Wishful lens thinking...

I like my 17-40L, a lot, but I can't help feeling cheated that I paid what I did for it, to use it basically as a slow-ish, 17mm prime -a prime that isn't remarkably sharp, but rather acceptably so.

The 24-70/2.8 L II is near-prime quality @24mm, so I have no desire for a 24mm prime. And that's just it, there's this vast expanse between 24mm and 14mm as far as Canon primes go. I would love for this to come to fruition:

16mm f/2.8 (or faster) L. Such a lens should have fantastic optics, sharp wide-open, edge to edge. Amazing color & contrast, etc etc. Basically, the real deal @16mm. I'd even be willing to pay for such a beauty.

Whaddaya think? Would you buy such a lens? Is there such a lens? 14mm is too wide for my tastes, and I don't use my 17-40 for much past 17mm! Oh, and the 16-35 just isn't justified for me shooting primarily stopped-down landscapes. If it wasn't $1700, I might've picked one up for a few hundred more just for the f/2.8, but IQ isn't enough of an upgrade.

I found one! https://www.abelcine.c​om …mm-LDS-Master-Prime-T1.3/

Nice price too! Geez, the price of the 55mm OTUS don't sound so bad now does it

Heya,

The 14mm F2.8 Samyan/Rokinon will give you a run for the money, even up against very expensive lenses. It's inexpensive, but that doesn't represent it's quality.

Also, there's a Carl Zeiss 16mm F2.8 that you could probably adapt.

Also, really, the tilt shift lenses from 17mm to 24mm are insanely good. Fairly fast.

Very best,

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16869829
I found one! https://www.abelcine.c​om …mm-LDS-Master-Prime-T1.3/

Nice price too! Geez, the price of the 55mm OTUS don't sound so bad now does it

LDS?
Is it Mormon?

MalVeauX wrote in post #16869862
Heya,

The 14mm F2.8 Samyan/Rokinon will give you a run for the money, even up against very expensive lenses. It's inexpensive, but that doesn't represent it's quality.

Also, there's a Carl Zeiss 16mm F2.8 that you could probably adapt.

Also, really, the tilt shift lenses from 17mm to 24mm are insanely good. Fairly fast.

Very best,

Agree about the 14mm. It's really good and you can't beat it for the price (got mine for $290).

Don't be put off by talk of distortion and manual focusing. Distortion is easily handled via a simple lens profile download. Manual focusing can be improved by getting an AF confirm chip and also using live view to focus. In addition, if you mainly use it for landscapes, you can just set it to infinity focus with f/8 and you won't have any focus problems.

TS-E 17mm solves this. MF is not much of a handicap at 17mm.

The TS-e 17 fills that bill nicely.

I wish Canon would put a 20/2.0 IS in their 24is/ 28is/35is line-up. I think 2.0 is to wishfull. So a 20/2.8 IS would be nice as well.

Small, light, sharp, reasanable fast, and IS. Perfect for travel!

Thanks for the replies. You have the Samyang 14mm at around $300, and then the Canon 17mm TS-e at $2500... wish there was something in the middle...

Like I said, 14mm isn't my preference, but for $300 it certainly looks interesting. The TS-e is well, pricey. I guess that's the cost for excellence, suck it up!

As far as manual focusing, that's fine. My 17-40 is basically a manually focused f/4 prime anyway...

How about the Tokina 16-35 f/2.8? Any good? But that doesn't take filters, right? I have Lee filters, will they work on a TS-e?

Forget about the price, its what they both do regardless of price, you can also add zeiss to the mix, doesn't get any better than that at this time in history.

You can use filters with the 16-35, the 17ts e requires a more expensive one, but I do understand lee is now making one for it, however I am not sure of price for that one. Perhaps someone else will shine in about lee's filter with regards to price.

Perhaps the 17-40 has variations from one copy to another, but I consider mine quite sharp.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 covers full frame at 16mm and is about US$500.

I would love an EF 20mm pancake. It could be f2.8 as long as it's a pancake full frame lens. No IS is required.

Bianchi wrote in post #16870700
Perhaps the 17-40 has variations from one copy to another, but I consider mine quite sharp.

Mine is quite sharp too but that's for land/seascapes at f/8 - f/13. I wouldn't call it sharp at f/4 unfortunately.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16869792
I like my 17-40L, a lot, but I can't help feeling cheated that I paid what I did for it, to use it basically as a slow-ish, 17mm prime -a prime that isn't remarkably sharp, but rather acceptably so.

This is a matter of attitude. I think of my 16-35 Mk II as "my 21mm that can do 24mm if I don't have the TS-E with me".

Zeiss ZE 15mm f/2.8.

Have thought about it, but after many years of a 21-24-28 kit of fixed focal length lenses, I'm very happy with the flexibility of a zoom.

It's the least bad in the Canon system. While I do use it for landscapes @21-24mm, 16mm has opened up a world of non-landscape photography to me. And that's the commercial reality for Canon: (1) many customers have a preferred ultra-wide focal length, but those aren't all the same; (2) it's hard to build a good ultrawide for an SLR, and building a zoom isn't that much harder; (3) many customers shoot more than landscape; (4) the landscapers like TS. No wonder they leave the niche stuff to Zeiss.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16870436
Thanks for the replies. You have the Samyang 14mm at around $300, and then the Canon 17mm TS-e at $2500... wish there was something in the middle...

Like I said, 14mm isn't my preference, but for $300 it certainly looks interesting. The TS-e is well, pricey. I guess that's the cost for excellence, suck it up!

As far as manual focusing, that's fine. My 17-40 is basically a manually focused f/4 prime anyway...

How about the Tokina 16-35 f/2.8? Any good? But that doesn't take filters, right? I have Lee filters, will they work on a TS-e?

I've got a lee 100mm filter holder for my 17 ts-e. Works well. Look about halfway down this page

www.leefilters.com/ind​ex.php/camera/system

Think I paid about £60-70 for it.