• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Which wide lens for the 5D?

P

Peter Mendelson

New member
Hi. I recently sold my 17-40L and am reevaluating my lens lineup. Right now it's: 24-105L, 35L, 45 TS-E, 85L, 135L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100-400L IS. I use the 5D, and am not a pro, although I love to take everything from landscapes to street shooting to candid portraits.

Right not I am thinking about sellling my 24-105L and 45mm TS-E and getting the 16-35mm L version II instead. I can use it in the city and for travel where the f/2.8 will come in handy compared to the 17-40L, and for landscapes it would be great. It's just hard to swallow that $1600 price tag for the lens (although I would have more than enough if I sold my 24-105 and the TS-E). When I had the 17-40 and the 24-105, it was hard to figure out which lens to take out with me since I like the superwide angle viewpoint on the 5D with the 17-40L, but on the other hand, the 24-105L was a good walkaround lens. If I had the 16-35L with my L primes at 35, 85 and 135L (plus the fantastic 70-200 f/4 IS), I don't see myself missing the 24-105L that much.

While the 24-105L is a great performer, I usually get more "WOW" shots from using my other lenses (since the wide or long focal lengths usually provide greater visual impact, as do fast lenses which can give very shallow depth of field like the L primes).

So how does this lineup look?: 16-35L II, 35L, 85L, 135L, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400L IS?

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Peter
 
D

Deleted member 55

Guest
Peter, Sorry I talked you out of selling me your 45 TSE.

The line up you suggest has a large "IS" gap if you leave out the 24-105 f4 L IS.

For every day shooting of people the 24-105 is the best lens I own.
 
P

Peter Mendelson

New member
Actually Will, I am selling my 45mm TS-E again if you are interested. Just email me at peterm1@optonline.net.

It's true the 24-105L is very versatile for everyday shooting of people, it's just that I don't "need" to shoot anyone - I am an amateur and lately I have been really preferring using primes or long/wide lenses. As an example, I went to Central Park in NYC a couple of weeks ago with the 24-105L. Yes, it performed very well and I got a lot of shots and was easy to carry, but I think I would have gotten more interesting shots with the 16-35, 70-200, or one of my fast primes, even if that meant I would have gotten fewer shots, or that I would have been carrying two lenses. Since nobody is really depending on me to get photographs, I think I would have preferred the wider/longer zooms.

Peter
 
K

Klaus Esser

pro member
Peter Mendelson said:
Hi. I recently sold my 17-40L and am reevaluating my lens lineup. Right now it's: 24-105L, 35L, 45 TS-E, 85L, 135L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100-400L IS. I use the 5D, and am not a pro, although I love to take everything from landscapes to street shooting to candid portraits.

Right not I am thinking about sellling my 24-105L and 45mm TS-E and getting the 16-35mm L version II instead. I can use it in the city and for travel where the f/2.8 will come in handy compared to the 17-40L, and for landscapes it would be great. It's just hard to swallow that $1600 price tag for the lens (although I would have more than enough if I sold my 24-105 and the TS-E). When I had the 17-40 and the 24-105, it was hard to figure out which lens to take out with me since I like the superwide angle viewpoint on the 5D with the 17-40L, but on the other hand, the 24-105L was a good walkaround lens. If I had the 16-35L with my L primes at 35, 85 and 135L (plus the fantastic 70-200 f/4 IS), I don't see myself missing the 24-105L that much.

While the 24-105L is a great performer, I usually get more "WOW" shots from using my other lenses (since the wide or long focal lengths usually provide greater visual impact, as do fast lenses which can give very shallow depth of field like the L primes).

So how does this lineup look?: 16-35L II, 35L, 85L, 135L, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400L IS?

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Peter
Click to expand...


Hi Peter!

Since i used manual Nikon lenses on my 1Ds, i never had to care for CAs and other abberartions.
Now my 1Ds is broken and i use the lenses on a 20D until i get a 1Ds2 or maybe 3 if it comes out.
I use 20mm/35mm (both rezorsharp), 85mm and 105mm and just testing a 300mm for real big stitches like this one: http://www.harlem-13-gigapixels.com/

Doing shots for stitching it´s a big help not having to correct every picture first before stitching. A friend also uses manual Nikon lenss on a 5D via the Novoflex adapter-ring (about 150€) and is very happy.
But there is no automatic, of course.


best, Klaus
 
K

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Keep it....

I would keep the 24-105. It's the best all around lens for what you do - from landscapes to people to whatever. Weight and clairity are great too. I bought it to travel with on my 5d. I like the reach that the 24-70 doesn't have and I can compensate using iso instead of going wide open as I might with the 24-70. For ultra wide, I have the Sigma 12-24 made for full frame. I like zooms for the versatility. For me the ideal line up is 12-24 - 24-70 - 70-200 and a 50 (either 1.2 or 1.4 will do)
 
C

Chuck Fry

New member
Just curious, Peter, why did you part with the 17-40 L?

I also have a 5D (and a 1D Mk II and a 20D) and I was thinking of getting a 17-40 L.
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Why don't you give a try to the Sigma 12-24?
It has been longly discussed here in OPF in 2006 a quick search should bring you some samples...
 
P

Peter Mendelson

New member
Well I heard the Sigma 12-24 varies a lot copy-to-copy so I would have to find a sharp copy.

I just sold my 45mm TS-E this morning.

Here are my choices right now:

1) Get another 17-40L and bank a few hundred dollars from the sale of my TS-E;
2) Sell my 135L to have enough funds for the 16-35L version II; or
3) Sell my 24-105L to have enough funds for the 16-35L version II.

