Wide angle selection help for a 5D Mk3

[Ventureoverland]

Firstly apologies for not being around of late. Work is very busy at the moment...

I currently have a 5D Mk3 and 24-70 f2.8L and always seem to be stiching pano's together because the 24 isnt quite wide enough. Have fancied a wide angle for a while, but could never really bring myself to spend the $$!!

Anyway, last night the mrs told me that she would like to go to New York for Christmas... Never one to miss an opportunity (for travel, photo oportunities (or photo gear!!)) I said "good idea". Ive never been to NY before but I can imaging LOTS of people, lots of big things Id like to shoot photograph and not a lot of space. Im also thinking indoors that the light may be limited and so would like something fast (I dont have a flash) so I dont have to crank the ISO up too far.

Despite reading a lot about the 17-40L f4, 10-22 and 16-35L f2.8, I quickly started gravitating toward the 16-35 L f2.8 Mkii and that this should be the lens to buy or rent for a few weeks. Then I started thinking about when all things are equal, how much actual difference is there between 16 and 24mm? i.e. How much more could I fit in the frame and is that extra (bit of??) frame worth the $.

Does anyone have any (or links to) images taken where all things remain constant apart from the focal length, ie 16mm compared to 24mm? I had a quick google and couldn't find anything.

Assuming I end up with one of the above mentioned lenses I would also take the 24-70 and I suspect leave the 70-200 f2.8 at home - good idea or not do you think?


Open ended thread I know, but thoughts and suggestions welcomed.

Thx
Jon

[Hayaku]

Just to clarify, is the 10-22 you mention the canon EF-S 10-22mm one? Pretty sure that won't work on a full frame.

[Fruengalli]

I've got a 5d2 & really tossed about 16_28 2 v 17_40 & ended up with 17_40.Half the price & opened up good enough for most shots for me.My choice 24L without a doubt....keep saving.

[Ventureoverland]

Just to clarify, is the 10-22 you mention the canon EF-S 10-22mm one? Pretty sure that won't work on a full frame.

Yeah, I was talking about the Canon 10-22 and indeed found out its an EF-S lens shortly after posting my first post.

I should have amended the post but got distracted with work - apologies.

Thanks.
J

[Blackberner]

One vote for the 17-40. I bought one after tossing over the 17-40, 16-35 selection dilemma. Went with 17-40 after getting a great price for it locally. It suits my needs for landscapes as I rarely go wide open.....

[Ventureoverland]

One vote for the 17-40. I bought one after tossing over the 17-40, 16-35 selection dilemma. Went with 17-40 after getting a great price for it locally. It suits my needs for landscapes as I rarely go wide open.....

and thats sort of my dilemma... I could save the $ and get the 17-40 for my landscape stuff and that would be fine for 75% of the time, but as a wide angle lens for use indoors / lower light conditions I suspect Id always kick myself for not getting the 16-35 f2.8.

Would still like to see some 16mm (or 17mm) against the same shot at 24mm, ideally on a full frame if anybody has any.

thx
J

[Wobbles]

Hi Jon,
there's a nice comparison of focal lengths here http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=8

Cheers
John

[Tannin]

Cheers Jon. I don't have samples handy but put it this way: the difference between 24mm and 16mm is significant but not massive.

There really are not too many choices for ultra-wide on full frame. I used to run two bodies back in APS-C days (24-105 and either 10-22 or Tokina 10-17) and that worked well, given the extra weight involved, but since swapping to a 5D II (still with the 24-105), that very wide (for a standard lens) wide end of the 24-105 (equivalent to 15mm on APS-C) means that the second body and the genuine ultra-wide gets very little use. Most things (not all but most) that work well at 10mm on the 50D will almost be OK at 24mm on the 5D II ...... so in the end, I often take just the one body and live without ultra-wide. I'm not entirely happy with that.

So I look at the options for UWA on full frame and ..... well, there is

• 17-40/4. Cheap, fast enough, well made, great IQ .... but not very wide. Seems hard to justify.
• 16-35/2.8 (Mark 1 and Mark II). Great IQ, fast (if that matters to you, which it doesn't to me), very wide ... but bulky, very heavy, and very, very expensive. Close, but no cigar.
• Sigma 12-24. Mega, mega wide, and quite cheap, but the IQ is pretty ordinary. In fact, you might come quite close to getting better IQ from a 50D and a 10-22. We would all love the extra width but it seems hard to come at mounting a lens this mediocre on a body with the image quality potential of a 5D. Pass.
• Canon 8-15/4 fish. The most stupid design idea since I put triangular wheels on my bike. I doubt I'd use one if you gave it to me.
• Several Tokina products, all (it seems to me) with conceptual flaws which make them, all things considered, fairly unattractive.

So in the end, I carry on with the 50D and the 10-22 for ultra-wide. You ... I reckon your best bets would be either one of the Canon 16-35/2.8s or else the well-regarded Tokina 16-28/2.8, which is said to be very sharp and lots cheaper but very big and heavy.

[Hayaku]

There is an app for android phones called canonsglens. one of the things it can show is the angle of view for a picture and compare 2 lenses at a time at different focal lengths. It is limited though to just canon lenses.

