Need a wide angle lens for my 5D!

[kristian_dale]

Hi!

 

I just ordered a 5D, and I'm really excited!

As soon as possible I will also buy a wide angle lens, and I find it hard to

choose between the Canon EF 17-40mm, and the 16-35mm. I will first and foremost

use the lens for landscape photographies.

 

Do you have any experience with these lenses?

All replys are highly appreciated!

 

Thanks,

Kristian

[bryan_lardizabal]

My vote is for the 17-40mm F4L, unless you shoot in low light conditions, which may warrant the 16-35mm f2.8L. Many conparisons on these two lenses -- choice is a matter of preference and both are fantastic. I have the 17-40mm and love it.

[Stock-Photos]

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

[stp]

The 16-35 in the luminous landscape test has been replaced by the 16-35 Mark II;

folks generally agree that MII is a significant improvement over the original. From the

comparisons I've read, the 16-35 may have a slight edge over the 17-40, but the cost

difference is very significant, and the 16-35 requires an 82mm filter. I've used the 17-

40, and it was great. I have the 16-35 Mk II, and it is great.

[stephen sullivan]

Which EF 16-35 2.8L are your referring to? Version I or II

 

If version one, then go with the EF 17-40 f/L. If version two, then go with the EF 16-35 2.8L MK II

[david_wu6]

If landscape is for your first and foremost use of the lens, this may be worth to read:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/18mm_testb.html

[bill_morrow1]

At a trade show in Las Vegas (CES) I spoke with a Canon rep about your very question. His recommendation: 17-40. Now this was pre Version 2 of the 16-35, but he said roughly that if both were the same price (which obviously they're not)....he would still chose the 17-40 for the superior quality. A couple of other reps verbally agreed. I really like mine, even if things do look a little odd down at 17 on the 5D. For what it's worth.

[correct_exposure]

16-35 MK2 if you can afford it. It's great beyond just landscapes. On the 5D, it's good for street and indoor shots.

 

However, if landscape only with tripod, the 17-40L is hard to beat!

[richterjw]

You should possibly consider the 20mm 2.8. I have never found that I needed anything wider than that. Also you would have the added benefit of less distortion because it's a prime lenses and does not require the comprises necessary for a zoom. Besides you could by it and the 35mm f/2 for less than the L zooms and have just as good quality. Best, JR

[marco_hidalgo]

Just as Jeremy said, you can purchase the 20 mm + the 35 mm. I have both of

them, the 20 f2.8 and the 35 f2.0 I purchased them at different times and both

deliver good image quality. I like the 20 better, the built quality is far superior than

that of the 35 f2.0, which feels very..very cheap. The autofocus of the 35 f2.0 is

slow and sometimes inaccurate, the lens feels cheap in all regards, but still delivers

very high quality images. The autofocus of the 20 is fast, silent and spot on. I really

love it ! But...if you like to use zoom lenses, you would absolutely hate having these

any of these two lenses. I am used to primes, and I like to be able to use a good

lens hood on the 35 and not to worry about flare; that could be a common problem

using a lens such as a 17-40 or a 16-35. Those zoom lenses are super versatile for

fast street shooting or accurate composition indoors. But flare is definitely much

more difficult to cut with these lenses.

[pbizarro]

The 16-35 MKII is the best wide-angle zoom that Canon is currently able to make. I am very happy with mine, and I would chose it over the 17-40 any time. the advantage of having double the amount of light in the viewfinder when shooting in dim conditions (early morning/late evening) is very important for me (f/2.8 vs. f/4).

 

Also, the zoom lens might seem expensive, but then it replaces the full complement of potentially buying and carrying 5 prime lenses:16, 20, 24, 28, and 35. I like primes too, but sometimes nothing beats the flexibility of a good zoom.

[marco_hidalgo]

Yes indeed, the difference between f2.8 and f4 can be a lot in dim conditions like early

morning/late evening shooting.

[manuel barrera houston,]

I found that a 17mm f/3.5 Tokina, 20mm f/2.8 and 35 f/2.0 worked best for me for wide shots, sold my 17-40 L, after purchasing the 17 mm.

[photo_dark]

17-40L. Half the price, and for landscape, you will be at F11 or F16 anyways. Really a fantastic lens.

[richard_crowe4]

Although I dislike the 17-40L on a 1.6x camera (not wide enough and too slow for a mid-range, go-to zoom which is what many 1.6x owners use this lens for); I would love it for a full frame camera.

 

I base this on the fact that I love the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina which is pretty close to the 17-40L in focal range and has the same f/stop.

[pgranone]

The 17-40 was my choise. Excellent image qualtiy on the 5D.

[christopher hartt dallas]

The 16-35 (v1) was NOT developed specifically for digital, the 17-40 and 16-35 (v2) are.

 

With the 5D, I start seeing IQ differences above 8x10 images between 17-40 and 16-35(2). If you plan on sticking with smaller (8x10 or less) I don't think you'll see a lot of difference. If you're planning to produce larger images, get the 16-35(v2) because you'll likely have to upsize via software for quality resolution and that process will multiply the 17-40 flaws as well.

[Ian Taylor]

16-35 is a much more useful range for landscape IMO.

[bobsimsphoto]

I vote for 17-40 f4L (which I have). Both are superb.

 

b