Canon wide lens recommendations

rickp

Hey guys and gals,
I just recently went from a crop body to a FF, as a result I can no longer use my 17-55mm f2.8.
I still have my 24-105mm L series but I feel like I'm missing a little more wide area coverage.

So what do you guys think, what's a good wide lens for a 5d2?

R.

red_exclamation

16-35 f/2.8 L if you need the aperture. Or 17-40 f/4.

craig_d

The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM and the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM are both good. The 17-40mm costs half what the 16-35mm does, so you pay a lot for an extra stop of aperture and 1mm more on the wide end. If you really want to spend money, there's also the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM, which is superb but very costly.

I have the 17-40mm and I'm quite satisfied with the results I get with it.

ziggy53

craig_d wrote: »

... I have the 17-40mm and I'm quite satisfied with the results I get with it.

The Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM has excellent color and contrast and the 5D MKII has no problems with AF in my experience.

I also use stitched panoramics for wide perspective photography. While it requires either careful technique and/or a specialized head and tripod, it yields wonderful extra resolution and detail along with any FOV you desire/require. Not perfect for moving subjects however.

Here is a 7 image, freehand, stitched panoramic image, with moderate motion of the subjects:



... and the link to the full-sized, almost 25 MPix and 25 MB original (dialup beware):

Full size

Edit: The stitched pano was shot with a Canon 40D camera using an EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM @ 70mm focal length.

rpcrowe

24-105mm is wider than 17-55mm...

rickp wrote: »

Hey guys and gals,
I just recently went from a crop body to a FF, as a result I can no longer use my 17-55mm f2.8.
I still have my 24-105mm L series but I feel like I'm missing a little more wide area coverage.

So what do you guys think, what's a good wide lens for a 5d2?

R.

A 24mm focal length is wider on a full frame camera than the 17mm equivalent is on a crop camera. The 24mm is, of course, 24mm on a full framer however the equivalent of the 17mm on a crop camera is approximately 27.7mm on the full frame format.

Therefore, you are actually getting a considerably wider view using the 24mm on your new full frame camera than you were getting using the 17mm on your crop camera.

Now for an even wider view, either the 17-40mm f/4L or 16-35mm f/2.8L (Mk I or II) would be a good full frame choice. The 16-35L would get my nod (primarily because of its f/2.8 aperture) but, the 17-40L is considerably less expensive.

rickp

I was made aware of the 24mm range on the FF. I felt pretty stupid!!! :-)

Someone made a good point about really needing the f 2.8 speed. Both are nice lenses but the price difference is significant.

R.

pathfinder

The 17-40 works very nice in IR too. Mine lives on my converted 40D.

ziggy53

pathfinder wrote: »

The 17-40 works very nice in IR too. Mine lives on my converted 40D.

I can corroborate that the EF 17-40mm, f4L is a great IR lens.

rickp

How are you guys using the lens to shoot IR?

R.

ziggy53

rickp wrote: »

How are you guys using the lens to shoot IR?

R.

Pathfinder and I both have IR converted dSLRs. That means that the visible light bandpass (IR and UV cutout) filter in front of the imager has been replaced by an IR pass filter, and it makes the camera (mine anyway) only suitable for IR work and a specific frequency of light at that.

Mine is a Canon XT/350D that was converted by LifePixels to (I believe) 720 nm infrared bandpass.

The following are all IR images from my XT, and I think all used the EF 17-40mm, f4L:









(Sorry for the thread hijack.)

rickp

Interesting images. I love the white tree.

R.

ziggy53

rickp wrote: »

Interesting images. I love the white tree.

R.

Thanks. It's hard to gauge just exactly what IR capture and processing will yield. I'm hoping Pathfinder will post some of his IR images as well, especially those from the 17-40mm "L".

rpcrowe

I haven't used the 17-40L as an infrared lens
I shoot with a converted Canon D60 (the predecessor to the 10D) and most often use my 12-24mm f/4 Tokina. However, I still have a 17-40L which I don't like for gereral 1.6x use but, which might be fun to try on the D60 as kind of a normal angle lens. I have rat-holed the 17-40L in case I eventually get a full-frame camera. I got it at a good price and could never replace it at that price so I am keeping it.

Here is a shot with my 12-24mm Tokina f/4 ATX:



I will shoot the same scene with my 17-40L and post it later.

kdog

F2.8 has its place.



Plus, that extra little 1mm of the 16-35 helps as well. Is it worth twice the price of the 17-40? For me it is. I would love to try the Canon 14mm F2.8, but talk about expensive. :cry

kdog

FactoryPhil wrote: »

I have the 16-35 II and love it. [...]

I bought a used 17-40 f4 and it should be here by the end of next week.

Really? Why? The 16-35 II can do everything the 17-40 can but better, with the obvious exception of the 35-40 range. But that's when I plug on the 24-105.

rickp

The intended use is nothing special. I just want a nice wide lens to catch those one in a while pano views one comes across here and there. I agree having the speed of 2.8 is nice, but I really don't know if it's worth the extra cost. Another user had a good point when he said I probably wouldn't be hand holding in lowlight situations so why the need for the 2.8.
What's your opinion on that?

R.

rickp

kdog wrote: »

Really? Why? The 16-35 II can do everything the 17-40 can but better, with the obvious exception of the 35-40 range. But that's when I plug on the 24-105.

This is kind of a good point. I have the 24-105. So would I really be adding much by getting the 17-40 or would I benefit much more with the 16-35 2.8? So many questions!!!!!!