Best wide angle Lens for 5Dmk2

<p>Hi there,<br>

I haven't got any lenses at the moment, as I'm a GF1 user with 20mm (equivalent 40mm for a 24x36). I would like to buy a full frame censor since long time ago and I think the time is coming as the price is going down on second hand market. I think I will choose a Canon 5Dmk2 (low coast & good quality) over the sony A900 (too less lenses I imagine?), Nikon D700 & D3 (too much buttons a bit more expensive, I always prefer Canon).<br>

I love taking wide angle pictures from landscapes with great colors when there is sun or sunset, low light urban street photography... and maybe I will try to make more portraits one day but it's not really what I'd like to do actually...<br>

I know, it's a very basic question, but it's so hard to have one and only one answer as it's a very subjective subject... I wonder wt's the starting budget to have a very, very good quality lenses kit, all around, with a bright aperture, like the 24, 35, 50, 80 mm, for beginning. I've never been really friend with teleobjective : too heavy, too far as I can walk to get closer (sometime)... I don't like having to change so often my objective on my camera, I prefer quality over versatility. I love the smallest ones too... I prefer a better quality than a zoom.<br>

I've been reading this interesting article (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/lens_faq.html) and I must admit that I'm very surprised with the results, Canon L doesn't seem's to be the best lenses at all, many lenses but not the best? I'm not really pleased with the idea of not having an AF function without exif and everything else...<br>

What will be a good starting kit for quite wide angle but also a good all around every day use? On the other hand I must admit than I'm not affraid of passing time on post production to make better pictures, if it's possible to make some good corrections?<br>

Here is my list at the moment :<br>

<strong>- Canon </strong><strong>EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM</strong></p>

<p ><strong>- </strong><strong><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF50mm-f-1-8-II/(camera)/436">Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II</a></strong></p>

<p ><strong>----</strong><br>

- Sigma 15-30mm<br>

- <strong>Tokina AT-X 16-28 F2.8 PRO FX <strong>(maybe too big)</strong></strong></p>

<p >- Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L<br>

<strong>- </strong><strong>Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM (maybe too big)</strong></p>

<strong><br /></strong>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>If I went FF, I would want a 5D, 17-40/4L, 24-105/4L IS, and 70-200/4L IS. Since I don't have the money, and don't want to lug around the weight, I'll stick with APS-C. I have a T1i, 10-22, 17-85, and 70-210. I haven't started saving money for a FF set, and probably never will.</p>

<p>If you want <strong>"the best"</strong>, you need to check out the Leica forum. Seriously, any Leica user will confirm this!</p>

<p>If I were in your shoes and wanted a single lens on the wide end, I would get the 17-40mm f/4 L. If I wanted a single prime, I'd get the Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>There's no "best" wide angle. For what you're used to, a 35/1.4L would be a natural progression. Very close to the field of view you are used to. That and a24-105L, (true, on the big side, but eminently versatile) and you'd be good to go.</p>

<p>The 35 f1.4 is a superlative lens. The 24 and 17 TS-E lenses, though not AF, are two of the finest and lowest distortion ultra wides available from any manufacturer.</p>

<p>All these lenses, as well as the 17-40, 16-35 etc are used by good photographers to make wonderful images, there are very few photographers who are better than these lenses.</p>

<p>There is no "best" lens, what works for me might no work for you. In yur position I would get a general purpose zoom, the 24-70, and see where I was using it and if it was letting me down, Annie Leibovitz seems happy with her one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>low coast & good quality</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I love taking wide angle pictures from landscapes with great colors when there is sun or sunset, low light urban street photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure what your definition of 'low cost' is. Let us know your budget. In my opinion, given your intended uses and your concern about cost, I would say the best bang for your buck may be the Canon 17-40mm f/4L lens. It is remarkably sharp when slightly stopped down and, IMHO, sharp even wide open. It is one of my favourite Canon lenses ever.</p>

