Recommend a UWA lens for 5D MKII

jaharris1001 wrote in post #15444184
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

Just go with the 17-40L then. I made the switch from the 10-22 to the 17-40 and I do like the 17-40 better.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15444307
Just go with the 17-40L then. I made the switch from the 10-22 to the 17-40 and I do like the 17-40 better.

What do you like better about the 17-40L? I am still trying to figure out what my UWA solution will be for full frame, so I am curious. I am hanging onto the EFS 10-22mm until I figure this out.

17-40 is a fine lens for landscape photography. Ultimately it probably depends on how large you are printing or pixel peeping.

Look at the sample lens thread. Some great stiff there.

I have got a 17-40L too. But also I am dissapointed in the quality. It is not so sharp at all. Even at F11 it's not perfect. When I had my 1000D and Tokina 11-16 I was way more happy about the WA part.

Scott M wrote in post #15444326
What do you like better about the 17-40L? I am still trying to figure out what my UWA solution will be for full frame, so I am curious. I am hanging onto the EFS 10-22mm until I figure this out.

It has a little bit better center sharpness, a little better contrast and a slightly better build. They are both very close in performance, as you can see from how similarly priced they are, I just think the 17-40L edges out the 10-22 a bit.

Tommydigi wrote in post #15444348
17-40 is a fine lens for landscape photography. Ultimately it probably depends on how large you are printing or pixel peeping.

Look at the sample lens thread. Some great stiff there.

where can I find the "sample lens thread" ? have a link ?

jaharris1001 wrote in post #15444531
where can I find the "sample lens thread" ? have a link ?

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1251516

gonzogolf wrote in post #15444558
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1251516

thank you,, this is very much appreciated

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15443515
Agreed.

GO REDSKINS

yo Moon,, I'm REALLY looking forward to the Skins/Seattle game !!! its gonna be a battle !!

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15444359
It has a little bit better center sharpness, a little better contrast and a slightly better build. They are both very close in performance, as you can see from how similarly priced they are, I just think the 17-40L edges out the 10-22 a bit.

Thanks. I have some time before I need to do something about UWA for a summer trip. I am debating selling the 10-22 for the 17-40L versus keeping the 10-22 and adding a Rokinon 14mm /2.8. Decisions, decisions.

MoonMan23 wrote in post #15444936
GO REDSKINS

GO SEAHAWKS

I had the 10-22mm when I had the T2i/T3i. I now have the 16-35mm II on the 5D3, which offers the equivalent FOV to the 10-22mm on the Rebels, plus the larger aperture. The 16-35mm II is a great lens and is noticeably sharper.

s2kdriver80 wrote in post #15446358
I had the 10-22mm when I had the T2i/T3i. I now have the 16-35mm II on the 5D3, which offers the equivalent FOV to the 10-22mm on the Rebels, plus the larger aperture. The 16-35mm II is a great lens and is noticeably sharper.

The OP can't afford the 16-35L, so to keep things in perspective for him.

The same can be said for the 17-40L - except it is not quite as wide (it rounds up to 11mm) and is longer at the long end (about 5mm more). Arguably it is around the same aperture f/4 as the 10-22mm's f/3.5-4.5, but it seems like this f/4 seems larger on a FF than the 3.5 on a crop (so the 17-40 will seem like it has a larger aperture too).

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15446037
GO SEAHAWKS

thats gonna be a great game !! the Hawks are looking TOUGH man !!!