[Ventureoverland]

Hi Jon,
there's a nice comparison of focal lengths here http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=8

Cheers
John

Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for, specifically the 17-24mm comarison - Ive lost count how many portrait stiches Ive had to do to achieve these kind of shots.

- - - Updated - - -

There is an app for android phones called canonsglens. one of the things it can show is the angle of view for a picture and compare 2 lenses at a time at different focal lengths. It is limited though to just canon lenses.

Well I never! I already had this app on my iPhone and didnt know it did the focal length comparison!

Thanks

- - - Updated - - -

Cheers Jon. I don't have samples handy but put it this way: the difference between 24mm and 16mm is significant but not massive.

There really are not too many choices for ultra-wide on full frame. I used to run two bodies back in APS-C days (24-105 and either 10-22 or Tokina 10-17) and that worked well, given the extra weight involved, but since swapping to a 5D II (still with the 24-105), that very wide (for a standard lens) wide end of the 24-105 (equivalent to 15mm on APS-C) means that the second body and the genuine ultra-wide gets very little use. Most things (not all but most) that work well at 10mm on the 50D will almost be OK at 24mm on the 5D II ...... so in the end, I often take just the one body and live without ultra-wide. I'm not entirely happy with that.

So I look at the options for UWA on full frame and ..... well, there is

• 17-40/4. Cheap, fast enough, well made, great IQ .... but not very wide. Seems hard to justify.
• 16-35/2.8 (Mark 1 and Mark II). Great IQ, fast (if that matters to you, which it doesn't to me), very wide ... but bulky, very heavy, and very, very expensive. Close, but no cigar.
• Sigma 12-24. Mega, mega wide, and quite cheap, but the IQ is pretty ordinary. In fact, you might come quite close to getting better IQ from a 50D and a 10-22. We would all love the extra width but it seems hard to come at mounting a lens this mediocre on a body with the image quality potential of a 5D. Pass.
• Canon 8-15/4 fish. The most stupid design idea since I put triangular wheels on my bike. I doubt I'd use one if you gave it to me.
• Several Tokina products, all (it seems to me) with conceptual flaws which make them, all things considered, fairly unattractive.

So in the end, I carry on with the 50D and the 10-22 for ultra-wide. You ... I reckon your best bets would be either one of the Canon 16-35/2.8s or else the well-regarded Tokina 16-28/2.8, which is said to be very sharp and lots cheaper but very big and heavy.

Thanks Tony,
Your logic came to the same 2 lenses as I got to yesterday evening... I then also threw in the 14mm prime and considered that for a while, but upon further reading it appears there is a bit of technique required to get good results from it - all well and good if your setup on a tripod, but maybe not hand-held...

I pretty much discounted the Tokina based on its weight and questionable weather sealing (I spend a good amount of time in dusty overland 4x4s and have killed a few lesser quality lenses with dirt & dust ingress before today ).

So that brings me back full circle... 16-35 Mkii f2.8 or the outsider, 14mm L - though Im not at all sure I like the bulbus end on the 14mm because I dont think I could ever attach a filter, LEE or others.

I think I need to do some leg-work and play with them before diving in with both feet.

Thx
Jon

[Warbler]

Something else for you to consider. You're going to New York City, right? Guess what is in New York? Only some of the biggest and cheapest camera retailers like B&H Video. You could go into their store and try every lens known to man, pick the one you want. Pay bugger all for it, and claim the taxes back at the airport on the way home, declare it to Oz Customs (if you must) and claim it at a depreciated rate on the way back in, because it was used on the trip.

I had gear bought from Ritz Camera in the US brought in by a friend over their shoulder. They declared it and worked out a depreciated rate with customs and it was fine. The downside? No original boxes.

Of, I almost forgot. Don't expect B&H to be open on the Sabbath or any other Jewish Holiday, so ring ahead when you hit NY.

[Ventureoverland]

Something else for you to consider. You're going to New York City, right? Guess what is in New York? Only some of the biggest and cheapest camera retailers like B&H Video. You could go into their store and try every lens known to man, pick the one you want. Pay bugger all for it, and claim the taxes back at the airport on the way home, declare it to Oz Customs (if you must) and claim it at a depreciated rate on the way back in, because it was used on the trip.

I had gear bought from Ritz Camera in the US brought in by a friend over their shoulder. They declared it and worked out a depreciated rate with customs and it was fine. The downside? No original boxes.

Of, I almost forgot. Don't expect B&H to be open on the Sabbath or any other Jewish Holiday, so ring ahead when you hit NY.

I'd forgotten all about B&H being in NYC! All of a sudden Im thinking Really Right Stuff too This could be an expensive trip

These may be simple questions, but humor me!!

"Claiming taxes back" - Is this done in the American Airport prior to departure to get my American TAX back?

Ive never heard about declaring and agreeing a depreciated value. Presumably, the agreed depreciated value is that what you pay tax on when / if declared upon entry of AUS Airport / customs?

