Recommend a UWA lens for 5D MKII

I recently sold my Canon 40D and my much LOVED Canon 10-22 UWA lens,, I'm acquiring a 5D MKII and in search if a great wide angle lens to be used for mainly landscapes.
Heavily considering the Canon 17-40L lens, Ive read mixed reviews on the image sharpness though but it seems to be priced about right for me, but also been considering a Prime lens,, I see Sigma ( which Ive been a fan of) offers some UWA primes for a reasonable price too
I dont care to break the bank with ultra high expensive lens' though either,,
your thoughts are greatly appreciated

Hold on until january 8. Word is that the 14-24L will be announced at CES.

It will be Canon's first FF UWA-zoom, that is aimed directly at the landscape photographer (sharp across the frame).

After my experiences with the 16-35 II and the 17-40, I will never touch them again. Not for landscapes at least.

Osiriz wrote in post #15443408
Hold on until january 8. Word is that the 14-24L will be announced at CES.

It will probably be Canon's first FF UWA-zoom, worthy of the landscape photographer. (sharp across the frame).

hmm,,, sounds quite enticing,, thats around when I was looking to acquire one anyways,, wonder what kind of pricing

Osiriz wrote in post #15443408
After my experiences with the 16-35 II and the 17-40, I will never touch them again. Not for landscapes at least.

would you care to elaborate on that?

jaharris1001 wrote in post #15443422
hmm,,, sounds quite enticing,, thats around when I was looking to acquire one anyways,, wonder what kind of pricing

I can't promise you that the 14-24L will be announced this month, but I can promise you that the price tag will be somewhat insane. No doubt a lot more than Nikon's counterpart.

deninho wrote in post #15443433
would you care to elaborate on that?

I am deeply unhappy with the results when it comes to edge to edge / corner to corner sharpness. It's no secret that these two lenses are lacking the critical sharpness that is needed for serious (pixel peeping) landscape photographers.

However, the 16-35L II is quite good for photojournalism and event photography, where edge sharpness is less important. Just not my cup of tea.

As for zooms, I like my 17-40L on my 5DII. It is pretty darn sharp. Many who have tried both (I have not) say the 16-35L is better. I currently do not shoot enough at the wide end to justify the 16-35L's price. Tokina makes a 16-28mm, those that have it like it. It has a very bulbous front element that I didn't like (no screw on filter) so I never really looked at it. Sigma has a 12-24, but I never heard great things about it (many say it is soft) other than it goes down to 12mm.

I have not tried any UWA primes yet, but here is a list (also has the zooms).

Note- I don't currently pixel peep!

Osiriz wrote in post #15443408
Hold on until january 8. Word is that the 14-24L will be announced at CES.

It will be Canon's first FF UWA-zoom, that is aimed directly at the landscape photographer (sharp across the frame).

After my experiences with the 16-35 II and the 17-40, I will never touch them again. Not for landscapes at least.

Agreed.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15443515
Agreed.

I see you own the 17-40L as well as some UWA primes,, care to elaborate on either ? any info is greatly appreciated

jaharris1001 wrote in post #15443709
I see you own the 17-40L as well as some UWA primes,, care to elaborate on either ? any info is greatly appreciated

both the 17-40L and 16-35L II are great for landscapes if you are a mere mortal. take a look at the lens sample threads. some guys think they stand in the shadow of ansel adams. that's not a lens problem.

ed rader wrote in post #15443729
both the 17-40L and 16-35L II are great for landscapes if you are a mere mortal. take a look at the lens sample threads. some guys think they stand in the shadow of ansel adams. that's not a lens problem.

Thank you for that input

ed rader wrote in post #15443729
both the 17-40L and 16-35L II are great for landscapes if you are a mere mortal. take a look at the lens sample threads. some guys think they stand in the shadow of ansel adams. that's not a lens problem.

I love my 17-40 as well. I dont do a lot of landscapes, but when I do it holds up to my standards.

jaharris1001 wrote in post #15443709
I see you own the 17-40L as well as some UWA primes,, care to elaborate on either ? any info is greatly appreciated

I use the 17-40L because it's the best UW zoom landscape lens Canon has right now, but like mentioned before, it's not great in the corners. A few of my photos have suffered for this reason. The best WA prime Canon has available is the TS-E 24mm II, however, it is a very, very specialized lens that isn't for everybody. It's completely manual and learning tilting/shifting techniques takes a while to fully understand. The best UWA prime is the Samyang (Rokinon) 14mm f/2.8. This is why I own them. All of the 3 have their strengths and weaknesses, one won't replace the other.

If you shot with the 10-22 and were happy with it, you'll enjoy the 17-40L as well, which is what I might suggest to you.

If Canon releases a new 14-24L that is sharp across the entire frame, I will buy it gladly. Do I think it will make me a better photographer? No, I'm working on that, but I am always looking for the best equipment. If I was leisurely shooting, the 17-40L would suit my needs, but it's always been a dream of mine to sell my prints and I'd like a lens that isn't going to hold me back.

So, my suggestion? Wait until Jan 8th to see if the 14-24mm f/2.8L really is going to be released in the near future and at what price. If it's something that you'd be willing to wait for, I bet it's going to be an amazing lens. If there is still no word after Jan 8th OR the price is way out of your range, I'd pick up a 17-40L and you'll be very happy with that, I'm sure.

He said the 17-40L is in his price range about 839 (when not on sale). I mentioned he Tokina, because it is about that price.

I assume then the 16-35L is too expensive, I mentioned it because some say its a little better than the 17-40L.

The 16-35mm f/2.8L is currently about $1700 (when not on sale) - about twice the price of the 17-40L.

I can't imagine what the price of the 14-24mm f/2.8 is going to be, but I am willing to bet it will be more than the 16-24mm.

jimewall wrote in post #15444128
He said the 17-40L is in his price range about 839 (when not on sale). I mentioned he Tokina, because it is about that price.

I assume then the 16-35L is too expensive, I mentioned it because some say its a little better than the 17-40L.

The 16-35mm f/2.8L is currently about $1700 (when not on sale) - about twice the price of the 17-40L.

I can't imagine what the price of the 14-24mm f/2.8 is going to be, but I am willing to bet it will be more than the 16-24mm.

Most are thinking it's going to be at least $2k, my guess is $2499, but I'm really hoping it's less....

Anyways, you're right. I didn't see this:

jaharris1001 wrote in post #15443386
I dont care to break the bank with ultra high expensive lens' though either,

OP, my suggestion is the 17-40L, it should suit your needs.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15444163
Most are thinking it's going to be at least $2k, my guess is $2499, but I'm really hoping it's less....

Anyways, you're right. I didn't see this:



OP, my suggestion is the 17-40L, it should suit your needs.

ya,, $2499 is certainly out of my price range,,
another consideration on my part is filters,, I happen to have a few pretty pricey filters from Singh Ray and BH which just happen to be 77mm, which is the same size as the 17-40l