17-40 any good for MKIII?

I find I am using this lens all the time. Certainly a lot more than I intended when I bought it. Maybe it's also due to the fact its an easier lens to enable the camera to fit into my bag.

Your 24-105 would do 90% of your Iceland trip.

The land is so vast that an UWA often turns subjects into mere dots on the horizon...

last year my widest lens there was 35mm, this year I had a TS-E 24mm which was ample.....quite often I used my 70-200 for landscapes

sploo wrote in post #15999823
<TROLLING>At f14 I'd have expected it'd be super soft across the frame due to diffraction</TROLLING> (great shot BTW)

This lens has always surprised me with just how sharp it is as long as you use it between 5.6 and f16 it is fine - heck even at f22 the corners are not objectionable!
How do you spot diffraction anyway? Never seen it's effect myself just hear people talking about it?
I reckon its an urban myth

Here's another one from Iceland, same lens but at f13 for 10 seconds.

Pepe Guitarra wrote in post #15999881
I have a hard time thinking of someone trying to shoot a landscape with a lens wide open. Isn't at that aperture when the dof is the thinnest? What I learned is that for landscape, you want the thickest dof, thus, a smaller aperture. I had the Rok 14, and it rocks. I have the 17-40, and also rocks. I even have the Canon 20/2.8 and is good, of course, not wide open for landscapes.

Check out a DOF calculator - you can get from very close to your lens to infinity within focus at f2.8 on a wide lens. It's useful for many things including:

-Starscapes (you need to let more light in quickly for these)
-If you want to stop movement in the frame (waves, wind through trees) without increasing ISO
-You want to achieve a certain affect your lens has at it's widest setting (vignetting or something)
-In dark places where tripods are not allowed or feasible (think hiking without a tripod in the evening, museums, churches and other historical buildings) just to name a few.

However, in most cases you're right - it makes more sense to just stop down.

Paulowen wrote in post #16001553
This lens has always surprised me with just how sharp it is as long as you use it between 5.6 and f16 it is fine - heck even at f22 the corners are not objectionable!
How do you spot diffraction anyway? Never seen it's effect myself just hear people talking about it?
I reckon its an urban myth

It's not a myth, it just isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

sawsedge wrote in post #16001831
It's not a myth, it just isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

I appreciate that laboratory testing will show up lens defects but it's just that I've never seen a photograph where I could say "ah there's evidence of diffraction"? I've shot using the 17-40 at f 22 and have been pleased with the results (and I MUST have sharp images) ..... interesting

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ercoming-my-fentekaphobia

In my experience, most lens+camera combinations have similar characteristics - start off soft, sharpen up, and then drop again. 2 observations: the diffraction sharpness drop-off isn't instant, and it's still sharper than wide open. But I've only ever tested about 2 lenses myself :P

I keep looking at the pictures here - now I really can't wait for my 17-40 to arrive next week!!

*Jayrou wrote in post #16001410
Your 24-105 would do 90% of your Iceland trip.

The land is so vast that an UWA often turns subjects into mere dots on the horizon...

last year my widest lens there was 35mm, this year I had a TS-E 24mm which was ample.....quite often I used my 70-200 for landscapes

I love my dots in the horizon!!!

I live in Iceland and my style is low and wide - ultrawide

5D MK2 + 17-40 @17mm and f8:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nonnit/85872455​58/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nonnit/86016074​32/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nonnit/85984635​06/

Diffraction: real, but arguably not that huge an issue unless you're printing really big, stopping down way small, or pixel peeping: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ffraction-photography.htm

It can be very obvious when comparing images at 100% zoom, but obviously that's not particularly relevant to most prints or real viewing.

EDIT: Nonnit's post above (nice shots BTW) appeared while I was typing mine (it was in reference to the group above).

Your gear list says 5D3, but your subject line is ambiguous. There is more than one Mark III in the Canon lineup...

waterrockets wrote in post #16003387
Your gear list says 5D3, but your subject line is ambiguous. There is more than one Mark III in the Canon lineup...

Yes, but I was hoping that folks can check my signature if not clear....could be a big effort, but...doable

How do the third party lenses compare?

Nonnit wrote in post #16003365
I love my dots in the horizon!!!

I live in Iceland and my style is low and wide - ultrawide

5D MK2 + 17-40 @17mm and f8:


5D MK2 + 17-40 @ 17mm and f11:

Skírdagur by Nonnit, on Flickr

5D MK2 + 17-40 @ 17mm and f16:

Reyðarfjörður by Nonnit, on Flickr
Útsveit by Nonnit, on Flickr

Nice..., Im not saying an UWA is a waste of time in Iceland, for me it was not as necessary as I thought it would be, 24 was plenty wide.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16004416
Yes, but I was hoping that folks can check my signature if not clear....could be a big effort, but...doable

They can, but people who have no interest in the 5D3 may waste time clicking through based on the subject. Clear thread subjects are good etiquette, as everyone has their time limits.

Then you also draw in people like me to stir the pot for no good reason.