Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 23 Aug 2009 (Sunday) 06:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

wide angle lens for FF.

 
simak
Member
Avatar
114 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Russia, Moscow region, town Chekhov.
     
Aug 23, 2009 06:14 |  #1

Hello.
Now i have 40D(ohh the gear list is in the signature), but i want to buy 5d2.
So i can`t use my lovely and amazing sigma 10-20 with FF and i need some FF wide angle lens.
So i read internet few days on this topic and i see that the best wide agle lens(which can mount on FF) is 16-35mm II L (that is my imho, after reading).
But there is one problem for me with 16-35 - as i was newb in photography i bought all my filters for 77mm (as the sigma 10-20 has the biggest diameter of all my lenses) and never thought about future, and this lens has 82mm :(.
So i started to read more and the next good lens is 17-40L, which has the diameter that i need - 77mm(as my sigma).

So the question is - must i forget about my filters and buy the 16-35 or get 17-40?
I realy do not need 2.8 (on 5d2 which iso 3200 is fantastic) and 16mm that has 16-35 II,so the only reason is,that it seems more sharper and have great colors,then 17-40, or not?
Or maybe you can advise some other lenses, maybe not zooms?
In the begining i want the perfect 17 TS-E, but there is no chance to mount a filter at all...

And i do not know what to do with Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 10-20, sell or
leave it for crop. Sigma is realy great wide angle lens...

P.S. Sorry for bad english.


Sorry for bad english.
I photograph from february 2008
Gear list | my flickr (external link) | simashin flickr tools (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
BLACK ­ MAMBA
Senior Member
343 posts
Joined Aug 2008
     
Aug 23, 2009 06:18 |  #2

Get the 16-35 MK I, it is 77mm. Don't worry about being a newbie. There are lenses right now about produced 10+ years ago and still holding value. Everyone was a newbie at one point.

passion vs longevity


S I G N A T U R E

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PCthug
Goldmember
Avatar
1,265 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Durham UK
     
Aug 23, 2009 07:17 |  #3

Why cant you use the sigma 10-20 on the 5d?
Ok, so you will get heavy vignetting at the 10mm end (like a fish eye), but when it gets to about 20mm it will look less (and can be cropped).
I tried mine in my 5d and it works fine.

BTW, the fish eye look is actually quite good, and can also be used for its own creative style of shots.

*** EDIT ***
Actually forget that, i have just taken some of my computer room at both ends, and although could be used creatively, they are not that good as the vignetting is too much...

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …91/PCthug/10mms​igma5d.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …91/PCthug/20mms​igma5d.jpg (external link)

Equipment: Canon 5d mkIII, Canon 24-105L, Canon 100-400L, Canon 70-200L f2.8 mkII, Canon 100mm macro, Canon 85mm f1.8, Canon 430EX Flash.
www.durhamphotographic​s.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
simak
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
114 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Russia, Moscow region, town Chekhov.
     
Aug 23, 2009 07:34 |  #4

BLACK MAMBA wrote in post #8507918 (external link)
Get the 16-35 MK I, it is 77mm. Don't worry about being a newbie. There are lenses right now about produced 10+ years ago and still holding value. Everyone was a newbie at one point.

Hmmm... But when i compared 16-35 I vs 17-40 - it seems the 17-40 is better.

PCthug wrote in post #8508016 (external link)
Why cant you use the sigma 10-20 on the 5d?
Ok, so you will get heavy vignetting at the 10mm end (like a fish eye), but when it gets to about 20mm it will look less (and can be cropped).
I tried mine in my 5d and it works fine.

BTW, the fish eye look is actually quite good, and can also be used for its own creative style of shots.

*** EDIT ***
Actually forget that, i have just taken some of my computer room at both ends, and although could be used creatively, they are not that good as the vignetting is too much...

It`s for crop :(.


