UWA - Ultra Wide Choice for Full Frame

[sfoto100]

If you find the 16-35 expensive,then forget about Nikon 14-24. The adapters alone can cost ard $300. http://www.novoflex.com/index.php The lens another $3000, I think. If you are willing to pay this kind of price, I will recommend Contax N 17-35 f2.8 [edit: for lanscape].

Have you tried 16-35 MkI? I assumed you are only interested in auto focus lenses. I understand Tokina is coming out with a FF 16-28/2.8.
http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx16-28profx-a.html. The Zeiss ZE 21/2.8 is probably the best UWA [edit: for lanscape] but it is manual focus and bloody expensive. Checkout the ZE 21 used in this thread http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/942989 . If you are into manual focus lenses, there are other options.

Sigma 12-24 is not too bad. But since you already feel the 17-40 not up to your standard, I would not recommend it. But it is quite adequate for me. I remembered I have a lot of fun zooming from 12mm to 24mm and back. The perspective is qute fun.

IMO, there is no perfect WA zoom, you just need to work between the constrains of the lens.

hi mwp,

this picture and the ceiling one in a later post are all taken by sigma 12-24? or the contax uwa?

 

[ManWearPants]

hi mwp,

this picture and the ceiling one in a later post are all taken by sigma 12-24? or the contax uwa?

Both taken by Sigma 12-24 at 12mm.

 

[kaylan2000]

Beside the slow F4, what's so bad about Canon 17-40mm lens? I'm happy user of this lens.

You mean all these pictures came directly from camera without photoshop?

 

[krishna91]

TS, if the 17-40mm does not impress you i don't know what does. The 17-40mm is as good as anything in its class in terms of IQ, and beats the 16-35mm in terms of flare, ghosting etc, and matches up in sharpness.

In short, the 17-40mm is the f/4 version of the 16-35mm, 5mm longer and 1mm less wide.

I strongly suggest you stick with 17-40mm. That's one lens that I'll never get rid of.

 

[jonathann]

you never know what you are missing until you are able to shoot at 12mm . LOL .. =)

 

[Canon Photo]

You mean all these pictures came directly from camera without photoshop?

Nope, I've cropped it via Photoshop!

 

[kaylan2000]

TS, if the 17-40mm does not impress you i don't know what does. The 17-40mm is as good as anything in its class in terms of IQ, and beats the 16-35mm in terms of flare, ghosting etc, and matches up in sharpness.

In short, the 17-40mm is the f/4 version of the 16-35mm, 5mm longer and 1mm less wide.

I strongly suggest you stick with 17-40mm. That's one lens that I'll never get rid of.

Dear, if you get hold of a Tokina 11-16, try it and then you realise. Tokina 11-16 made me think 17-40 as just OK lens.

 

[krishna91]

Dear, if you get hold of a Tokina 11-16, try it and then you realise. Tokina 11-16 made me think 17-40 as just OK lens.

And that's a lens for APS-C sensors.

You're using a 1DS Mark II.

And, if 17-40mm is just an OK lens, professional photographers wouldn't be using it at all. If the sharpness etc. matters so much, they would be using Leica or Zeiss lenses. I think you are severely underestimating the 17-40mm.

As long as you know your photography well, the 17-40mm is a stellar lens that will produce great results in almost any type of photography. The Canon handles distortion way better than the 11-16. The 11-16 maybe sharper but that isn't the only factor when it comes to buying lenses.

 

[kaylan2000]

And that's a lens for APS-C sensors.

You're using a 1DS Mark II.

And, if 17-40mm is just an OK lens, professional photographers wouldn't be using it at all. If the sharpness etc. matters so much, they would be using Leica or Zeiss lenses. I think you are severely underestimating the 17-40mm.

Oh yes, I know that, I used Toki on my 40D and I had to let it go as it is only usable on 1Ds at 16mm. it's like a prime on FF. But if you compare the color, sharpness, AF speed of Toki at 16mm Vs 17mm on 17-40... you will understand the differences. It is so obvious that you will realise that 17-40 can be much better. And yes, my 17-40 is well calibrated. I am still holding it until I get something better that fits my pocket.

Different people has different need, not sure whether I am underestimating or you are over estimating 17-40. You can see many sell ad for 17-40 lately on BnS section.

probably, I had used something better and hence I know the possibilities.

Anyway, thanks for your advice

 

[krishna91]

Oh yes, I know that, I used Toki on my 40D and I had to let it go as it is only usable on 1Ds at 16mm. it's like a prime on FF. But if you compare the color, sharpness, AF speed of Toki at 16mm Vs 17mm on 17-40... you will understand the differences. It is so obvious that you will realise that 17-40 can be much better. And yes, my 17-40 is well calibrated. I am still holding it until I get something better that fits my pocket.

Different people has different need, not sure whether I am underestimating or you are over estimating 17-40. You can see many sell ad for 17-40 lately on BnS section.

probably, I had used something better and hence I know the possibilities.

Anyway, thanks for your advice

then wait for a new UWA from Canon

 

[kaylan2000]

..... I understand Tokina is coming out with a FF 16-28/2.8.
http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx16-28profx-a.html.

Thanks buddy, you pointed me to the right direction. This Toki is at USD 849, cheaper than 17-40.
http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=Tokina 16-28MM

Will wait for few reviews and then will decide.

