Wide Angle Lens Options for 1DMkIII

[stevez]

<p>I'll be taking a trip to northern Arizona/southern Utah in a few weeks and wanted to treat myself to a new wide angle lens. It's been years since I purchased my EF 17-40mm L F/4. I'll be bringing with me a 1D MkIII. Which lens do you recommend specifically for landscapes? Your recommendations for the are appreciated.</p>

<p> </p>

[bill_morrow1]

<p>I'm on my way to Monument Valley from Flagstaff tomorrow--with my 1D/3 and 17-40. I've really been<br>

happy with the results over the years and after considering a couple of other options....I think I'll personally<br>

stay with the present combo. Added advantage is the 77mm thread. The 16-35 for instance, is 82 I think.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>That stupid unsupported 1.3 crop is why I gave up on the 1D's. Anyway, you won't get much better than your 17-40mm. Why not try some stitched panos if you are looking for a new challenge?</p>

[stevez]

<p>What about a TS-E 24"/17"mm L?</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>The best landscape lenses: Canon 17mm TS-E and Zeiss 21mm Distagon. 17-40 is definitely versatile but if your top priority is IQ then those 2 will make you very satisfied.</p>

[holzphoto]

<p>The tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is nice, it can be used at 12 - 16. as stated the 17 TSE is nice. and the 14mm 2.8 is nice.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Never used the Tokina, but have used the Sigma 12-24, it is way better than the Canon 14mm, which I have also used, and at over $2,100 is a farce, that puts it at the same street price as the 17 TS-E, which is an amazing lens but to benefit Steve over his 17-40 would have to be stitched, hence my original post of try some stitching.</p>

<p>The Sigma would be a good choice but for two issues, either of which can be ignored or pontificated on forever, one, it is a Sigma (not a Canon), two, they do suffer terribly from sample variation, if you get a good one keep it, if not return it immediately.</p>

[jim_h.2]

<p>If I had or could I would do as some suggested about exchanging the bafffle on the lens to one that fits the 1D, I love my 10-22 and even though I use it on a 40d to be honest from about 12 up is when it works best , so by changing the baffle and using it on a 1d you would be in the same position, which gives and extreme, wide sharp picture that is fantastic for so many of the landscapes, it works so well under low light and even better outdoors under low light, thats my 700 bucks worth. Plsu 6 bucks for the baffle to change over the lens back.</p>

<p>Same process different old body look here www.<a href="http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/efconv%20and%20http://daniel.nordling.nu/foto/EF-S-10D/">pbase.com/lightrules/efconv%20and%20http://daniel.nordling.nu/foto/EF-S-10D/</a></p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Jim,</p>

<p>That wouldn't work on a 1D. The much larger mirror would cause all kinds of zoom limitations and the lens almost certainly doesn't produce the image circle required for the APS-H format. The EF-s to EF conversions really only benefit 10D owners.<br /></p>

[nathangardner]

<p>What's wrong with the 17-40mm? You said its old, but the Hula Popper is also old and it catches the hell outta fish. Just b/c something is old doesn't mean it won't work. If you want significantly wider. the 14mm is the only Canon option.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>I'm with Nathan.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I'm with those who ask what's wrong with the 17-40. I'm not saying it's perfect for all tasks; certainly, some applications might need something wider or faster, for instance. But I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending something unless I knew how the 17-40 was failing to do what you need.</p>

 

<p>You say landscapes, so I take it speed isn't the problem, as most landscape photos are not taken wider than f/4. You also mention the 17 and 24 TS-E lenses, which fall within the 17-40's zoom range, so I take it you're happy with its focal length coverage. The TS-E lenses are a great solution if you need tilt (to change the plane of focus so that it's no longer parallel to the sensor) and/or shift (to fix things like converging verticals when you point the camera up at a building; you can fix this in software but there are some drawbacks). Are those issues you frequently encounter in your photography? If so, adding one of these lenses to your kit may well be what you need.</p>

[steven_crist]

<p>I get good results with the Canon 17-40 on my 1D3. </p>

[rick_janes]

<p>Steve, I didn't get the impression you disliked the 17-40 in any way, just that it'd be fun to try something new this time. With all the amazing rock formations in Utah and the ability to closely approach many of them why not go even wider with a 14/2.8L or 15/2.8 FF fisheye? And with those you'll not be duplicating any focal lengths already owned. I have the latter and it's great fun, very sharp, and the distortion isn't so apparent where straight lines don't exist. </p>

[stevez]

<p>Thanks, Rick, I am looking at that fisheye option also. Here's the issue: I'll also be bringing 5D mkI with me. The 17-40 never leaves that camera due to sensor dust that gets sucked in every time you remove a lens and honestly I wouldn't want anything wider on the 5D. But I'll need something wide on the 1DMkIII also. So I'm considering: EF 16-35mm, Zeiss 21mm distagon, EF 14 and of course - just for fun and adventure - either the T/S 17 or24mm.</p>

[jim_h.2]

<p>Oh , sorry didnt mean to give wrong info, i must have misunderstood what I read, i honestly dont know what the 17-40 cost, I knew for me with a 40d and a 50D etc ,I was going to buy a 10-22 so when i did it came in at 700 bucks with a really good glass and it has been so nice to use the l,I wont say its my very best glass but its certainly my most oh WOW would you look at that shots, what we see with our eyes is so diminsihed compared to our we glass buy, I love the wide view but it isnt practical all the time , I do manage to walk right up and stand next to a person and shoot some fabulous head shots and couple shots, in any case sorry for the bad info, i learn everyday and you folks are a big help for me. Thanks</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Steve I sold my 17-40 and bought the 16-35 II about 2.5 years ago and do not regret it. These days i use my 1DIIn less than my 5DII or 7D but it still comes out. In general the 5DII is my landscape body and the 16-35 II is a big improvement over the 17-40 but the 82mm filter thread is a pain. On the APS-H body you will see less difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 than on a full frame body but the 16-35 II is the better lens (it should be given the price difference). One thing you should factor in if you buy this lens is the cost of Cokin / lee type filters if you use them. The P series Cokins are not suitable for the 16-35II as even with a wide angle holder they vignette at about 20mm FL (on full frame) so if you ever plan to use the 16-35 II on full frame and use square filters than you need to factor in the cost of Z or X series (3 ND grads and a holder is about $250). In my case this was not an issue as I shoot Fuji MF and had to go to 95mm filers but I still had to buy 77 72 and 67mm rings (the Fuji is 95 and 82 - plus 112 for the 50mm lens) and have to lug around the larger and more delicate filters.</p>

[kristyberends]

<p>The canon 16-35mm is the best $1,600 I ever spent! What is the corp factor on the mark3? I use the 16-35 on my 5dmk2.</p><div></div>

[linn_song]

<p>ef17-40 is a good solution,or you can try sigma</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>If you cane get a good one, I can tell you that the Sigma 12-24mm is a phenom on the 1D3. Any worries about the edge definition are gone and you will enjoy the perspective.</p>