Sorry for bad english.
I photograph from february 2008
Gear list | my flickr (external link) | simashin flickr tools (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Spacemunkie
Goldmember
Avatar
1,548 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 176
Joined Apr 2008
     
Aug 23, 2009 07:42 |  #5

I just flogged my 17-50/10-20 and bought a 17-40 and a 1Ds.

I don't think the 17-40 is that much better than the 10-20, but couple it with the better IQ from a FF body and it's been a good upgrade for me. I don't miss the 17-50 in the slightest. Nice glass, tat build.

Flog 'em both ;)


Scott/Spacemunkie:My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Aug 23, 2009 07:42 |  #6

I have both the Canon 17-40L and the Sigma 12-24. I don't use the Canon much since getting the Sigma. The Canon's two advantages are that it takes front filters (the Sigma only takes rear filters, thus you cannot use a polarizer) and a faster aperture. It's also a little cheaper than the Sigma. However, the Sigma gets crazy wide shots that no other lens can provide.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
3,031 posts
Gallery: 120 photos
Likes: 1151
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Aug 23, 2009 07:58 |  #7

Get the 17-40 L.


Nikon Z6, 24-70mm f/4 S, 70-200mm f/4 G VR, 200-500mm f/5.6 E VR, 35mm f/1.8 S, 85mm f/1.8 S, 105mm f/2.8 G VR Micro, TC-14E III, FTZ, Flashpoint/Godox Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,558 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Aug 23, 2009 09:23 |  #8

17-40L is a great ultra-wide on full frame. I love it on my 1Ds II. Sharp, wonderful color and contrast, etc.... Unless you need f/2.8, I don't think it's worth the considerable price upgrade for the 16-35 II. (and the 17-40's better optically than the 16-35 I)


Jordan Steele - http://www.jordansteel​e.com (external link)
Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlig​ht.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,093 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 129
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Aug 23, 2009 09:25 |  #9

I like the 17-40 more than my 24-70 for landscapes. Would not go to any shoot without both. There is no remarkable difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 except the money if you are only shooting in good light. In low light, you're talking a whole new world. F4 is not great without a flash indoors.


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, SONY a7iii, 7D2, G12, M100, M50, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children and grandchildren are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Desertrat
Senior Member
Avatar
453 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: California,
     
Aug 23, 2009 10:43 |  #10

I bought the Tamron 17-35 just because it was cheap and didn't know how much I would use it. It has worked out pretty good,somewhat slow focus and noisey but for the money it's pretty good. This shot is with the 5D on the end of a monopod with a remote . I just waited until the AF stopped and took the shot .

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Avatar
17,849 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 439
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ajman - UAE
     
Aug 23, 2009 12:14 |  #11

Many landscape photographers who are shooting with Canon FF using either 16-35L or 17-40L as their ultra wide lenses, i have 16-35L and i don't look back at all, even my Sigma 12-24 is living into the dark.


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/ (external link)
Gear List
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
simak
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
114 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Russia, Moscow region, town Chekhov.
     
Aug 23, 2009 12:27 |  #12

of course if i had filters on 82mm i would buy 16-35 II, as i have all 77mm filters i think that it is bad idea to buy 16-35 II and after buy all filters again but on 82mm...
So i think that i will buy 17-40, after i buy 5d2 of course.
But wanna keep my sigma 10-20 for crop cameras, cause it is amazing lens.
And i think i need to sell the 17-50 tamron.


Sorry for bad english.
I photograph from february 2008
Gear list | my flickr (external link) | simashin flickr tools (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
simak
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
114 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Russia, Moscow region, town Chekhov.
     
Aug 25, 2009 06:55 |  #13

Tony-S wrote in post #8508096 (external link)
I have both the Canon 17-40L and the Sigma 12-24. I don't use the Canon much since getting the Sigma. The Canon's two advantages are that it takes front filters (the Sigma only takes rear filters, thus you cannot use a polarizer) and a faster aperture. It's also a little cheaper than the Sigma. However, the Sigma gets crazy wide shots that no other lens can provide.

