I want my fg is exaggerated. See few photos below. They're all shot at 17mm. I'm fine w/ this one until the next Canon wide angle zoom, 12-24mm or 14-24mm,

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

I just got the tokina 16-28mm f2.8 and am happy with it. It's sharp, price is decent, AF is decent, distortion is low and easy to control, there is little CA that is also easy to correct in LR. If you like to use filters, it may not work as it has a bulbous front element though.

The old Sigma 12-24 was never known for it's sharpness and it's being replaced by the 12-24mm II which seems to be out now but I've not seen any reviews of that lens and I think it also cannot use filters over the front element b/c it too has a bulbous front element.

Proceed with caution regarding the ZE 18mm. It's a fine lens, but generally reviewed as one of the weaker lenses in Zeiss ZE line-up, in contrast to the extremely well-reviewed 21mm. The best available wide angle lenses available have already been mentioned, but I'll repeat for effect: ZE 21mm, TS-E 24mm, TS-E 17mm, and EF 14mm. The EF 24mm is also widely appreciated. That said, many talented artists use the 17-40mm zoom with superb results and great satisfaction.

If you haven't already done so, reviews and full-size image samples for the candidate wide angle lenses are provided at Photozone.de.

If you go with primes over either the 17-40 or 16-35 zooms, you'll give up some convenience and you'll spend a lot more. If you do go with the ZE 18mm, I think you'll be getting a very nice lens; just not one of Zeiss' best lenses.

Yeah David. From what I've read, the 18mm ZE is one of the weaker lenses. But, in the reviews, it also seems to outperform the Canon zooms. I got it for a good price and it's nowhere near the 21mm ZE.. which I would love to have.