wide angle lens for FF.

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.

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

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...

BLACK MAMBA wrote in post #8507918
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
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 .

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

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.

Get the 17-40 L.

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)

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.

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 .

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

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.

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.

Tony-S wrote in post #8508096
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.

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
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.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8519672
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.