So what is the best Canon wide angle zoom?
Friend got a 5D Mk2. He had the 1st gen 16-35mm lens as well. I have benn looking at some of his landscape shots..couple of things bothered me..sharpness at corners, vignetting at corners, and not so pleasing bokeh. I want to reccomend a wide angle zoom to him..but I don't know jack about canon stuff.
The gen 2 16-35mm is supposed to be better at the corners. So that there is that.
But is there consensus on the "best" WA FF zoom for canon?
The gen 2 16-35mm is supposed to be better at the corners. So that there is that.
But is there consensus on the "best" WA FF zoom for canon?
D700, D600
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
0
Comments
Personally though, I own an MKII, and for landscapes I don't have any primes wider than a 50mm F1.4. I use it and pan if I have to... it's so sharp corner to corner I find it way more worth it for landscapes than the Tokina 28-70 lens I own.
Maybe a good 28mm prime with a little panning and you'd have extreme clarity without the bigger price tags yet. The new lenses look promising though. That new 24-70 is a consideration if it's as sharp as the prime I use. Imagine having 24-70 with prime all the way through :wow
If you care for primes the best Canon makes are the 24mm f/3.5 L TS-E II and the 24mm f/1.4 L II.
― Edward Weston
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=115951
... using this adapter to allow aperture control:
http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/
Manual focus but with camera focus confirmation.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
20mm, ISO 400, f/8, 1/8, handheld
I'd be surprised if this test was valid, but here it is, FWIW, YMMV:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=114&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
I had a Sigma 10-20 on my crop camera. It was nice, but the colors just didn't match Canon color, which is consistent across all my Canon lenses.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
for Canon yes. If the op also considers 3rd party lenses ... Zeiss has some sweet primes in that range too (21, 25, 28). The Samyang 14mm has great sharpness (but mustache distortions) at a bargain price.
― Edward Weston
... and you can produce output images which beat even large format digital scanning backs. It's not suitable for moving subjects, but for vista landscapes there is no better methodology (that I have found or used.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Preach!
I have used the sharpest and the worst lenses, and have images on both which make fine prints of which have sold over and over.
Therefore, do not belabor your consideration on sharpness alone. Versatility, size, max aperture and cost are more important in many cases. I favor all the new Canon lenses as they are considerably sharper, the 16-35 being one of them. That being said, I have soooo many images taken with the old stand by 17-40mm. If you don't wish to spend more than a grand, the 17-40 would be my recommendation.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I do use the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM on all my Canon bodies, and that includes IR converted use:
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
We're talking about uniformity of sharpness across the image plane more than sharpness in detail. But, sharpness in detail can be important too with 21MP FF sensors since they really amplify problems with lenses. The 17-40 I totally agree is the best zoom, and for even less around $300 for a 50mm F1.4 or a macro will get images drenched in clear detail edge to edge and uniformity even more than the zoom if that's his main tiff with his landscape photography.
Personally for me, in macro the sharpness in detail does make a much larger difference though.
Did the 8mp 20D really amplify problems with lenses? Because it had the same size pixels as the 5DII.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
What? I didn't say anything about the 20D.
You're comparing two completely different classes of technology as equal because they have the same size pixel. It's like comparing a v12 to a v4 engine with the same size piston thinking they're both of equal timing tolerances. The V12 is going to show problems much earlier (and more violently) than the V4 if the timing is off a little. The piston size might be fuel efficiency related but it won't distort the timing. Size of the pixels affects sharpness via diffraction and lack of receiving enough light. I suppose DLA could be defined as a type of sharpness efficiency, so yeah, the size does affect sharpness but that's related to the size of the sensor. And the MKII has a much bigger sensor.
If you took identically composed photos with matched focal lengths, first with the 20D and then the MKII, you are still recording almost 3x more detail in the same amount of space with the same sharpness resolve with the MKII. And that amplifies any apparent problem with a lens by almost %300, while adding in any problems in the lens corners that wouldn't exist in a photo from a 1.6x camera.
We're getting considerably off track in this discussion.
I think that Jack's point is that if you take a 1.6x crop from the center of the 5D MKII image, you have almost exactly the same issues with both resolution and sharpness with either the 5D MKII or the 20D, since you are looking at almost the same pixels (both numbers and size).
That's the bigger problem, and what I believe the original poster was asking about. The Canon 5D MKII is very demanding of lenses at the edges and in the corners, "if you pixel peep".
Marc's point was that he sells images at a professional level from even the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
You implied that the pixel density of the 5DII was so high as to be excessively demanding on lenses. It has the same pixel density as a 20D, which I think everyone knows is not demanding on lenses. And, what Ziggy said.
...
If you take identically composed photos with matched focal lengths, when shooting with the 5DII you will be standing closer to the subject. This is less demanding of the lens.
If you want to talk about problems in the corners, then I agree, but I don't really consider it a big deal as I am not a pixel-peeping landscaper.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
After many campfire conversations, I have come to the conclusion photography is a game of compromises and compensations!
Every piece of equipment is loaded with compromises which force us to compensate in some way.
The corner softness usually inherent in every Canon 17-40mm lens is a compromise for the lenses versatility, cost, weight, and filter size.
Just 10 years ago corner sharpness was only an issue with large format photography, in the world of SLRs corner sharpness was simply a compromise for the format. Those who wanted greater corner sharpness were shooting with 4x5 field cameras, like myself
If cost were not an issue, I would recommend the new 16-35 F/2.8 and 1Ds M3 body.
Oh, and GREAT images Ziggy!
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
If you wanna stick with Canon, get the 16-35 mk2 or the 17-40, or the new 24 2.8 IS. Not necessarily in that order of preference. Like Marc Muench said, it's all a game of personal needs and compromises. Personally, I'd NEVER go lugging a fat, heavy 14-24 out into the wilderness, are you kidding me? I shoot Nikon so the two lenses you'd see me carrying would be the 20 f/4 AIS, (Galen Rowell's favorite) and maybe a 24 f/2.8 AIS or 28 f/2.8 AIS. (On Nikon I can directly mount old manual focus lenses without an adapter, and as long as I don't go much past 12 megapixels on FX, the older lenses resolve corners beautifully!)
But I digress. The Canon camp. Only really get the 16-35 mk2 if you think you'll need the f/2.8. Maybe you shoot a lot of star trails at night or something. Or if technical perfection is just that much more important to you; otherwise the 17-40 is a great option. Then again, like I said, if you care about weight even MORE, then the 24 f/2.8 IS will proably be one of the BEST options on the market. I'm very excited to see how that lens performs, and I'm not even a Canon owner!
ALSO however, I would strongly, STRONGLY recommend checking out the Zeiss 18mm and 21mm lenses. They are, hands down, the true champions when it comes to achieving flawless sharpness, and they're not even all that expensive or heavy. I mean it depends on your budget; each is over $1,000 I believe, but at least they're below $2,000 if I am not mistaken. And they CREAM all other lenses if you care that much about extreme corner sharpness.
So, there you have it. Make your decision (or, your friend should make THEIR decision) based not just on one spec. alone, but as Marc said the decision is going to be based on at least 2-3 different factors, and for me weight and price are just as important as sharpness... :-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum