Which UWA lens?

[fridrik_skulason]

<p>Back in March I switched from my old 40D to a sparkling new 5DIII.<br>

I love my new camera - but there is one thing I am missing - a replacement for my old 10-22 EF-S lens.<br>

I have been looking at the available options, and just cannot make up my mind, so I'm looking for some assistance to help me decide.<br>

Here is my situation:<br>

<br />I need a lens for wide angle landscape photography (and just landscape, no architecture). See a typical image below.<br>

I am not overly concerned with minor distortions, but sharpness is critical.<br>

Price is not an issue, but I want to get good value for my money.<br>

AF is convenient, but I am perfectly OK with a MF lens.<br>

The alternatives I have been looking at are:<br>

Canon EF 14 mm f/2.8 L II<br>

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II (convenience of having a zoom)<br>

Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L (never used a TS-E lens, but it looks like it could open up some interesting possibilities)<br>

Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (cheap, but looks like good value for money. Is it sharp enough?)<br>

Zeiss ZE 15mm f/2.8 (extremely sharp, but not yet shipping - and is it overrated?)<br>

Basically, I have some arguments for (and against) all of those lenses, and just wondering I I have missed something that could help me make up my mind.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4087/5002267357_e231d50dc0_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Add Sigma 12- 24 to the mix if I was you, and the Zeiss 18mm ZE. Zeiss 15mm had better be fantastic for such a price and size (it's poor value in my book). Samyang's the best deal, but weird distortion - may not matter to you but it might. It is hard to better the Canon 16-35 in terms of a general value and quality combination, but it is a compromise. Best performance will be the 17mm TSE.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Honestly you're not going to shoot the above photo at f/2.8. I'd strongly consider a 17-40mm, which is quite sharp when stopped down to f/8. The Sigma 12-24 (stopped down) is also a great performer, but much of its zoom range is really too wide for any practical landscape work. I find 17-40 to be a much more useful range on a FF camera. (I own both lenses, and it's the 17-40 that comes out to play most for landscapes.)</p>

[brad_trostad]

<p>I would also add the Canon 17-40 to your list unless the 17mm end just isn't wide enough. I was reluctant to get it but wound up really liking it for wider angle shots and video work. FYI - I went from a 40D with a Canon 10-22 to a 5D2 - so similar upgrade path.</p>

<p>That being said, 17mm (and even 16mm) really just isn't wide enough for my liking. After much useful help on the forums and not being able to spend that much I am definitely going with the Samyang 14mm lens. If I had lots more money I would get a TS-17 and use shift to make wider angle photos (when possible). I would get the Canon 14mm if video was a major requirement. </p>

[photodiscoveries]

Had the same issues, going from my 7D to the 5D mark iii. I really missed my 10-22. I tried, the 17-40, but is was not quite sharp

enough, the color seemed a bit lacking, and I missed the 1mm extra width. Does not sound like much, but if you shoot wide, it does. I

bought th 16-35, and fell in love. The color is amazing, the sharpness excellent, and the width is what I wanted. I could not be happier

with the lens...

[scott_ferris]

<p>Fridrik,</p>

<p>I have the the 16-35 and the 17 TS-E, i have used the 14 regularly and tried out the very highly rated Zeiss 21mm.</p>

<p>In my opinion the Zeiss' are very over-rated, comparing the Zeiss 21 to the 24 TS-E I found the functionality and creative possibilities of the Canon lens vastly better.</p>

<p>I really don't like the 14mm Canon, the corners are weak, it has pretty bad CA and is very limited in actual application. On the rare occasions I know I'll need one I rent, but I have had just as good results from de-fishing a 15mm Canon fisheye (<a href="00XxUd">seriously</a>, make sure you look at the image not inline).</p>

<p>The 17 TS-E is a game changer, it is a remarkable lens that offers so much control and creative options. For landscapes it is my number one lens by far. I paid $1,750 for mine and it is the best value lens I have bought (but don't tell my 50 f1.4 that!). It works superbly with the TC 1.4, for an effective 24mm, and very well with the TC 2.0 too, for an effective 48mm, this gives you several focal lengths and more options. Oh and you can stitch, two shifted images giving zero parallax give an angle of view of an 11mm lens.</p>

<p>My advice, if you can live without the focal lengths get the 17 TS-E. If you can't do without the zoom then get the 16-35, but the 17 IQ is much better.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, Scott.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>I moved from 7D to 5D Mk III and missed my beloved Tokina 11-16, I went with a Tokina 16-28. Very sharp and excellent value for money. But if need filters it can be problematic</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I certainly would consider the Sigma ultrawide for 35mm sensor, the 12-24mm. I personally went for the nearly exact replacement of my Sigma 10-20mm - the older short-lived, but very affordable, Sigma 15-30mm (FX size to borrow a Nikon term).<br>

Otherwise, get one of the 16/17-35/40 lenses. They are excellent, all reports indicate.</p>