<p>For low-light street photography on a budget, Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is no slouch. It has many naysayers, but it is a fine lens if you understand its limitations.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You seem to have a very fuzzy idea of what a "wide angle" lens is. There is no way that a 50mm lens will be "wide angle" on either APS-C or 35mm-sensor cameras. The inexpensive EF 50mmm f/1.8 lens is a fine lens, but is a short telephoto on one and a 'normal' lens on the other.</p>

<p>It <em>would</em> be a wide angle on a 6x6cm format camera, though. 6cm format digital is a little pricey right now, alas.</p>

<p>I currently have only two EF wide angle primes, the 24/1.4 L II and the 35/1.4 L (as well as an EF-mount Samyang 14/2.8), and no EF wide angle zooms. The reason that I get rid of my wide angle zooms and kept the primes is that I do most of my shooting at wider apertures (seldom going narrower than f/5.6), and the primes deliver much better image quality at such apertures.</p>

<p>However, if you primarily shoot landscapes from a tripod and using apertures from f/8 to, say, f/16, I'd recommend that you get either the EF 24/2.8 and the 35/2, or just the 17-40/4 L. Either these two primes or the one zoom come in at well under $1000, while the L primes will set you back over $1500 <em>each</em>. And while the TS-E L's are great for landscapes and architecture, they cost substantially more than even the regular L primes. </p>

<p>I think a good strategy would be to start off with a good wide angle zoom, like the 17-40mm 4.0L, and eventually after a period gradually switch to those expensive primes when you have a clearer picture of what you want to acchieve.<br>

I went down that route, starting with a 20-35mm 2.8L, then aquiring the Zeiss 21mm 2.8, the Canon 35mm 1.4L and the Canon 17mm 4.0L in that order. I sold off the zoom in the middle of that,</p>

<p>when I reed the chapter resolution in this article : <br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5DIIreview.shtml<br>

I feel like a zoom is not the best to use for having great quality...</p>

<p>I think I will prefer having good prime fixed focus lenses working well at almost every aperture, than having a zoom with bad resolution interpretation. I can accept some chromatic aberration if I'm able to correct it with software. </p>

<p>When i speak about 50 mm I know it's no more wide angle, but I was speaking in a larger way. For my pictures I prefer shooting between 24 mm and 80 mm, to be more precise. Sorry for my bad english, my mother tongue is french... That's why sometimes I've got some trouble to be very clear...<br>

I've been looking for leica and canon can only fit LEICA R...<br>

I've been trying to use a 35mm voigtlander f/1.7 on my GF1 and I'm not very happy with it. There is a better quality for sure but making the FOCUS could be hard sometime, and not having the exif info is a bit boring sometime for archival part... <br>

well overall I'm a bit disapointed with all the bad comment I can read everywhere about finding the good lenses for the canon MK2, maybe will wait to see wt's happen with 5dmk3 ?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Some zooms are of excellent quality and come very close to matching "prime" lenses and in any case probably most great landscape pictures these days are taken with zooms. You really need to branch out and read much more widely before accepting one particular (and minority) view.</p>

<p>Grab one of Ang's excellent books from DK Press on digital and other photography.</p>

<p>I'm actually reading michael freeman books, it's really interesting...</p>

<p>At f/8 or smaller, just about any quality lens will get you the results you need, so for landscapes, you probably don't need to worry about lens. Yes you can pay more and get a bit more, but no one has ever looked at one of my landscapes under a loupe (which is more or less what the 16x9 reviews are doing) before purchasing one. Composition and lighting matter a lot more than sharpness. If you want to do better landscapes, get a TS-E lens so you can control the DOF. <br>

