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 01 Apr 2010 (Thursday) 02:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-40mm, 16-35mm or 21mm.

 
Depth
Senior Member
Avatar
986 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Norcal/Socal
     
Apr 01, 2010 02:55 |  #1

Since I switched to FF I've been looking for a new UWA. To make it easy for everyone to help me I'll just get straight to it.

Lenses I'm considering: Canon 17-40mm f/4L, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L and the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (doubt I could afford this though).

- With my 10-22mm I shot at 11-12mm's the majority of the time. So 17.6-19.2mm's (35mm equiv.)
- All my photos are shot at f/8 and are done on a tripod.
- Majority of the use will be seascapes (external link), so I'm not sure if the Zeiss 21mm will have a wide enough FoV.
- Filter size is not an issue since I'll be using square filters.
- AF performance is not an issue since I'll be manual focusing no matter what.


Also wondering, since I'll be shooting at f/8 is the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 a good lens to consider?


I'm tired (and now going to bed, finally), so I might have forgotten some stuff...


Gear List
ACCD

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tsdevine
Senior Member
274 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
     
Apr 01, 2010 05:09 |  #2

If you can live with the FOV of the 21....get it. I've had the 17-40 and currently have the 16-35 II and the 21ZE. For most even sharpness across the frame, you'll need to shoot the 16-35 @ f/11. Neither of the Canon lenses are a match for the Zeiss though. From what I've read, the gap between the 18ZE and the 16-35 II is less.

Here's a little comparison of the extreme corners between the 16-35 II and the 21 ZE.

f/2.8

IMAGE: http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeisscanon/large/corner28.jpg

f/4.0
IMAGE: http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeisscanon/large/corner40.jpg

f/5.6
IMAGE: http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeisscanon/large/corner56.jpg

f/8
IMAGE: http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeisscanon/large/corner80.jpg

f/11
IMAGE: http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeisscanon/large/corner11.jpg

Of course there's always the 17 TS-E, but that's even more $$$.

-Tim


Tim Devine Photography (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
plasticmotif
Goldmember
Avatar
3,174 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Tennessee
     
Apr 01, 2010 08:52 |  #3

I've found the corners in the 17-40 to be better than the 16-35. The 21 is the best wider than 24 full frame lens. The 14-24 Nikon is impossible to get an adapter for....The 17 TSE is entirely too expensive as is the 14L.

The best options are 17-40, 21 ZE, Voigtlander 20/3.5, Olympus 18 and 21/3.5 and the Olympus 21/2. (Not in any order)

I'm being patient because my 24-70 is so good at 24 and small apertures.
Tokina has a 16-28 coming out...Samyang's 14 ships in May.


Mac P.
My Zenfolio (external link) My Photo Blog (external link) My Equipment
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=14172975#po​st14172975

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Apr 01, 2010 09:32 |  #4

if you dont need fast aperture, the Sigma 12-24 is the greatest UWA that I have used. And it has less distortion than any canon zoom. However it is slow 4.5-5.6

p.s I have the 18mm and i was happier with the sigma.... controls flare ALOT better than the zeiss...


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Apr 01, 2010 09:35 |  #5

you seem to be into the same thing as Jacobsen on this forum and he really likes his sigma 12-24mm. check out the nikon talk on the general thread


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
irishman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,098 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
     
Apr 01, 2010 09:43 |  #6

I REALLY like my 16-35 II. Just sayin'.


6D, G9, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 15mm Fisheye, Sigma 50 2.8 macro, Nikon 14-24G 2.8, Canon 16-35 2.8 II, Canon 24-105 f/4 IS, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, tripod, lights, other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
geoff5093
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Goffstown, NH
     
Apr 01, 2010 09:43 |  #7

If you are going to shoot at f/8, why spend more on the 16-35 just for the 2.8? Save yourself some money and get the 17-40 if you are looking for a zoom.


