Best wide angle canon lens for an EF mount

[benjaminphotography]

[h=5]Upgrading my entry level canon dslr to full frame sensor (probably 5D mk2), as i am currently using the EF-S mount on the 10-22 which is not supported by full frame dslr's I need a new landscape ( Wide Angle EF) lens. Would like to spend under 2g.

Should I purchase a:

- wide angle prime EF 14mm f/2.8

- tilt-shift TSE 17mm f/4L or TSE 24mm f/3.5

- wide angle zoom EF 16-35mm f/2.8 f/4 or EF 17-40mm f/4

I am probably leaning towards the EF 16-35 but have heard mixed reports about the 14mm. Some also recommend the 24-70 on full frame, does this provide enough width?

Thanks in advance for your help.
benjaminphotography.com.au

[Old Skool]

Don't Sigma make a 12 - 24mm lens that can be used on full frame??
Otherwise you could try this with your 10-22mm (of course at your own risk!) http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonds...7604422834954/

[MarkChap]

be very careful with that modification.
At 10mm the internal rear element of the lens WILL contact the mirror

As for your questions for equivelant field of view to what you have now, the 16-35 is pretty damn close and a lot wider than a 24-70

[Mark L]

G'day and welcome to AP
Not everyone looks at the intro threads, so you may get some extra knowledgeable advise if you post your question in the Canon forum here .... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...y.php?16-Canon
As I'm not far of buying an WA lens, where you happy with the 10-22? It's one of my choices.
See you around AP hopefully.

[mrrunx]

If you were happy with the 10-22mm then you'd be happy with the 16-35mm. I also own a entry level camera with the 10-22mm lens and looking at the 6d. If I had $2k for just lenses I would get the 17-40mm f4 + 24-70mm f4. You get a good travel lens, a wide angle for landscapes and a bit of macro aswell.

Hope this helps

[fabian628]

i use the 24mm tse, nice lens. the v1 is fairly cheap, but has limited movements. the v2 is nice, but not super wide. i personally found i dont need super wide lenses for landscape, thats j\ust me, some people like ultra wide. if you feel 24mm would not be wide enought, i think ant of the ultra wide zoom/primes you mentione would e good

[Fedgrub]

I would go for the 16-35mm because it's less restrictive than the others. At least you have a little bit of zoom, and while primes are good value for teaching you to move around, if it's one lens you have I would say get a zoom, then build your prime collection.

[mikec]

- wide angle prime EF 14mm f/2.8

- tilt-shift TSE 17mm f/4L or TSE 24mm f/3.5

- wide angle zoom EF 16-35mm f/2.8 f/4 or EF 17-40mm f/4

Those are all kind of lenses for different applications.

TS-E's are very expensive, non-AF and take a while to get just right for corrections which is the main reason for them. AUS stock will also blow your budget. For general day to day shooting I wouldn't recommend a TS-E. The 17mm also won't take any sort of filter, so you need to hand hold them.

14mm is a very nice prime but can't take any sort of filters due to the bulbous front element. I don't think it's that much wider than 16mm personally. Nice lens and probably the widest but still best performing lens Canon probably make.

The zooms are the most versatile and it comes down to some IQ and use considerations to which one to get. The 17-40 is the most budget of the lot and probably the lowest in terms of IQ.

The 16-35 is a bit wider and a stop faster, IQ is better too. It's a pain with square format filters as you need to go to 100mm wide and takes a 82mm threaded filter which is a bit of an odd size.

I rate my 16-35 for a good all-round, daily perfomance lens.

[Steve Axford]

The 14mm f2.8 is an extraordinary lens. I use it more and more as I figure out how to use it properly. It is sharp down to 2.8, except for a tiny bit in the corners, not that it gets used at 2.8 very much. It is rectilinear, which means that if you have the lens straight, then lines will be straight - dead straight. This is the hard bit, keeping you shots straight and working out the perspective changes when you move the lens slightly. No filters will fit the lens. I saw one comment that a person would not buy the Nikon version (which is also a zoom) because they couldn't use a polariser. Crazy, since you shouldn't really use a polariser with such a wide angle anyway.
The other great lens that you listed is the 17mm TS, you can do lots with a TS, and even the 16-35 has a great reputation. I disagree than you need a zoom as almost all your shots will be at 16mm anyway and the 14mm is a lot wider than 16mm. I glanced at a review and was surprised to see that that complained about vignetting when wide open. I've never noticed any, but then I use the lens at f8 to f16 and at those settings it is superb.

[William W]

I agree that TS-E lenses are specialty lenses.

And also I agree that the 14/2.8MkII is extraordinary – though I have only used the original version of this lens.

I however disagree with the assumption that all of your [landscape] photos will automatically be made at 16 mm, if you buy a 16 to 35 zoom lens.

