17-40mm on FF - any competitors I should consider?

I am looking to have a UWA to complement my existing 24-105 and 70-200mmm lenses on a 5Dii. So I am looking at the 17-40mm f4 L.

Is there other lens I should be considering? The 16-3x (can't remember just now) f2.8 looks lovely, but the extra cost for one extra stop is a bit rich for my tastes.

Is there anything comparable or better from the Sigmas of this world?

Many thanks

Tokina has a 16-28mm 2.8, which is cheaper than the Canon 2.8 and better optically.
There is also the Sigma 12-24mm, which though is nothing great optically, it does 12mm on full frame! The widest lens you can get.
If money is no issue, the primes offer the best image quality. 14mm Canon and the 15mm Zeiss.

Thank you - the Tokina lens in particular looks a very interesting alternative

alan_potter wrote in post #16548624
Thank you - the Tokina lens in particular looks a very interesting alternative

Note that it cannot take filters due to the bulging front element. And it is also very flare-prone. But otherwise, it is sharper and faster than the 17-40.

I don't think there is much with autofocus for the money really.... I'm more than happy on FF with mine & for landscapes etc it's around f/11 anyway. Indoors & astro stuff I guess something f/2.8 may be handy but I guess that's for you to decide

You could also consider the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (manual lens) which is excellent optically (after distorsion correction) and cheap.

Titi

I considered some of the alternatives, but ended up with the 17-40L. It pairs well with the 24-105L, as both take 77mm filters. The image quality, AF performance and build quality of the 17-40L are all quite good, especially for the price. If you will be using it mostly for landscape, like me, you will be stopping the lens down anyway where the image quality will be comparable with the 16-35L f/2.8.

I had the 17-40 for awhile with my 24-105 and 5D Mk III. After getting used to the 24-105, I found the focal range of the 17-40 too limiting, and missed not having Image Stabilization. I also felt like there wasn't enough of a difference in the wide end from my 24-105.

I tried out a Samyang 14mm and was blown away by the image quality and wide field of view.(14mm seems MUCH wider than 17mm) I ended up selling the 17-40 after 2 months and now use the 14mm for all my wide angle needs.

Your mileage may vary.....

I was just about to post about this in my own thread. I have the 17-40 and I'm not satisfied with it. The aperture just isn't big enough for my shooting style and I found it to be consistently soft. Out of all the lenses I've owned this is the hardest to get a quality image out of unless I'm shooting landscapes.

I love the 17-40L... It performs very well. I can't justify the 16-35 II increase in cost myself, although I could use it with my two paid shoots I do per year... I would rather wait for a Canon 14-24L or something of the sort before upgrading

I have used the Samyang 14mm and *really* enjoyed the perspective that 14mm offers... I just hated the color rendition of the lens (always hard to color correct) and of course lack of AF but that is not that bad for a 14mm... Incredible value for $300.

Invertalon wrote in post #16549797
I love the 17-40L... It performs very well. I can't justify the 16-35 II increase in cost myself, although I could use it with my two paid shoots I do per year... I would rather wait for a Canon 14-24L or something of the sort before upgrading .

The 16-35mm is not a better lens, it delivers the same image quality. You're paying for that extra stop of light at 2.8.
No the only real upgrade over the 17-40mm is the 14mm L. Or the 15mm Zeiss. The 16-28mm Tokina is also a solid performer but isn't as good as these primes.

Exactly ^... Which is why I have not paid nearly double for just one stop when I use it at f/8 most of the time anyway! It is excellent at what it does. Sometimes the f/2.8 would be nice, but I also have the 24-70 II which covers 90% of those cases anyway.

Great information, everyone - thank you very much. I shall now go and ponder

I have had a 17-40 for years and used it on various Crop Cameras where it was OK. Recently I have moved on to a FF (5D3) and the 17-40 is superb IMHO, its like having a whole new lens. Not bothered about f4 myself as I only use it for outdoor stuff in good light.

I had the 17-40 and 16-35 I & II and ended up with the Tokina 16-28 2.8 (aka Nikon 14-24 2.8). I mostly don't use it at f2.8 but it's always nice to have that posibility and it's the sharpest UWA zoom anyhow.