 

[Canon Photo]

...You can see many sell ad for 17-40 lately on BnS section...

I guess it's bcos of 16-35mm F2.8 Mark II lens.

 

[Wai]

Beside the slow F4, what's so bad about Canon 17-40mm lens? I'm happy user of this lens.

I have been a happy user of 17-40L since it launched 7 years ago and I was probably the first owner of this lens in singapore. It is the lens that mounted on my 1D2 50% of the time.

Recently, I upgraded to the 16-35L MKII, and I was shocked at what I have been missing all these years!

if you think 17-40L is good, wait till you see the sharpness and contrast of the 16-35L MKII at wide open.

$$ well spend because I will keep this 16-35 for another 7 years

 

[ManWearPants]

Thanks buddy, you pointed me to the right direction. This Toki is at USD 849, cheaper than 17-40.
http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=Tokina 16-28MM

Will wait for few reviews and then will decide.

No problem. That's US pricing. Expect maybe 10% more in Sin. Do take note about the filter issue. Some say it is good to be able to use rear gelatine filters as you can stack multiple filters without worrying about colour cast , IQ degradation. But it is the reason why I sold my Sigma.

-----

I think no point debating about 17-40. One man's meat is another man's poison. Use whatever you are happy with. It's ok for others to be seeking what will make them happy.

 

[kaylan2000]

I have been a happy user of 17-40L since it launched 7 years ago and I was probably the first owner of this lens in singapore. It is the lens that mounted on my 1D2 50% of the time.

Recently, I upgraded to the 16-35L MKII, and I was shocked at what I have been missing all these years!

if you think 17-40L is good, wait till you see the sharpness and contrast of the 16-35L MKII at wide open.

$$ well spend because I will keep this 16-35 for another 7 years

Exactly that was my point. I was thinking the same way, until I saw the 16-35 and Toki 11-16...
I know 16-35 is a great lens but my pocket and heart does not allow me to have it AND wife too
Will see the Toki and then probably will gather courage to jump for either 16-35 or Toki 16-28

 

[kaylan2000]

No problem. That's US pricing. Expect maybe 10% more in Sin. Do take note about the filter issue. Some say it is good to be able to use rear gelatine filters as you can stack multiple filters without worrying about colour cast , IQ degradation. But it is the reason why I sold my Sigma.

-----

I think no point debating about 17-40. One man's meat is another man's poison. Use whatever you are happy with. It's ok for others to be seeking what will make them happy.

This is the launch price, I hope there will be a slight discount later. For Toki, I do not expect a huge discount later, like Canon or Nikon. One of my friend is going to Osaka next month... lets see!

Filter and fixed hood issues are something to watch. lets see the reviews. lets see what they find for distortion and vignette. But I am ready to compromise on all these minor issues as long as the IQ is sharp and lively.... and the price is already right.

 

[Canon Photo]

...if you think 17-40L is good, wait till you see the sharpness and contrast of the 16-35L MKII at wide open....

I know Canon 1Ds have image quality much better then Canon D30. Price huge different! I also heard Canon 16-35 Mark II much better then Canon 17-40. Again, price not in the same leagues!


I'm saying Canon 17-40 is a good lens. No complaint. Of course I think Canon 16-35 Mark II is a better lens! (should U make comparism between the above 2 lens only)

 

[kaylan2000]

I know Canon 1Ds have image quality much better then Canon D30. Price huge different! I also heard Canon 16-35 Mark II much better then Canon 17-40. Again, price not in the same leagues!


I'm saying Canon 17-40 is a good lens. No complaint. Of course I think Canon 16-35 Mark II is a better lens! (should U make comparism between the above 2 lens only)

No one here ever said that 17-40 is a lousy lens. We all are well convinced that 17-40 is a capable lens. What many of us are saying that there are better options than 17-40.

Cost difference, usefulness and blah blah are personal.

 

[Canon Photo]

No one here ever said that 17-40 is a lousy lens. We all are well convinced that 17-40 is a capable lens. What many of us are saying that there are better options than 17-40.

Cost difference, usefulness and blah blah are personal.

Maybe it's just me who interpret wrongly what is the meaning of "...if you think 17-40L is good, wait till you see the sharpness and contrast of the 16-35L MKII at wide open...." My personal interpretsion is, if you compare Toyota, dun mixed in Lexus. Technically speaking, Lexus are from Toyota too but it's different leagues car. Lexus are made to be luxury! (correct me if I'm wrong)


Bro Kaylan, I'm not referring to general option of user here. I'm referring to a particular user who I think phrase incorrectly. (Just my opinion) & uses my reply as a quote!

 

[Canon Photo]

Beside the slow F4, what's so bad about Canon 17-40mm lens? I'm happy user of this lens.

I have been a happy user of 17-40L since it launched 7 years ago and I was probably the first owner of this lens in singapore. It is the lens that mounted on my 1D2 50% of the time.

Recently, I upgraded to the 16-35L MKII, and I was shocked at what I have been missing all these years!

if you think 17-40L is good, wait till you see the sharpness and contrast of the 16-35L MKII at wide open.

$$ well spend because I will keep this 16-35 for another 7 years

Here's the quote.