Opinions on Ultra Wide for Full Frame

[doppelganger]

Since I'm on here, I thought I'd ask some opinions. I mostly do weddings and that typical stuff but I've always LOVED landscape photography. My most favorite lens before was a tokina 11-16 on a cropped sensor. Now that I've switched to full frame, I still want that amazing lens I can use for wide angle landscapes that I love (the tokina only works at like 16mm and isn't super sharp). Of course it'd be nice if I can use it for weddings and stuff too.

 

I'm a Canon shooter. Money IS an object but I've been known to splurge on something that I know I'd really like I'd like to hear your opinions on UWA lenses. I've looked at a few 16-35, 17-40 etc but I figure I'd just ask.

 

I also have 24mm+ covered so ideally under that. I don't know much about Zeiss and I've never really considered TS lenses cuz of the price. I have considered a nikon 14-24 with an adapter tho since I hear it's pretty much like the ultimate zoom UWA lens. I love primes but in this case, if something like the 14-24 is sharp at all rangers, then why not? Oh and I'm not that into fisheyes since when I say landscape I mean more natural landscapes vs architecture and stuff.

 

Any insight/opinions? Pics always welcome too

[Veng]

What happened to your crop body and your tokina 11-16?

 

A few questions can steer you into the lens you want.

 

1) Do you want a prime or a zoom?

2) What's the budget?

3) Do you need AF?

4) Do you need filters?

5) What's the minimum focal length that's acceptable?

6) Is a crop body + lens an acceptable solution? There are used body+lens that are extremely wide such as the 8-16mm (12.8-25.6mm FF) or the 10-22 that would be much less than many FF options!

 

Also, I think the tokina can go down to 12-13mm without heavily vignetting on your FF.

[doppelganger]

What happened to your crop body and your tokina 11-16? The wife has it now =/ Old old rebel. Still have the tokina but she uses it alot.

 

A few questions can steer you into the lens you want.

 

1) Do you want a prime or a zoom? either is fine as long as there's decent edge to edge sharpness. If it's a prime tho, I'd rather it be as far away from 24mm as possible. Thus why i was even taking a look at the nikon lens.

 

2) What's the budget? hm... tough one. Ideally under 1K tho if someone can convince me how amazing something is 2K is an option

 

3) Do you need AF? Nice to have but no. I would sacrifice AF for tack sharpness

 

4) Do you need filters? Good question. I've never used filters on my UWA before. Do I NEED them? no. The nice thing about the 17-40 is that it takes the same filter thread as my 24-105

 

5) What's the minimum focal length that's acceptable? Ideally wider is better. as for max minimum, I'm open. 17 is probably the limit. Anything higher and I don't think I probably won't get the wow factor I'm looking for.

 

6) Is a crop body + lens an acceptable solution? There are body+lens that are extremely wide such as the 8-16mm (12.8-25.6mm FF) that would be less than some FF options! Probably not. I don't think I could sell the idea that I "need" another body to my wife vs another lens. I mean I know I can buy a new body and just take the tokina back but I'm just looking for an excuse to use my FF and expand my lens collection

[flypenfly]

Canon makes some of the best TS lenses on the market, I would get that if I were stuck shooting Canon.

[Veng]

 

 

What happened to your crop body and your tokina 11-16? The wife has it now =/ Old old rebel. Still have the tokina but she uses it alot.

 

A few questions can steer you into the lens you want.

 

1) Do you want a prime or a zoom? either is fine as long as there's decent edge to edge sharpness. If it's a prime tho, I'd rather it be as far away from 24mm as possible. Thus why i was even taking a look at the nikon lens.

 

2) What's the budget? hm... tough one. Ideally under 1K tho if someone can convince me how amazing something is 2K is an option

 

3) Do you need AF? Nice to have but no. I would sacrifice AF for tack sharpness

 

4) Do you need filters? Good question. I've never used filters on my UWA before. Do I NEED them? no. The nice thing about the 17-40 is that it takes the same filter thread as my 24-105

 

5) What's the minimum focal length that's acceptable? Ideally wider is better. as for max minimum, I'm open. 17 is probably the limit. Anything higher and I don't think I probably won't get the wow factor I'm looking for.