As for low-light street photography, anything fast will work. Sure it would be nice for the lens to be tack-sharp wide-open, but those lenses don't exist, and in any case, people aren't the most detailed subjects in the world. As for the corner sharpness that people obsess over... I really don't see the point for street photography where typically nothing much of interest ends up the corners. You probably can't do much better than the 35/1.4 without giving up AF (which is very useful unless you plan on changing out your focusing screen) and even the Zeiss and Leica lenses are still less than tack-sharp wide-open. </p>

 

<p>I agree with Craig. I too have never understood the rationale for corner sharpness when shooting wide open.</p>

<p>Zooms, typically, won't give you the absolute best IQ at any given focal length, but considering you are switching systems, format, and shooting style in one fell swoop, picking a random prime may not give you the greatest results overall -- regardless of the amount of reviews proclaiming that random lens the best ever built.</p>

<p>It's my impression that you don't really know exactly what you want for certain, nor what you precisely need. While landscapes are easy to do w/o AF, street photography is a different ballgame, and it definitely benefits from decent AF. Also (as others have pointed out), at f8+, and decent lens should give you excellent IQ (even a zoom) for landscapes, while street photography rarely benefits from corner -> corner sharpness, so obsessing over the lab results, and book reviews, of particular lenses wont help you produce great work.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm inclined to suggest (again, as others have pointed out) a GP wide angle zoom like a used 17-40/4 as a great first step. Not the fastest, nor the best (esp. WO), but it has a wide range within which you can work easily, AF (plus FTM), exif data, and, stopped down, really very good IQ. Once you've found the limits of that lens, I expect you'll know exactly what you <em>need</em> to improve your shooting (whether that's a 24/1.4L, a 35/1.4L, a Z. 21/2.8, a TS17/4, whatever.), plus, since you've all the exif data to reference, you know what your favorite focal lengths/f stops are. I doubt any book is going to tell you how you love to shoot, and, by buying a used lens, you can sell it again for virtually no loss.</p>

<p>Anytime someone asks a general "what is the best lens?" question I cringe just a bit. This is sort of like asking, "what is the best dessert?" or "what is the best car?" or "what is the best color?"</p>

<p>It depends - a lot - on how you will use the lens. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I like taking my Ferrari off-road</p>

<p>I had the 24L II and although it is a very good lens, it just didn't do it for me. I sold it and got the 35L which I love dearly. Great bokeh, sharp at 1.4 and just a great multi-purpose lens, but I don't really consider it wide.<br>

My 24-105 is getting more use these days but at 24 it does distort more than the 16-35 and I really don't use it in the wider end of the focal lengths. It's more useful in the 50 mm and on FL's for me.<br>

If I need WA I reach for my 16-35 II which is a great lens. 16 is wide without giving a fisheye type distortion. The focal range is very useful and 2.8 does the job in most light.</p>

<p>As Dan said though, lens choice is a very personal issue. You may end up buying and selling a few lenses until you find the right one for your personal tastes and shooting style.</p>

<p>Actualy I'm using a GF1 with two lenses :<br /> - 70 mm (voigtlander 35mm ultron),<br /> - 40mm (20 mm Panasonic).<br /> The 35 mm is too close and the 20 mm is also a bit too close, but it's my favorite, maybe cause it's more easier to use. I really miss a real viewfinder, maybe GFX1 will correspond better than a 5D.<br>

<br /> As some people used to comment a 35mm will, maybe, be my favorite... I don't love so much when there is to much distortions in perspective so 21mm is surely too much wide, who knows? Finally a Zoom could be the issue? Will try to see if I found some friends to let me try there own equipement, just need to know what to ask at the right moment, thanks for your help.<br>

<br /> I've been puting some pictures, comments are welcomed, just to give you an idea of what I like.<br /> Maybe, pictures will talk you more than words:<br /> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1017880</p>

<p>Nicolas, you need 28/1.8 lens, you can work almost in darkness with this lens, when you stop it down the color and contrast are excelent but also very decent statring from 2.0. I use this lens and I am very happy with it. It is bright and not that heavy like canon zooms. I also love my 20/2.8 lens.</p>