Super wide Angle

I just got a new EOS 5D and now looking for a super wide angle lense. I'll

need to shootin low-light situation often. I burned most of my budget on the

5D so money is an object but image quality is critical too. I'm looking for

imput on these options.

 

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8

Canon 17-40 f/4

Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8

Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX DG Asp.

Tokina 12-24 f/4 AT-X 124 AX pro

I've only used the 16-35L and I'm very pleased with it. At 16mm the corners are quite dark. You might want to think of it as a 17-35L if the dark corners are a problem.

The 17-40 f4L is a good lens and sharp wide open.

 

A lot folks are very happy with the 16-35 f2.8 but other complain about IQ.

 

To be honest IQ of fast ultra wides is not likely to be too good wide open.

 

The others I do know much about, the 12-24 was I think a bit shaky on IQ when it first came out on APS-C. No idea how effective the 12mm end might be on full frame, but even if OK is probably too wide.

 

Slightly less wide but still fairly wide amd respectibly fast is the Sigma 20/1.8 (Canon do a 20/2.8).

 

Some reviews for you:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcamera.impress.co.jp%2F06_01%2Fauth%2Ftoku1%2F&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/142/cat/11

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/16-35/index.htm

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/index.htm

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/31/cat/11

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm

http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=373

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&desc=Canon-EF-17-40mm-f/4.0-L-USM-Lens-Sample-Crops

Having used the 16-35 on full frame (film) and crop sensors for almost two years I highly recommend that lens. It's been a superior, top performing lens, you could not do better!<div></div>

http://www.olegkikin.com/lenstests/

The image circle of the Tokina 12-24 is too small for a FF body, it is made for a crop camera. If money "is an object" I would get the 17-40/4L instead of the 16-35/2.8L. Since you have 5D you can compensate the missing f-stop with higher ISO setting. Optically the 16-35/2.8L and the 17-40/4L are on the same level from what I've read.

You could also consider a used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L (predecessor to the 16-35). Also consider the Sigma 12-24 that does cover full frame if you want even wider. The Tamron 14mm f2.8 is another cost effective lens to consider as well. It seems to me there is a Tamron or Tokina 17mm prime lens as well.

If you know you'll be needing to shoot in low-light often, I would suggest you spring for the 16-35/2.8, even if you need to wait a bit to save up for it. I have the 17-40 -- it works GREAT on a 5D, although I really do miss that extra stop when indoors. Yeah, yeah, higher ISO setting... that helps a lot, but an extra stop is still useful.

the Tokina 12-24 covers full frame from around 18mm up, with the same corner image quality you'd get on a crop camera at 12mm. It will mount on any full frame camera, unlike Canon's EF-S lenses. A sideways comparison, but I was thrilled with using my Nikkor 12-24 on film, 18mm full frame.

 

"The 17-40 f4L is a good lens and sharp wide open."

 

the usual complaint is that the corners aren't sharp on full frame until stopped down to f8 or f11. it's not field curvature either. center sharpness is excellent. that's all true for mine, but may vary from lens to lens. definitely varies from eye to eye, deciding what's sharp and what isn't.

 

check out the Sigma 15-30 too, some big vocal fans of that lens. I shot a few frames of film with one once and it looked good. also the Tamron SP 17-35.

"the usual complaint is that the corners aren't sharp on full frame until stopped down to f8 or f11. it's not field curvature either. center sharpness is excellent. that's all true for mine, but may vary from lens to lens. definitely varies from eye to eye, deciding what's sharp and what isn't. "

 

This is to be expected of any ultra wide I think. The same issue is seen with 10mm lenses on APS-C.

 

In this respect the 17-40 f4 seems like it may be more reliable in this respect than the 16-35 f2.8 @ f4 from the only comparative reviews I have seen. Of course these reviews may have both had bad copies of the 16-35, but that and the MTF curves for the two lenses have always raised issues in my mind about the 16-35.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/142/cat/11

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcamera.impress.co.jp%2F06_01%2Fauth%2Ftoku1%2F&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/31/cat/11

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/15mm_Region/index.htm

 

Of course one has to be careful, some of these test issues could be done to curvature of field and many claim the 16-35 to be better than the 17-40, but then there is the MTF curves from Canon themselves.

 

However, if you desperatly need an extra stop then it either the 16-35 f2.8 or the 14 f2.8, neither of which is likely to be very sharp in the corner wide open. The 14 2.8 looks best stopped down from the MTF curves but the 16-35 best wide open, but I have never seen any solid test results on the 14/2.8.

 

Else the 20 2.8, which not as sharp in the center at the 17-40 does seem to be slightly better in the corners on full frame http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=244&Camera=9&LensComp=100.

 

Also seems to be a better bet than the Sigma 20 1.8 although the sigma seems better in the center. The Canon sharpens up better with stopping down.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=244&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=375&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2&Camera=9&CameraComp=9

If you have the budget, the 16-35 (not the 17-35).

 

 

If your budget is tight, consider the Canon 20-35L and / or a fixed 17mm Tamron or Tokina. The non-Canon zooms can be dissapointing but the fixed lenses are great.

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

F.P.

Btw...did you get it with rebate...another new lens would yield a double rebate...very good deal...another $300 and double the lens rebate...

<p>In low light situations go for the fastest lens possible. It is not the same to try to focus in the darkness with a f4 lens than with a 2.8 , believe me. Depending on the subject the differences can be huge. Take a look at my pictures to see some examples... ;-)</p>

<p>In low light situations go for the fastest lens possible. It is not the same to try to focus in the darkness with a f4 lens than with a 2.8 , believe me. Depending on the subject the differences can be huge. Take a look at my pictures to see some examples... ;-)</p>