 

6) Is a crop body + lens an acceptable solution? There are body+lens that are extremely wide such as the 8-16mm (12.8-25.6mm FF) that would be less than some FF options! Probably not. I don't think I could sell the idea that I "need" another body to my wife vs another lens. I mean I know I can buy a new body and just take the tokina back but I'm just looking for an excuse to use my FF and expand my lens collection

 

 

 

If you want to stay in your budget, the 17-40 F/4L is pretty much the decision. If you want to look at the "next level up" then you are looking at the 16-35 F/2.8L or the 14L

 

The TS-E 17mm f/4L tilt shift is a hell of a lens as well, but at 2200$ probably outside your budget and are not going to beat the 16 or 17 zooms in sharpness.

[flypenfly]

I would be really surprised if the prime tilt shift doesn't beat zooms in sharpness. If that is the case, Canon should just stop making lenses.

[Veng]

I would be really surprised if the prime tilt shift doesn't beat zooms in sharpness. If that is the case, Canon should just stop making lenses.

Except that those zooms are optimized at the wide end anyways and it's a tilt shift lens, not just a prime. And I'm not saying the 16 & 17 are better, I'm just saying it's not a night and day thing.

 

I'll defer to Bryan Carnathan on this one.

While not as jaw-droppingly sharp as the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II Tilt-Shift Lens, the Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L Tilt-Shift Lens is quite sharp wide open in the center. Mid and corner portions of the frame appreciate a somewhat narrowed aperture to bring out their best. The TS-E 17 does not trounce the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens or Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens (both at 17mm) for sharpness, but the TS-E 17 definitely has some strong advantages. A notable one is that the TS-E 17 L's extreme full frame corners do not turn to mush even wide open at f/4. They stay sharp. Review the top-left 100% crop samples below.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-17mm-f-4-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

[Withers]

the 17-40L is a fantastic lens. I like my 24-105 for landscape stuff but you said you already have that range covered. Anything less than 24mm and the distortion annoys me.

[doppelganger]

Thanks for the input everyone. I've heard the 17-40 can be soft tho I don't know if it'd bother me that much. Any 3rd party options stack up?

 

I was hoping you would respond vic... tho you changed your name to confuse me!

[Veng]

If you are in a major city, you can probably rent the 17-40 for ~25$ for a single day. Rent it and find out if it's too soft for you or not. Much better than spending hours and hours reading other people's opinions, in my humble (if ironic) opinion.

[Withers]

Oh I didn't know the 17-40 could be soft, the copy I had was pretty sharp. I sold it for a 10-22 and couldn't tell a difference in sharpness between the 2, they were both awesome.

[doppelganger]

If you are in a major city, you can probably rent the 17-40 for ~25$ for a single day. Rent it and find out if it's too soft for you or not. Much better than spending hours and hours reading other people's opinions, in my humble (if ironic) opinion.

 

ya that's always a good option.

 

or I can hope and pray for something like this http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-ef-12-24-f2-8l-cr1/ Tho I'd probably prefer it to be f4.

[Veng]

 

ya that's always a good option.

 

or I can hope and pray for something like this http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-ef-12-24-f2-8l-cr1/ Tho I'd probably prefer it to be f4.

The 100-400L replacement has been rumored to be "just around the corner" for like 5 years... nothing moves fast with canon and lens. If there hasn't been a press release announcing it's release, it doesn't exist.

 

Don't get me wrong, love the idea of that lens.

[doppelganger]

haha I know I can dream can't I!? Geez!

[flypenfly]

Except that those zooms are optimized at the wide end anyways and it's a tilt shift lens, not just a prime. And I'm not saying the 16 & 17 are better, I'm just saying it's not a night and day thing.

 

I'll defer to Bryan Carnathan on this one.http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-17mm-f-4-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

 

TS lenses are in general the sharpest primes because they don't usually try to compete on speed but optimizing the size of their imaging circle. This means sharper corners and less compromise.

 

Taking a quick peak at manuf and measured MTF, the TS-E lenses outshine the zooms in critical sharpness. I would venture the TS-Es are also better at other critical measures as well as flare.

 

Just an FYI too, that site is one of the worst out there bordering on kenRockwell's level of bias.