Ultra wide angle FF zoom advice?

<p>Forum members have been offering some great advice to help me put together a small kit to cover my photography needs with my 5D. Based on your suggestions I've picked up the 24-105/4L, 70-200/4L and 50/1.8 lenses. To complete my kit I'd like to someday pick up a UW zoom lens to replace my 20-35/3.5-4.5 USM lens because I want something wider than 20mm. What ultra wide zoom would you choose? My budget would be in the $550 - $600 range.</p>

<p>EF 17-40 given your budget. I'd prefer the 16-35/f4.0 but it's a bit over your budget I think. But you wrote "someday", things may change before someday arrives.</p>

<p>I'd go for the 16-35/4. Yes it's expensive but it's jaw droppingly good. Probably too good for a 5D classic, actually.</p>

<p>The EF 17-40/4 L looks like a good option. I've used the 17-40 on a 5D and it works very well in conjunction with the other L lenses you have (which I also own). It may not be the most modern lens in the Canon stable, but it's a perfectly good piece of glass that will give years of quality service.<br>

It's worth heading out with your camera and trying lenses out with whoever has them in stock. You may find the newer generation 16-35/4 grabs your imagination and you have a target to save for, or you may find an off brand lens that you like.<br>

My 2p</p>

<p>I love my 17-40. Very reasonably priced for an excellent lens. Doesn't quite have the pedigree of the latest 16-35, but for the price, it's hard to beat.</p>

<p>I use a 17-40 with a 5D3 and have been satisfied. However, if you buy new, both of them our out of your range. Canon is currently running a special on refurbs. The 16-35 is $880 but out of stock. The 17-40 is $640, so at least close to your price range. I have bought refurbs from Canon and wouldn't hesitate to do so again. They now come with a full warranty.</p>

<p>The 17-40 was the first lens I bought when I started using dSLRs instead of rangefinder cameras. I've been using it close to fifteen years and it still works just fine. There are third party alternatives, the new Tamron 15-30/2.8 looks particularly interesting for what I do, but it's around $1300. </p>

<p>Here's a recent shot with the 17-40 on a 5D3.</p>

 

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/nerv29.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></center>

<p>Another mention for the 17-40 f4 L. I would prefer the new 16-35 f4 L but the 17-40 is a pretty good lens, best stopped down a bit from f4 if possible for better edge sharpness and to reduce vignetting. Here is a recent unmanipulated shot of the Geysir region in Iceland taken with my 17-40 on a 6D at 17mm and f7.1</p><div></div>

<p>I realized that I could add an example. This was shot with the 17-40 at 20mm, f/9:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><img src="http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Nature/Night-photos/i-BLdmjxD/0/XL/A83A0051-XL.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="660" /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You may also just want to read this thread from the past weeks.<br>

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dKkP</p>

<p>This site needs a "like" button. 'Nother vote for 17-40.</p><div></div>

<p>Oh, and if you're ready to buy before 7/4, the 17-40 is on sale at B&H for $699 (after $100 rebate that is)...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html">Link</a></p>

<p>Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is heavy, bulky and can't handle screw-in filters. Apart from that, it delivers superior image quality at any aperture. It's great value for money and worth considering.<br>

Canon 17-40 needs to be stopped down to get the best out of it, that's why I am not a big fan of it.</p>

<p>A decent used 17-40 4L goes for $400-500 depending on condition. The priced used to be a bit higher but the upstart 16-35 4L IS stung it a bit. My 2002 17-40 L is still going so it's a tough and dependable design. If you want to go wider, the various flavors of Samyang 14 2.8 are excellent, albeit fully manual, and only about $200.</p>

<p>I have the 17-40 Canon and Sigma 12-24. For critical use with architectural photography the Sigma is better as 17mm is in the middle of the focal length range so vignetting and distortion on full frame is virtually non-excistant. The field of view at 12mm is spectacular. <br />The Canon does have significant barrel distortion at 17mm and is a good general purpose wide angle. The F4 aperture makes it useful as a walk around lens. I would not say one is better than the other in terms of sharpness; but at 12 mm you can get some very creative results and get into tight spaces that a longer lens would not allow</p>