Which WA lens for 5D?

Just wondering what's the best wide angle lens to use with a 5D. Seeing the excellent EF-S 10-22 will not fit the 5D. Which leaves the sigma and the tokina. Anything else?

17-40L

KevC wrote in post #2158646
17-40L

Gets my vote too!

KevC wrote in post #2158646
17-40L

agreed!

16 or 17mm is pretty darn wide on a FF sensor. It's the equivalent of 10 or 11mm on a 1.6x. With that said, I would look at the 16-35 or 17-40.

delhi wrote in post #2158641
Just wondering what's the best wide angle lens to use with a 5D. Seeing the excellent EF-S 10-22 will not fit the 5D. Which leaves the sigma and the tokina. Anything else?

Best for different people is dependent on what they are trying to shoot! For me, a FF 35mm camera is 'best' fitted with a 24mm lens...while I own 20mm, I find most of my wide angle needs are fully met with 24mm (whereas 28mm was not wide enough for me in shooting interiors, but 28mm was fine for wedding groups and candids). So the 24-70 might work well for you...it would for me if I was using the 5D!

So a 15mm on APS-C would be great for interiors, 17mm would be fine for wedding groups and candids with APS-C camera, making the 17-55mm the equivalent of the 28-70mm on 5D.

17-40 4L for me as well. I love it on this camera.

Check my thread here, for a picture I submitted a day ago...and feel free to leave comments.

http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=230799

I love my Sigma 15-30. I've considered getting the 16-35, but I've found myself pushing the Sigma to the wide edges more than to max. apertures, so that probably won't happen any time soon unless for the size of the lens. I'm more likely to get, and I didn't expect this when it came out, a 24-105 to complement my 24-70. The 70-200 just doesn't focus close enough, unless I can find a 0.5 or 0.25 diopter 77 mm close-up lens.

I just got a 5D and I had the same problem of the EF-S ... I looked at the Canon 16-35, 17-40 and even some primes at 14mm (I have a 24-70L so just something around 14mm would be cool) ...

I ended up with a Tamron 17-35 F/2.8-4. My shooting buddy is a cheap rat bastard and told me about the Tamron. According to testing ... the Tamron is pretty much equal to the $1700 16-35, at both the center and corners. (The L is built better - which I really don't need, focuses a tad faster - on a tele speed is critical on a wide ... mmmh ... something one can live with ... and the Canon is 2.8 across the board which is a big plus ... but keeping $1400 in my pocket is even a bigger plus.

I strongly recommend looking into the Tammy .. at $300 ... a very very sharp lens and I serious doubt than any lens ever made can equal this value.

Here's some stuff I took in Hollywood on Thursday, all with the Tammie:

http://garyayala.smugm​ug.com/gallery/2031919

Gary

Another vote for the Canon 17-40L
Its sweet at 17mm on the FF 5D

16-35L hands down

16-35L? eww.... it has some pretty bad barrel distortion.

From cheap to expensive:
Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4
Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4
Sigma 15-30
Canon 17-40L
Sigma 12-24
Canon 16-35L

For Primes, Tamron/Sigma/Canon all make 14mm f2.8 primes.
Not too many tests of the primes online, but according to luminous landscapes seem to think the 16-35mm at 16mm is shapeer than the 14mm prime from Canon.

If you want the most bang for the bucks, Tamron, good all around lens for midlevel price 17-40L (a bit slow though), and the best? Canon 16-35L.

Good luck

The 17-40 is great on full frame.

how can these be good lens whenthey exhibit strong barrel distortion at the wide angle range?