Which wide angle lens for 5d?

[yakim_peled1]

>> Save your money and get the 16-35L. It's just another $600 over the 17-40L. If you can afford a 5D you can wait a little longer and do it right. Slow lenses are a waste on such a fine DSLR. Better to get the F2.8.

 

 

1. The OP specifically said "My budget will not stretch to 16-35L".

 

2. No lens test or a bulk of user reviews convinced me that the 16-35/2.8 is optically superior to the 17-40/4. On the contrary. The more I read, see and hear I am more and more convinced that their basic optical quality (sample variation aside) is the same.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=all&stype=1&si=tested&perpage=48&sort=8&stype=&limit=&cat=all&ppuser=

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx

 

3. I tried both and decided to go for 17-40/4. Reasons: I found them to be optically similar (surprise.....) with the 17-40/4 having an edge! in flare resistance. In a sunny place like Israel that is enough for me to go for the more flare resistant lens. I repeat. Even if they were priced the same I'd go for 17-40/4 for that reason alone. The fact that they are not made it a no-brainer decision.

 

4. When mounted on FF camera both lenses behave as they were designed for: UWA lenses. They do not behave like normal zooms as they do when they are mounted on 1.6X cameras. Therefore, and in contrast to normal zooms and tele lenses, I see little need to go for a faster aperture in UWA lenses.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[francois_gauthier]

Another vote for the 17-40L.

 

17 covers a much wider angle than 24. In that area 7mm means a lot. Those 12-24 are made mostly to compensate the cropping factor that you won't have.

 

The 16-35 would be to consider only if wide angle shots are your style and you intend to make it your main lens.

 

Finally, don't worry about the 24-40 overlap that your lenses will have in common. It will only give you confort to switch lenses less often.

[stuart_ashall]

Wow - what a difference a day makes!

 

A sincere thank you to all who responded. I found the comments very helpful.

 

For those suggesting the 16-35 I'm afraid I've already gone way beyond what the treasurer is comfortable with by opting for the 5d. One thing I've learned is that when you're on thin ice the last thing you do is start jumping up and down. There is no wiggle room in this budget.

 

Given that I want the best lens I can afford now it's looking like the 17-40. Although I have taken the advice given on board and have both lenses on order at the local shop and will have a good look at them before making my final decision.

 

One final point - what filters do people put in front of these lenses? Here I'm taking about gel filters such as Lee / Cokin. Are these systems wide enough for a 17mm UWA?

 

Thanks again for the responses.

 

Stuart

[KenPapai]

Well, the 17-40 is an excellent 2nd choice to the 16-35. No doubt you'll love the 17-40. Canon's high precision focus points demand f/2.8 or wider but if you're outdoors it's not as big a deal nor the dimmer viewfinder from an f/4 lens (especially on a FF 5D).

 

Again, a low profile circular polarizer is great aid and tool. Have fun!

[russ_savage]

the 17-40 was made for cropped cameras.. it's true. there's plenty of evidence about it here..

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=21157785

 

 

as well as lots of people that realize it. either way, good luck.

[shambrick007]

Another vote for the 17-40/4.0 L...mine is just fine. <p> "...way beyond what the treasurer is comfortable with..." - It helps to have your own treasuer...

[always_wanderlust]

I don't know what you're using the lens for, but if it's mostly for near-far everything in focus compositions, you wouldn't be using auto-focus - you'd be better off using hyper-focal method. In this case an f/2.8 lens with better AF wizbang is worthless, you can do with the 17-40L or as mentioned, sharper non canon lens with EOS adapters. If you're using the wide end mostly (12-24mm), you will have a very narrow DOF...again making an f/2.8 nearly worthless, I guess the viewfinder would be brighter...but if you're having problems seeing through with f/4 then maybe you're better off spending the $600 towards an eye doctor.