Looking for A Good Sharp FF Wide Angle Lens

Mr.Noisy wrote in post #17394178
Nice Reply, someone had to stand up and shout 'a good WA lens for FF is going to cost more than $490' but other than the Tokina 16-28 the choice isnt huge,
or bite the bullet, break the bank and get the EF 14 or 24 II lenses...........would be worth breaking the bank for...............wort​h every $$$

What Do you think about the 17-40mm L?

chexjc wrote in post #17394510
Just wanted to chime in and say the 17-40L has been great for me so far. It's in your budget, weather-sealed and it's excellent at preventing flare, in my experience. Take a look at the Flickr pool.

At the moment this is the only Lens I am Really Considering. Any Drawbacks?

freestylee30 wrote in post #17394723
I'm in a similar situation, upgraded to FF and have a Tokina 11-16. I purchased a Rokinon 14 thinking that I would use it as my uwa but I'm having second thoughts, here's why...

- Tokina still works @ 16mm (no vignette, like @11-15mm)
- Tokina has AF - which I am finding to be more important to me. I didn't think so at first, but I'm finding the Rokinon hard to use (focus) except when I can stop and take my time.
- Tokina filter thread is 77mm I believe, which is the same as my 24-105, so my CPL, B&W 10 stop and other ND filters will work on both the Tok and 24-105. No getting a threaded filter on the Rokinon...

So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know if just because you go FF that the 11-16 is obsolete, especially if you've invested in filters. Using it at 16mm might be an option (one I'm still exploring).

I should also say that I really haven't given the Rokinon a fair amount of time to try and get acclimated with it.

Good luck with your decision! I'm still trying to figure it out as well

Yea It does well at 16mm (Except with a filter on their is some serioues vignetting, and I usually don't leave my lenses without a filter on)
I saw some videos that showed on FF it was more sharp in the middle but the sides lacked sharpness. I was thinking about rokinon, but tbh now i'm looking into the 17-40mm F/4 L Found some on Craigslist for 400$!

At its current street price, the 17-40L is a good lower cost UWA solution for full frame. When I transitioned from crop to full frame, I picked up one to replace the EF-S 10-22mm I was using on my 7D. The 5D3 + 17-40L combination gave me better results for landscape shooting than the 7D + 10-22 combo had -- which I attributed more to the better sensor on the 5D3. If you do not need a f/2.8 max aperture, then I think the 17-40L would work well for you.

I have since upgraded to the 16-35L f/4 IS, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 17-40L for someone looking for a lower cost option.

There are some. It's an older lens design and you'll notice its quite soft wide open - particularly in the corners. Stopping down solves this almost completely. You'll notice it on the 21MP 5d mkII more than I do as I have a 13MP 5dc. In using it, you'll also notice perspective distorions typical for ultra wide angle lenses.

If you can spare the money I'd recommend the 16-35 f/4 IS. Otherwise you won't go wrong with the 17-40.

GplPhotography wrote in post #17395260
Yea It does well at 16mm (Except with a filter on their is some serioues vignetting, and I usually don't leave my lenses without a filter on)

Hmm... that's good to know, thanks. I haven't had a chance to try the Tokina w/filter on my 6D yet... I like the range in the 17-40, but the more and more I shoot, the more I realize I like (want) lenses with at least f/2.8.

Ideally, I'd eventually swap out my 24-105 f/4 for a 24-70 f/2.8 and the same with my 70-200. Then I just either have to get comfortable with my Rokinon 14mm or find something else for when I need wider than 24mm (not sure how often that would honestly be, astro?).

Since switching to FF I am finding out that I am really missing my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

GplPhotography wrote in post #17395258
What Do you think about the 17-40mm L?

If compared to the Zeiss lenses, it is not "a good WA".
But then again, it all depends on your personal definition of good

Using the 11-16 in FF will technically work, but from what ive seen its a little soft. I'll say it again, the Tokina 16-28 is one of the best lenses I've ever used.

Glad to see so many fans of the Tok 16-28. It is seriously sharp all the way to the corners. I was in no hurry to buy a wide angle and did lots of research, ultimately I will want a filter system but that is secondary to my uses now.

OP, the lens has a reverse zoom, meaning it is retracted when at 28 and out when at 16... If that impacts your need for a protective filter.

Signed,
Former protective filter user

Just dish out the money for the canon 16-35 F4IS. There's a current $100 rebate, might as well take it while you can. Absolutely top shelf optics, not heavy, and takes square filters without issue.

Tokina has a bulb element, it wont take screw in filters and requires special adapters for square filters. Probably wont even work with 100mm filters. Kind of a big hassle to deal with.

GplPhotography wrote in post #17395258
What Do you think about the 17-40mm L?

The 17-40L was/is ok....Just ok, Thats just my opinion, I replaced mine with a 16-35 f2.8 II, that was a sick lens, I loved it, till the day I tried my brothers 24L II, that was a game changer and started my love afair with Primes, replacing the 16-35 with a 24L II and my beloved 35L, never looked back or missed either zoom.

if your considering the 17-40L For for stuff like landscapes or scenic, then this lens is a sold performer, remember its f4, a good tripod and a lot of time, love and laughter will result in some fine results, the 16-35 did handle light and flare better, but having said that I have seen some very good
work produced using the 17-40L, check Julien Roumagnac, he has some very good stuff from a 5D2 and 17-40L, the effects and mood produced are great, it is a good lens, worth considering. (attached screenshot from Juliens website, just used for an example of image produced using a 17-40L)

The 17-40L is an old lens now, But it still performs well, can you stretch your budget to a used 16-35L II? a used copy could be had at silly prices and IMO its better than the f4 version, others may disagree but its not a competition just my thoughts.

^^Love the shot and postprocessing, but images at web resolution tell nothing about how good a lens is.

I use the Tokina 11-16mm all the time on my 6D. For me it works at 15mm and 16mm. The IQ remains sharp on a FF as well.

freestylee30 wrote in post #17396221
Hmm... that's good to know, thanks. I haven't had a chance to try the Tokina w/filter on my 6D yet... I like the range in the 17-40, but the more and more I shoot, the more I realize I like (want) lenses with at least f/2.8.

Ideally, I'd eventually swap out my 24-105 f/4 for a 24-70 f/2.8 and the same with my 70-200. Then I just either have to get comfortable with my Rokinon 14mm or find something else for when I need wider than 24mm (not sure how often that would honestly be, astro?).

Since switching to FF I am finding out that I am really missing my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

This lens is really really bad on fullframe.. used it for the first time with my fullframe serious and got this...
Looks good at firstm but if you notice only the center is sharp, other than the center it is horribly blurry and soft. This photo is a perfect example as you can really tell when you are looking at the stars.

jsecordphoto wrote in post #17396245
Using the 11-16 in FF will technically work, but from what ive seen its a little soft. I'll say it again, the Tokina 16-28 is one of the best lenses I've ever used.

Check out the Image I posted above, corners are horribly out of focus. The Tokina 16-28 is sounding good to me to be honest.