Cost-Effective ~21mm Alternative for FF Landscapes?

<p>I'm currently using the 24-105 @24mm on a 5D2 for landscapes. Stopped down with tripod, MLU, self-timer/remote and careful focusing, IQ is adequate for my purposes (stock, large prints). However, I prefer to go a bit wider (20/21) and if possible sharper across the frame.</p>

<p>If cost were no concern I would get the Zeiss 21 or perhaps the Cannon 16-35.</p>

<p>The Samyang 14 looks good but it's too wide. If they come out with a 21 that might be my best alternative but who knows if it will happen.</p>

<p>My question is whether the Canon 17-40 or 20/2.8, or some non-Canon lens on an adapter, stopped down, would give up much in across-the-frame sharpness relative to the Zeiss. I can pay up for the Zeiss or the 16-35 but I prefer a cheaper alternative if it gives decent corner sharpness at around 20/21mm when stopped down.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

 

<p>I would check out a Yashica ML 21mm f3.5. They go for about $500. Use an adapter for the EOS. If you can check out a copy in person, the Zeiss Jena 20mm f4 in M42 mount (via adapter) is also a good option (~$300-$400).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Canon 17-40 f/4 L is no slouch, especially around 20mm at f/8. I like mine a lot.</p>

<p>Of the lenses mentioned, the Zeiss and the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II are the best choices. The Canon 20mm f/2.8 is rather disappointing. This review goes into the details:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-20mm-f-2.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-20mm-f-2.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>As Tom mentions, the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L is also a good choice if you're reluctant to spend the money for the Zeiss or the 16-35mm.</p>

<p>Consider the Canon 17-35mm f:2.8 L lens , which was the predecessor to the 16-35mm. I find it to be a great lens and found a very nice used one on e-bay for about half the cost of a new 16-35mm L lens.</p>

<p>Canon 17-40 f/4 and Tokina's new 17-35 f/4 could be good candidates</p>

<p>Be sure to check out Tokina 16-28/2.8<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/594-tokina162828ff?start=1</p>

 

<p>Pano stitching is free, fast if handheld, and produces <em>much</em> higher resolution.</p>

<p>This one may be an option, besides being 1mm wider ☺☺☺<br>

Voigtländer Skopar 20mm/3,5 SL II </p>

<p>There is also the Canon EF 20-35mm f2.8 L which was the predecessor to the 17-35. Another option is the Nikon 20mm f2.8 with mechanical adapter for stopped-down metering on your Canon body.</p>

<p>I used to use the Nikon 14/2.8 on my 5D II before switching to the Canon 17mm f4 TS-E.</p>

<p>Since your primary intent is to use the lens for "Stopped down with tripod, MLU, self-timer/remote and careful focusing," there is little or not advantage in using the more expensive and bulkier 16-35mm f/2.8 with its odd 82mm filter thread. (It is a very fine lens, but its strengths lie elsewhere.)</p>

<p>For wide landscapes shot stopped down the 17-40 is a fine performer and produces plenty of image quality for big prints. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>The 5D2 mirror is potentially a problem with some older, MF wide angle lenses projecting too far back into the camera. See http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/ which has links also to other similar sites.</p><p>The catch is that in the day of the MF, mechanical camera, much wider than 24mm was hard to do, and the resulting prices, and even rarity, of the lenses often make them less "cost-effective" than simply getting a modern ultrawide angle lens like the Sigma 12-24mm.</p><p> I have some older Sigma, Spiratone, Nikon, and so on MF 20-21mm lenses and some of them (the Nikon 20mm f/4) require surgery to work on a 5D, and the Sigma-made ones are nice enough lenses, but very difficult to avoid lens flare with. In fact, many of the older MF 'UW' lenses are fairly prone to flair by comparison with their more modern sister lenses.<br>

I personally found a nice older Sigma 15-30mm AF lens (used for EOS on eBay: around $300) that satisfies my APS-C-born wish to have something the equivalent of the 10-20mm lenses for that format on the 35mm-sensor format.</p>

<p>I've been using the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.7-3.5 SP lens for a few years now for landscape. It's discontinued but used ones keep popping up for a few hundred. I had originally bought the 24-105L with my 5D. They were of similar sharpness in the center but the Tamron was noticeably sharper in the corners, with much less distortion. So the L lens is gone now. Of course, the Tamron is fully automatic, but focus is a little noisy compared to the usm lenses.</p>