Thx
J


Edit:
Just seen this on the B&H site:
"B&H only collects New York sales tax for purchases made in our New York Superstore or for orders shipped to an address within New York State. Sales tax is not a VAT, and cannot be recovered by non-USA visitors when returning home."

Does this mean that I couldnt claim any taxes back when leaving the country? I dont know how the NYC tax system works, there seems to be an 8.xx% Sales Tax, is there a VAT as well that I could claim back?
Any enlightened ones out there?

Thx
J

[Hayaku]

I don't think the the US has a VAT per se, they seem to run on a state by state sales tax. What bugs me about it is that it is always price shown is always exclusive of that tax.

Also, I don't remember the US having a tax back system but I could be wrong about that.

[Warbler]

There'll be State and in some cases city taxes. You may be able to get your goodies tax free, but it's been a while since I was in NYC. As I recall though, some folks at the airport were prepared to "buy" you tax deduction at a discounted price. You can avoid the local taxes if you order and your delivery address is in say New Jersey, across the river. Check this stuff first, because as I say, my experience there was about ten years ago.

The depreciated amount just took into account that the goods were now used. Like I said though, you'd have to declare them for that to be necessary. If you don't and they catch you, don't expect any favours from them.

NYC gas a separate Sales Tax. Read this:

http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes...City-taxes.htm

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Travel...Sales.Tax.html

[William W]

Assuming I end up with one of the above mentioned lenses I would also take the 24-70 and I suspect leave the 70-200 f2.8 at home - good idea or not do you think?

I have never seen the need for a 70 to 200/2.8 when on holiday, especially in a city.

The 105 end of the 24 to 105 I have found handy: but I could live with 70mm.

But it is an individual thing.

WW

[Tannin]

I could not in my wildest dreams imagine a trip without a longish landscape lens like a 70-200! But, as William says, it is indeed an individual thing.

[Warbler]

I could not in my wildest dreams imagine a trip without a longish landscape lens like a 70-200! But, as William says, it is indeed an individual thing.

Great portrait lens too. +1

[Steve Axford]

I don't think the 17-40 is a good enough lens for the 5D Mk3. I think you will find it soft at the edges (like soggy toast). I think the 16-35 Mk2 is a far better lens. An even better choice would be the 14mm, but that is very expensive. I think a good wide angle is essential for travel. It allows you to get really close and still get what you want into the frame. Of course, New York buildings will burst any frame apart from a fisheye.

[William W]

^^^ (posts #16 & 17)

Yes, that was my point. It is indeed an individual thing.

I wouldn’t (don’t) take my 16 to 35MkII on holidays with a 5DMk(XXX), either - on an APS-C body yes, but not for a 5D: but the OP obviously has a need for something wider than 24mm on the 5DMkIII – again, it's individual.

Perhaps discussing what people’s rationale is, as to why they take, what they take on holiday, might be more useful.

My ‘holiday kit’ is (usually): 5D (battery grip); 24 to 105; 35/1.4; 15/2.8; SX40HS.

Rationale -

• I don’t use much wider than 24, even inside.
• The IS on the 24 to 105 is fantastic, esp. for inside.
• The 24 to 105 is a great Portrait Range on a 5D.
• The 5D can be pushed to ISO 3200, if necessary.
• I don’t want longer than 105.
• The 35 is fantastic for Street work.
• The fish is for fun or for really tight inside – always can de-fished, if necessary.
• The PowerShot is for movies and stills back-up – it also has PuF, if Flash is absolutely necessary.
• All fits easily into a Slingshot – the 5D 24 to 105 always ready – the 24 to 105 does 80% of the images.
• Enough room in the bag for all the other necessary stuff.
• The total kit is both underweight and undersize – even for any Airlines’ carry-on baggage policies.

WW

Also, I just read S Axford's comment: I agree that the 16 to 35MkII is a superior lens to the 17 to 40. I look at most lens' purchases as long term issue and the intitial sting wears off after a few weeks.

[Dylan & Marianne]

It depends on what you want to photograph
To answer some specific questions:
16mm vs 24mm in my opinion is massive in terms of landscape photography - I would say that a good 95% of the landscape shots that I take are within the 16-24mm range.
16mm vs 17mm is not so great - we've paired the 16-35mm with the mk3 and the 17-40 with the mk2. you may notice difference in quality at the edges but it's not as dramatic as you might come to expect unless you were planning on printing large images .
F2.8 vs F4 is important if you are planning to do night photography. Getting that extra stop of light with the 16-35 F2.8 allows you to either get brighter stars at a given iso, or allows you to not push the iso as far as you would need to for a given result with the 17-40 F4.
16mm for architecture is going to give you lots of distortion so if you don't mind that look it's all good.
We find that with our style of shooting, neither of the 2 wide angle lenses is as good as the 24-70 that you have as a walkaround lens in a city (though I do use 70-200 alot in a street and child portrait situation for Charlotte) in terms of versatility and what you might end up shooting .

So in summary, if you plan on doing alot of landscapes I'd get one of the wide angle lenses. If you're going to need F2.8 over F4 (alot of lowlight situation shooting and milky way) then I'd get the 16-35mm over the 17-40. If neither, then you may be able to save yourself some cash