best landscape/sport WA for 1D MKIII?

Already have 35L, 85 1.8 and 70-200 2.8 L...and of course a 1d mark III body.

i need a WA lens for landscape and sport(skiing) any sugestions?

17-40, 16-35 II or the super expensive 14L II?

The only one that would be wide angle on your 1.3 crop would be the 14mm f/2.8L II. It would be great for landscapes, but not sure how it would be for sports/skiing?

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

If you're brave enough, you can mod an EF-S 10-22mm

Saint728 wrote in post #9895291
The only one that would be wide angle on your 1.3 crop would be the 14mm f/2.8L II. It would be great for landscapes, but not sure how it would be for sports/skiing?

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Well, relative to how they look on a full-frame, sure. But the general definition is that anything wider than 35mm (effective) is wide, so all of these fall into an acceptable range.

The 14 controls flare better looking into the light than the 16-35, so if you must shoot with the sun in the frame, it's probably your only option.

Otherwise, the 16-35 is a FANTASTIC lens on the 1D3. I just got mine on Thursday and spent most of Saturday shooting with it. The morning and afternoon I did landscape and car shots, and in the evening I spent 3 hours doing a bar/club shoot. No other lens I have has provided me a more useful range of focal lengths than this has.

I cannot explicitly exclude the 17-40, having never used it. But I love fast glass and the premium was worth it to me for f/2.8.

One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned is the focusing capability of the 16-35 II. This lens literally focuses in the dark! Just doing some test shooting, it found contrast and achieved focus where I couldn't even see anything in the viewfinder. And not only that, but it focuses instantly besides. Granted, the focal length gives you a lot of depth of field to play with, but it's truly a fantastic lens. I know the 17-40 is much cheaper, but I don't regret getting the 16-35 for a moment. 16mm on the 1D3 is JUST wide enough for big, indoor group shots, and 35mm is right around normal and looks very nice on this body (as you know from the 35L.)

Put slightly differently - I love my 300 2.8 and was very lucky to be in a position to afford it - but the 16-35 feels like it was literally made for the 1D3. It has the image quality of a prime and the versatility of a wide-to-normal zoom.

I'm at the point now where I'd like a second 1D3 to mount up with another lens so I can keep the 16-35 ready at all times - it's just that useful/versatile!

Mike

for what i've understand:

17-40: good for landscape and CHEAPER
16-35: a little better than his f4 cousin and twice the price(ok it's f2.8..) worth it???don't know
14L: so expensive, not so comfortable (i'll have a big hole between 14L and 35L...will be that a big problem???)....worth it???? don't know...

17-40 and 16-35 i thinik i'll use these lens in the 16/17-24 range...

ahendarman wrote in post #9895516
If you're brave enough, you can mod an EF-S 10-22mm

YES!!

Finally another member with a great response.

The modification is sooo easy, I can't understand why people are so reluctant or "SCARED" to even consider this lens.

The 17-40 works well for landscapes on a 1D3. I use that combination when the 35L isn't wide enough. On a 1.3 body the 17-40 works out to be a 22-52 which should be fine under most conditions.

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #9902740
YES!!

Finally another member with a great response.

The modification is sooo easy, I can't understand why people are so reluctant or "SCARED" to even consider this lens.

What's the modification - mounting it on a 7D?