5D Mark III
Canon 24-70L II | Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II | Tamron 150-600 | Sigma 35 1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Depth
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
986 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Norcal/Socal
     
Apr 01, 2010 10:54 |  #8

zincozinco wrote in post #9913008 (external link)
if you dont need fast aperture, the Sigma 12-24 is the greatest UWA that I have used. And it has less distortion than any canon zoom. However it is slow 4.5-5.6

p.s I have the 18mm and i was happier with the sigma.... controls flare ALOT better than the zeiss...

Problem with the Sigma is I can't use square filters on it.

geoff5093 wrote in post #9913067 (external link)
If you are going to shoot at f/8, why spend more on the 16-35 just for the 2.8? Save yourself some money and get the 17-40 if you are looking for a zoom.

I've seen some posts on POTN saying the 16-35mm was slightly sharper (and some saying it's not), so that's why I'm considering it.


Gear List
ACCD

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Saint728
Goldmember
Avatar
2,892 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Honolulu Hawaii
     
Apr 01, 2010 11:07 |  #9

I can tell you now you probably won't like either of the zooms 17-40mm f/4.0L or 16-35mm f/2.8L II as they both aren't that great in the corners. I am considering the 14mm f/2.8L II looks a lot sharper across the board. May even rent a Cannon TS-E 17mm f/4L and see how that goes.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick


Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III | 17-40mm f/4.0L | 70-200mm f/2.8L USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | 300mm f/4.0L IS
Click Here To See My Gear
Click here to see my Flickr (external link)
http://www.runryder.co​m/helicopter/gallery/9​019/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
plasticmotif
Goldmember
Avatar
3,174 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Tennessee
     
Apr 01, 2010 17:01 |  #10

Saint728 wrote in post #9913559 (external link)
I can tell you now you probably won't like either of the zooms 17-40mm f/4.0L or 16-35mm f/2.8L II as they both aren't that great in the corners. I am considering the 14mm f/2.8L II looks a lot sharper across the board. May even rent a Cannon TS-E 17mm f/4L and see how that goes.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

The 14L and 17 TSE are too damned expensive. There really aren't many options out there to get good sharpness corner to corner.

If I had to rank them @ wider than 24:

21 ZE
14-24 Nikon
Contax 17-35mm
Canon 14L
Leica 15
Nikon 17-35mm AFS
Leica 21-35mm
Voigtlander 20
Olympus 21/2 and 3.5 and 18 3.5
Canon 17-40
Sigma 15-30
Canon 16-35


Mac P.
My Zenfolio (external link) My Photo Blog (external link) My Equipment
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=14172975#po​st14172975

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
themadman
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
18,871 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Northern California
     
Apr 01, 2010 17:04 |  #11

I have the 17-40 and only the corners suffer from sharpness issues, edges and the rest of the frame is fine.


Will | WilliamLiuPhotography.​com (external link) | Gear List and Feedback | CPS Member | Have you Pre-Ordered Your 3Dx Yet? | HorusBennu Discussion | In honor of Uncle Steve, thanks for everything! 10-5-2011

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Apr 02, 2010 03:17 |  #12

Depth wrote in post #9913479 (external link)
Problem with the Sigma is I can't use square filters on it.

cant remeber where i saw it but they have made a filter holder for the Nikon 14-24mm - Im guessing that would work on the sigma as well, probably costly but you are not paying so much for the lens...


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Depth
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
986 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Norcal/Socal
     
Apr 02, 2010 09:40 |  #13

zincozinco wrote in post #9918258 (external link)
cant remeber where i saw it but they have made a filter holder for the Nikon 14-24mm - Im guessing that would work on the sigma as well, probably costly but you are not paying so much for the lens...

Yeah, Lee designed one. But I doubt it would work on the Sigma.


Gear List
ACCD

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

3,444 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-40mm, 16-35mm or 21mm.
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 Tomx72
1235 guests, 295 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.