<p>You should consider both the TS-E 17 and TS-E24MkII. They are the ultimate in IQ. That said, the 24 is in its own league, followed by the 17. Nothing to compare afaik. Not cheap but worth every penny.</p>

<p>Other than the Zeiss 21/2.8, all the lenses that cover 20 or 21mm are soft and/or CA ridden in the corners on the 5D2, even at f/11 or f/16. Including the Voightlander, the Sigma 20/1.8, and the Olympus 21/3.5 (which turns even a gray Tokyo cityscape to a Kalleidoscope of psychadelic color). If you crop to a 4:5 aspect ratio, though, they're all fine.</p>

<p>My recommendation would be the 17-40, since it covers such an amazingly useful range. My understanding is that it's better than the much older 17-35/2.8 and the old 16-35/2.8, but that the 16-35/2.8 II may be marginally better but still nowhere close to the ridiculously wonderful Zeiss 21/2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Be sure to check out Tokina 16-28/2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I skipped this one because for landscape cheaper, even if slower, alternatives makes more sense to me. Its inability to take filters make it a less suited for landscapes</p>

<p>The 17-40 is "cost-effective" and it works fine.</p>

<p>I've never used the Zeiss lens, so I can't speak to the question of relative quality. But I've never heard anyone express disappointment with the 17-40's IQ, at least not anyone who actually USES the lens.</p>

<p>I've been searching for a wide for my MKIV and so far the 17-40 fits my uses the best. I hunting now for a good buy! ;) The only thing that holds me off is I already have the 24-105L. I used a 17-40 for a day and really liked it, although I found myself choosing around 20-24mm so I could survive with what I have. Its just for specialty shots I needed wider. I can't see paying $1600 for a 16mm when a 17mm is half that. If I shot at 16 alot I'd probably spring for the 16-35. But I don't.<br>

And I tend toward shooting between 20-40 anyway, so getting a 12-24 would be switching out all the time.<br>

The 17-40 is looking better every day. It was a pleasure to use. Of course @17 you will contend with the perspective distortion and it might be true that a prime TSE would be better. I was even thinking of trying the 15-85, but not workable on the 1D or 5D series, I believe.</p>

<p>You said "cost effective". You rattled my cage. If you really like the 21mm focal length, a prime might be what you want. If, like me, you rarely need 21 or wider, you're better off having that focal length in a zoom. But if 21 is what you want, check out <a href="http://www.16-9.net/">www.16-9.net</a>. Some links are broken, but I remember the Olympus OM 21mm f 3.5 and 21 f2 being highly regarded, the f 3.5 being cheaper and just as sharp, if not better. I like the <a href="http://www.leitax.com/">www.leitax.com</a> adapter, but the Fotodiox will work just as well.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html">http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html</a> specifically addresses 21's.</p>

<p>Cost effective, sharp corner to corner sounds like an oxymoron.</p>

<p>If you're already in the Zeiss price range, you may as well look at Canon 24mm TS-E II. This lens is probably almost as sharp as a Zeiss corner to corned. Plus, with the shift, you can frame shots that are 17mm equivanlent FOV when stitching panoramic shots.</p>

<p>16-35mm isn't sharp corner to corner. FYI.</p>

<p>"This lens is probably almost as sharp as a Zeiss corner to corner"<br>

There's no "probably" about it: it's gloriously sharp corner to corner even shifted 8mm or so in the short direction. It's a huge improvement over the old 24TSE, whose CA is nasty when used on the 5D2. The only bad news is that the corners do get a bit soft with more than that amount of shift, which isn't a lot of shift. Still, 8mm is enough in a lot of situations, but I don't think it's anywhere near as wide as 17mm. 8mm of usable vertical shift means it covers a 36 x (24 + 8 + 8) frame, i.e. 36 x 40 mm. That's a 54mm diameter image circle, as opposed to the 44mm image circle for the unshifted frame and the 60mm image circle Canon claims for the 24TSE II (if memory serves). Of course, the difference here is how much softening of the corners one is willing to accept; my limit leaves the corners way better than the 17-40. And if you are shifting such that the shifted corners don't have subject matter in them, then you can shift a lot more.</p>

 

<p>Thanks to all for the many thoughtful replies. It sounds like a good approach would be to start by using the 17-40 for a while and seeing if I like the results.</p>

 

<p>my 17-40L is a bit disappointing wide open but stop it down to f8 and its superb corner to corner, for the money I don't think you can go wrong with this one.</p>

<p>If you can afford it, the Zeiss 21 f/2.8 is your huckleberry!</p>