***

Because the TS-E lenses are specialty lenses, is the reason I only have one (the 90) and I mainly use it for Portraiture.

And because the 14L is so extraordinary, that makes it (for me) also ‘speciality’ and is the reason why I didn’t buy one.

***

IF you appreciated the RANGE of shots you could make with your EF-S 10 to 22, then you will appreciate the RANGE and VERSATILITY of using either the 16 to 35/2.8MkII or the 17 to 40/4.

I chose to (upgrade) my 16 to 35, when the 16 to 35 MkII was released. For me, the 16 to 35Mkii, is a stunningly good lens and very versatile and usually close to hand.

I don’t find the large filter size much of a pain; as I only have two filters for it – a UV and an strong ND; and although expensive, both filters were value for money as both have been oft used.

Although I don’t do much “Landscape” per se, I would feel very limited using only the 16mm end of a (this) zoom for “landscape work”.


***


My advice is that you need to choose exactly what USES and OUTCOMES you want:

If you see yourself using a TS-E 17 with full tripod and rig, manually focussing using Live View and controlling the Tilt and Shift for precision alignment and DoF AND perhaps building a Light Box filter holder and perhaps investing in a LEE system or similar to get those NDs happening – and shooting HDRI technique – then the investment in the TS-E 17 might be exactly the challenge and fun you require.

However if you want a more ‘general’ lens then I believe that either of the zooms are a better choice for you.

That then leaves the 14/2.8MkII on which to comment.

Well, for me, this would be a ‘passion purchase’ – it will be a lens that I expect I will buy and use not too often throughout the year, but when it is loaded on my camera, I expect I will use it for days at a time – and not just for “landscapes”.

I don’t think that buying a 14/2.8L ‘(just)for landscapes’, is very good logic – I think the lens should be used for much more than that purpose, to warrant buying it..

***

You asked specifically about the 24 to 70 being wide enough:

I have a 24 to 70 and - NO: it is not wide enough - in some cases I would like wider than 24 on a 5D for Landscapes – enough cases to warrant my having a wider lens than 24mm.

But for me there are more cases I like wider than 24mm for other photography also – not just Landscapes.

Just because playing with different angles is fun:


“Piano Bar”


“Stares at Stairs”


***


If you like to fiddle at the wide end for Interior Shots or you dabble in Available Light Portraiture, then I expect you will find the extra stop of lens speed in the 16 to 35/2.8 MkII, quite useful to you. and extra 1mm does come in handy – but in reality, not all that often:



“Peter Sesselmann, Artist”


BUT - on the other hand, if you expect to be stopped down to F/8 somewhere and on a tripod and remote release and any low light hand held stuff like indoor Portraiture will be with Flash assist – then the extra 5mm at the long end might be handy and the cash you save buying the 17 to 40/4 instead, can be spent on some other lens . . . what else do you want to buy?

***

BTW -

I also don’t think that “Landscapes” automatically means: “use a Wide Angle Lens".
I do believe that a Range of Focal Lengths (say about 16 to 200) is just about an ‘ideal set’ for “Landscapes”:



"Three Yellow Toys"

Technical - EOS 5D; EF70 to 200 F/2.8L USM; Tripod.



WW

[Steve Axford]

I don't value zooms, but that maybe just be me, though I do regret not having one for video. I agree that the 14mm is much more than a landscape lens. I find that it is my most used lens as I also use it for indoor shots that are just not possible with any other Canon lens. I use it for video a lot as it can be hand held and has a superb dof. When travelling recently in NE India, it was the lens that stayed on my camera almost all the time. I would sometimes swap it for a portrait lens and rarely for my 50mm, but my 24mm went virtually unused. I think I mentioned that it is not an easy lens to use, but once you master it, it really is something special. On the other hand, if you want to use filters at all and wish to have the versatility of a zoom, then go for the 16-35.

[William W]

@ Steve Axford.
Those are two interesting comments: about the 14mm for video; and the unused 24mm.
I often use my 24mm, for video. Your comments make me think more about how much I might like the 14mm.
Thanks . . . for the help in spending my money!

WW

[Roosta]

There's quite a few to choose from.
Firstly, how wide do you want the WA or UWA?
Are you only looking at OEM lenses?
There are some very good third party lenses for FF, like these

Do you need F 2.8? will F4 do?

We here can recommend all we want, but you've not given a lot to go on. A 24-70 F 2.8/F 4 shot in portrait mode and stitched may do all you need, and so on.

If I had to pick one for FF, the update to what I have would be my pick, 16 - 35 mm F 2.8 MK11

Looking at your site, I feel a Prime is NOT what you want, the versatility of a UWA zoom would look to be your best bet.