<p>I don't think that a non-zoom lens would be anything like parallel to the use you get from a zoom.</p>

<p>As for the TS-E 17mm. It is my personal holy grail, now that I have filled in some other gaps, but it is a very special and <em>specialized</em> lens. I shoot a lot of architecture so the TS-E features are important to me, but I don't use my older PC-Nikkor (shift) lens (all manual originally so no problem on a 5D) as a rule for everyday shooting. I think it would be a waste of a lot of money to just use a TS-E so, since it is likely that one of the above zooms would serve general needs better.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (cheap, but looks like good value for money. Is it sharp enough?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's probably the sharpest ultrawide made. If you don't believe me, check out photozone's <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff">review</a> (and also, for comparison, their <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/541-canon14f28mk2ff">review</a> of Canon's uber-expensive EF 14/2.8 L II). Its only optical shortcoming is that it exhibits "mustache" distortion, which isn't an issue for landscape photography.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>If you like to place the horizon close to the edge as in the photo above a TS-E lens will help minimize/eliminate any converging verticals, typically created by trees, in landscapes. Shifting/stitching is also an amazing tool to create larger prints. I used a 14/2.8 for 5 years before switching to the Canon 17 TS-E on a 5D II. </p>

[marco_palladino1]

<p>My vote goes to the Samyang 14mm, but just on chart. I've been using the 17-40 for long time on 40D, 1ds2 and 5d2 and am not very satisfied by its performance on ff. At the end this lens is suited almost only for landscapes and I really don't get the reason of so many ultrawide zooms for a genre where you have all the time to change lens. At 17mm its performance is poor, at 24 and 35 a standard zoom such as the 24-105 f4 gets better or similar results and has IS. I just wished Canon had updated its 20mm and 35mm f2. Of course nothing beates the 17mm TS-E but the price!</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Be sure to check out Nikon 14-24/2.8 (needs adapter)</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>+1 for the Samyang. It is sharp enough to cut your fingers on.</p>

[fridrik_skulason]

<p>Thanks for the comments, everyone.<br>

<br />Regarding the 17-40, I tried it, but quite frankly, I wasn't too happy with the sharpness below f/8, so that is why I included the 16-35 in my list instead.<br>

Regarding the Sigma 12-24, I didn't include it simply because I had forgotten it existed - however, after reading some reviews of it, I am not too impressed - sure it is wide - the widest of the all, but it seems it makes certain sacrifices in other areas that are more important to me.<br>

Now, there was one point I forgot to mention earlier - the Zeiss 15mm has one advantage the others don't have - it can take a regular filter, and as I did frequently put a circular polarizer on my 10-22 EF-S, this is an argument in favour of the Zeiss - but whether it is worth the cost....well...</p>

[mpalmquist]

<p>I have the 17 TSE and it is an amazing lens; it's very sharp, no distortion/CA unless you are at full shift + some tilt, stitching to get really wide shots and of course selective/extended DOF. The bad things are cost, off axis flare and course no filers unless you juryrig some matte box due to that huge chunk of (amazing) glass sticking out front.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>For the type of shooting you describe (landscape, on full frame), I'm very surprised that the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L is not on your list. If you are considering a zoom for this sort of work - and there are plenty of reasons to do so - the excellent 16-35 offers no advantages. Its virtue is its performance at largest apertures like f/2.8 and f/4 for low-light, hand held, ultra-wide work. But that's not what you are going to do. In fact, you specifically discounted this.</p>

<p>As to the prime (T/S or not) versus zoom, you'll have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. Aside from the TS lenses, primes generally offer you much less of a resolution advantage, where they offer one at all, at the smaller apertures typical of much landscape work. This small potential resolution improvement - again, if it exists in a meaningful way - comes at the cost of a great deal of flexibility. And don't forget that if you have to crop your prime shot because you don't have a zoom, you'll lose some or even all of whatever resolution advantage you might have over the zoom since you can crop in camera with the zoom and lose nothing.</p>

<p>The TS lenses are wonderful, but they are not for everyone. Again, you are dealing with a limited number of prime focal lengths. In addition they are quite expensive, and they require a different approach to shooting. </p>

<p>Good luck with your decision!</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Lost in the mists of time are the superb Sigma 15-30mm for both full and APS-C formats. There are always a few for sale on eBay (3 as we speak). Held in high regard and garnered some excellent reviews although now discontinued.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I shoot with a 24-105mm on my 5D MkII and don't really miss a 16 or 17mm. If I want wider, I simply shoot a hand held or tripod mounted multi-shot panorama and stitch it together.</p>

<p>I am thinking about the 8-15mm for different reasons, particularly large space indoor shots. I do indoor panos and overlap a lot to avoid too much barrel distortion on the edges, but a one-shot solution is interesting. I don't view the fisheye capability as a huge issue, since I think I'll quickly bore with that, but the ultra-wide is interesting to me.</p>