Yea, this sigma seems pretty great. But i want use some filters on wide angle.


Sorry for bad english.
I photograph from february 2008
Gear list | my flickr (external link) | simashin flickr tools (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jacobsen1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,629 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Mt View, RI
     
Aug 25, 2009 09:05 as a reply to  @ simak's post |  #14

filters hint that you're shooting landscapes. If so, the 17-40 will hang right with the 16-35II when stopped down. The 16-35II shines @ 2.8 and maybe 4.0, but once you start stopping down it's advantage gets rather small.

Also, if you're looking at a 5Dii and 16-35II, that's over $5k in gear. Is replacing your filters with 82mm versions really that cost prohibitive at that point? And if you had rectangular filters you'd just need 1 new rear adapter? The only thing that 82mm is a PITA for is there's no 10 stop GND made in that size... So if you use that often you are SOL unless you go rectangular. Yes the 82mm size is a PITA, and I've used the excuse myself, but in reality it's really not that hard to swap....

Tony-S wrote in post #8508096 (external link)
I have both the Canon 17-40L and the Sigma 12-24. I don't use the Canon much since getting the Sigma. The Canon's two advantages are that it takes front filters (the Sigma only takes rear filters, thus you cannot use a polarizer) and a faster aperture. It's also a little cheaper than the Sigma. However, the Sigma gets crazy wide shots that no other lens can provide.

Add to that the sealing of the canon. I actually swapped from my 12-24mm to my 17-40 this past weekend knowing I was at risk for a few shots. I ended up taking a direct hit... The 5Dii is dead now, but the 17-40 is A-ok. Had I had the 12-24 on it would have been dead as well. Thank god for insurance!

also, the 12-24mm isn't all that much slower (4.5~5.6 -vs- 4, so one stop max). The bigger issue is it vignettes more, so if you care about that it needs more stopping down. But for landscapes both are VERY similar since I stop them both down equally.


My Gear List

my sites:
benjacobsenphoto.com (external link) | newschoolofphotography​.com (external link)
GND buyers FAQ

FOR SALE: 5Dii RRS L-bracket, 430II, 12mm macro tube PM ME!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,244 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 505
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Aug 25, 2009 09:20 |  #15

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8519672 (external link)
filters hint that you're shooting landscapes. If so, the 17-40 will hang right with the 16-35II when stopped down. The 16-35II shines @ 2.8 and maybe 4.0, but once you start stopping down it's advantage gets rather small.

Also, if you're looking at a 5Dii and 16-35II, that's over $5k in gear. Is replacing your filters with 82mm versions really that cost prohibitive at that point? And if you had rectangular filters you'd just need 1 new rear adapter? The only thing that 82mm is a PITA for is there's no 10 stop GND made in that size... So if you use that often you are SOL unless you go rectangular. Yes the 82mm size is a PITA, and I've used the excuse myself, but in reality it's really not that hard to swap....


Add to that the sealing of the canon. I actually swapped from my 12-24mm to my 17-40 this past weekend knowing I was at risk for a few shots. I ended up taking a direct hit... The 5Dii is dead now, but the 17-40 is A-ok. Had I had the 12-24 on it would have been dead as well. Thank god for insurance!

also, the 12-24mm isn't all that much slower (4.5~5.6 -vs- 4, so one stop max). The bigger issue is it vignettes more, so if you care about that it needs more stopping down. But for landscapes both are VERY similar since I stop them both down equally.

my 16-35L II @ f3.2 is sharper than any copy of the 17-40L that i've owned @ f 4.5. i agonized over the upgrade which i made more than a year ago with zero regrets. shooting at f8 - f16 there isn't a lot of difference tho.

IMAGE: http://erader.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p408187881-4.jpg

ed rader

http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,548 views & 0 likes for this thread
wide angle lens for FF.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ViciousKing
798 guests, 292 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.