Since I would like a faster lens with the sharpest corners possible, I am currently leaning towards option 2. While the 135L is incredible, it is not one of my most used lenses (I go for the 85L for portraits and usually the 70-200 f/4 IS for longer reach). Plus I can always pick it up again down the road. For things like my daughter's indoor sporting events the 135L would be great but they are few and far between right now. I can see using the 16-35L II not only stopped down on a tripod, but for travel, shooting in an urban environment, etc. It definitely seems to perform better than the 17-40L when it's wide open or close to wide open.

Decisions, decisions....
 
E

Erik DeBill

New member
It sounds like option 2 is the good one, if you're not worried about weight.

I think weight and the ability to use the 40mm end as a slightly wide normal are the only pluses for 17-40 vs 16-35 II. Often-times I find myself using the 40mm end to save having to switch lenses, even if it feels a touch wide. Of course, I'm on APS-C, so I don't see the corner softness problem.

Where are you seeing detailed comparisons of the new lens? I haven't seen anything but regurgitated marketing fluff on it.
 
M

MArk Le

New member
16-35 is only good (over the 17-40) if you want the 2.8 max aperture. Which is important of course. But if not then the 17-40 is as good as the 16-35 fro what I saw. I have the 16 but ive been shooting with the 17 and honestly I can't see much of a difference.

you have the 70-200 F4IS ? do you really need the 135/2 then? I know that you understand what I mean... those lenses are so similar (in the pictures)

if I were you I'd sell the TS, and also the 17-40 (as I understand it's in the "bag" competition with the 24-105) and get the sigma 12-24 (and play the good copy lotterly)

But I wouldn't sell the 24-105 (only for the 24-70 2.8)

plus the 12-24 fits in the bag nicely and it will be really wide. so there won't be any competition between lenses anymore.
 
P

Peter Mendelson

New member
Thanks. I don't absolutely "need" 2.8 for the wide end, so I think I am going to go for a 17-40L. I don't need to go wider than that, so the Sigma doesn't appeal to me that much, especially since I can use my normal filters on the 17-40L and not on the Sigma (not to mention the quality control issues of the Sigma).

I sold my 135L and 45mm TS-E. The 70-200L f/4 IS is so good that I use it every chance I get, and I don't often have to shoot indoor sports or anything like it so the 135L wasn't used all that much, as great a lens as it is. I think I am going to get a 90mm TS-E. It's an incrediblly sharp lens (I used to have one), and the flexibility of the lens is great - I can use it for macros, portraits, stitched landscapes, and play with the plane of focus.

Peter
 
P

Peter Mendelson

New member
OK, change of plans! I ordered the 16-35L II after all. I know there will be times I will want to use it at f/2.8, plus it appears to be better than the 17-40L at f/4. I think I will get a lot of use out of this lens. At the same time, I also just bought a used 100mm f/2 on eBay, so I can have a fast, quick-focusing telephoto I can use indoors, for a very reasonable price. The photos posted by "joemama" on dpreview taken with this lens helped convince me this is a good, cheap alternative to the 135L. He also posted great shots taken with the 16-35L at f/2.8 which showed its usefulness wide open.

Thanks to all - can't wait to try out the 16-35L this weekend!

Peter
 
S

Steve Saunders

New member
Canon's lack of a wider zoom for full-frame is baffling. The 14mm f2.8 isn't wide enough, even though it's expensive enough for a prime, I'd still prefer a zoom for news work. Sigma's 12-24 is too slow a max aperture and a faster f2.8 would be nice. Choice is limited here.
 
K

Klaus Esser

pro member
Steve Saunders said:
Canon's lack of a wider zoom for full-frame is baffling. The 14mm f2.8 isn't wide enough, even though it's expensive enough for a prime, I'd still prefer a zoom for news work. Sigma's 12-24 is too slow a max aperture and a faster f2.8 would be nice. Choice is limited here.
Click to expand...

Hi Steve!

With a 35mm analogue camera 14mm is an extraordinary wide angle. With a fullframe digital as 5D, 1Ds or 1DsMkII it also is an extraordinary wideangle - with the problems added, which digital capturing naturally produces: the lightrays have to travel through the filter in front of the sensor and have to travel some way into the sensor. With film this doesn´t happen: the rays don´t have to travel such distances inside the medium.
The results of penetrating the sensor at such a long way at such wide angles are visible: chromatic abberations increasing to the edges - the more visible, the wider the angle of the lens becomes. Extreme wide-angles are not a good idea using a full-frame digital camera.
Retrofocus-constructions without visible abberations are very expensive and very rare at this extreme angles around 14mm and wider.
Zooms of this range are not satisfiying me.

best, Klaus
 
J

John_Nevill

New member
Just to add my 4 penneth, I spent the weekend doing a city break in Amsterdam and took along the Sigma 12-24, EF 24-105 IS and EF 24-70. Prior to the trip I had the opportunity to use the EF 17-40 for a couple of days.

I used a 5D and IMO the 24-105 IS is the most flexible, I had handheld shots at 1/6s at night which were surprisingly sharp. The 24-70 had the edge in daylight and f2.8 its very useful.
The Sigma 12-24 is proving to be too soft at 12mm, but at ~14-15mm its corner to corner sharpness is pretty good and its lack of distortion is amazing.

I've thought about trading it in for a 17-40 or 16-35, but I'll stick with it as it really is a great lens for the money, assuming you get a good copy.
 
K

Kevin Bjorke

New member
I've got a Sigma and have always liked it. Maybe I got lucky.

If you want fast, just get a 28 f/1.8 and use your feet! You'll have less to carry, it's easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top