UWA for Iceland: not an easy choice

Folks,
I will be going to Iceland in September and will take 24-105 and 70-200 with me. I was told my the guide that 80% of the time an UWA lens will be required.

I sort of know what is available: 16-35 or 17-40.

The thing is, I will not likely to use this lens again after this trip. Maybe I will next year and in 2-3 years for similar trips. 16-35 is expensive and I will need to adjust my Lee system for it (have 77mm). I do not need f/2.8.

17-40 is not perfect based on what I read. It might be OK, I do not know. Not really expensive. I would think that the new version will come soon, so it would mean to buy the lens for this trip only.

I hear some folks are using Tokina, but then again...I know nothing about them. Anything you can recommend?

Get the 17-40... It's every bit as sharp as the 16-35 (some like it better), just doesn't offer f2.8, which as you have noted most folks don't really need with an UWA anyway.

I have heard no rumors about a new version of 17-40. But you never know. Canon doesn't give much advance warning, usually.

If after your trip you find you don't want to keep it, you likely can resell and recoup most of what you spent. Canon lenses hold their value pretty darned well... especially L-series like the 17-40.

As a bonus, any 77mm filters you have for your other lenses will fit the 17-40 just fine, too.

Tokina lenses can be great, too. I don't have, but have heard a lot of good things about the 16-28/2.8. However, note that it cannot be fitted with filters due to the strongly convex front element (there might be a clamp-on filter holder made, but I'm unaware of one).

The only reason I don't have the 17-40L is because I don't shoot wide a whole lot and a Canon 20/2.8 serves my needs well.

Everything amfoto said is right on the money. I said it in another thread today already and I firmly believe that if you don't need f2.8, the 16-35 offers little/no advantage over the 17-40. Furthermore, the 17-40 might be not very good wide open in the corners and/or right at 17mm, but it compares well to lenses 2-3 times it's price at f/11 at equal focal lengths.

Check out the-digital-picture...there is little difference between the 17-40 at 24mm f/8-f/11 and the 24-70 II at 24mm f8-f11. Same goes for smaller apertures at 21mm compared against the ZE21. I've seen about the same in my experience having owned all of these lenses.

Now, I'm not saying those lenses don't have their benefits over the 17-40 but many of those benefits come out in the wash for landscape photography on a tripd. Plus, the laws of diminishing returns are certainly at play here. It is my opinion the 17-40 isn't nearly as bad as the rap it gets.

Thanks, guys. What I want to know is whether at F/10-F/15 I will have a very sharp image corner to corner. That is all I need.

Personally I would get the Nikon 14-24 if you want to get UWA. Best lens out there if image quality. You need to home brew a filter holder for it, but there is plenty of instructions on doing this floating around.

If you plan on doing aurora shots, you may want the f2.8 of the 16-35. But otherwise, the 17-40 will do just fine. I envy you, I've been to Iceland only once, and loved it. I want to go back very much indeed.

If you don't mind using LV to focus, the Rokinon 14mm f2.8 is a very sharp lens. And it's about half the price of the 17-40L lens and way cheaper than the 16-35. Check out the sample thread for it. Shooting at f11 you barely need to fool with the focus. Just set it a bit short of infinity and everything will be in focus.

The 17-40L should work very well for you. I used it quite a bit with a 5D3 on a recent trip to Glacier National Park. Most of the time I shot with it at f9 - f10, and am quite pleased with the images.

See for yourself...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3
There are other comparisons you can do there, plus some thoughtful reviews of each lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The following paragraph from those reviews pretty much sums it up, though:

"If you are shooting wide landscapes with narrow apertures, the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM Lens will save you a lot of money as both lenses are sharp corner-to-corner at f/11. If you are shooting at wider apertures on a full frame body, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens will definitely be worth the upgrade."

Travelling with camera and lens, the somewhat smaller size and lighter weight of the 17-40mm might be appreciated, too.

If in doubt, you might be able to rent (not sure if rental places will work with you travelling internationally, though).

I own the Tokina and absolutely love it. I had sold my 17-40L to fund it after shuffling my equipment around a bit and find that the Tokina performs better in nearly every aspect for my needs. The f/2.8 makes things a lot easier since I like to do a lot of twilight/night sky photography. It's heavy, yes, and the front element isn't able to take filters without an adapter but I stopped using a CPL when I realized my skies were horribly uneven with any UWA. I can honestly vouch for it 100%, and don't know why it's not very popular on this forum.

I'm going there in October, and purposely bought the 16-35 for the aurora shots, and a big ND filter for the waterfalls. Plus, I find I tend to do a lot of wide angle shots anyway, so the extra cost was worth it. I think it's my sharpest lens, it's pricey but worth it for the 2.8 for me.

Make sure you post when you come back!! Could use tips =D

I'm not familiar with the FF UWA's (I have the Sigma 10-20mm), so I won't recommend a lens.

But, since you don't expect to use it after the trip, what about just renting? That of course depends on how long the trip is. If the trip is going to be long enough to not justify a rental, maybe buy used, and resell it after the trip. I doubt it would end up costing you anything in the end.

I have previously owned two 17-40s and can tell you that you wouldn't be disappointed with this lens in Iceland. As others have said the f/2.8 advantage of the 16-35 isnt really an issue assuming that you will be taking landscapes with narrower apetures to maximize DOF.

Alternatively you could spend slightly more and go with the TS-E 24mm (or 17mm) for the sharpest possible shots. With the TS-E 24mm if your camera is horizontal and you shift horizontally a 3 shot stitched pano has the equivalent FOV to a 14.4mm lens

What about renting a lens?

If its something you know you're not going to get a lot of use out of then renting one might be the sensible thing to do

Here's a couple taken with the 17-40mm in Iceland this year. First @f14 for 6 seconds. The waterfall was a stitch of two shots, again at f14 but for 10 seconds. It's a fine lens - and I'm a closet pixel peeper