Options

5D mark II wide angle question

HelvegrHelvegr Registered Users Posts: 246 Major grins
edited July 12, 2010 in Cameras
Hi -

So I've just ordered a 5D MarkII which will replace my current 50D. However I'm left with the problem of replacing my 10-22 EF-S lens. While I think I've done my research, I wanted to get an opinion from you guys.

From what I think I understand, the 10mm on my 1.6 crop essentially has the same angle of view as a 16mm full frame. Assuming this is correct, would the 16-35mm f/2.8 L be a good replacement for the 10-22?

Thanks for any insight!
Camera: Nikon D4
Lenses: Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II | Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 | Nikon 50mm f/1.4
Lighting: SB-910 | SU-800

Comments

  • Options
    dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2010
    Helvegr wrote: »
    Hi -

    So I've just ordered a 5D MarkII which will replace my current 50D. However I'm left with the problem of replacing my 10-22 EF-S lens. While I think I've done my research, I wanted to get an opinion from you guys.

    From what I think I understand, the 10mm on my 1.6 crop essentially has the same angle of view as a 16mm full frame. Assuming this is correct, would the 16-35mm f/2.8 L be a good replacement for the 10-22?

    Thanks for any insight!

    Yes, and the 17-40 is also a great option for a lot less moneydeal.gif
    Dan
    http://danielplumer.com/
    Facebook Fan Page
  • Options
    Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2010
    I use the 17-40 on the 5D II and really like it.
    The corners can get somewhat soft below 20mm
    otherwise it's pin sharp. And the fact that it zooms
    to 40mm make it a nice walk around lens too (city, vistas).
    By the way, the filter size is 77mm (the 16-35 has 82mm)
    which makes it easy to trade filters (pol) between this and
    the other 77mm L lenses. 82mm Filters are expensive!
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • Options
    ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 23,899 moderator
    edited July 8, 2010
    Helvegr wrote: »
    Hi -

    So I've just ordered a 5D MarkII which will replace my current 50D. However I'm left with the problem of replacing my 10-22 EF-S lens. While I think I've done my research, I wanted to get an opinion from you guys.

    From what I think I understand, the 10mm on my 1.6 crop essentially has the same angle of view as a 16mm full frame. Assuming this is correct, would the 16-35mm f/2.8 L be a good replacement for the 10-22?

    Thanks for any insight!

    Yes, either the EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM or the model II version would be very similar in FOV on a FF camera to what you experienced with the EF-S 10-22mm, f3.5-4.5 USM on a crop 1.6x body. (The model II adds better sharpness consistency across the FF image frame.)

    You might also consider the EF 17-40mm, f4.0L USM, which is what I use with the 5D MKII. While not as fast in aperture as the 16-35mm lenses, it is very sharp and the high-contrast allows very accurate focus as well. The 17-40mm, f4L is also much nicer to your pocketbook. thumb.gif
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Options
    PhotoskipperPhotoskipper Registered Users Posts: 453 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2010
    16 - 35 F2.8 is good to have but you can pay half of the price to get the 17-40 F4. I pick the 17-40 mainly because of the 77 mm filter size same as the 24-105 and the 70 -200 F2.8. It saves me a lot on the polarizer, ND in terms of money and travel weight. 16 -35 is 82 mm where the filters are more expensive and less choice.
    Photoskipper
    flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
  • Options
    OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2010
    I'd go with the 17-40. The camera can make poster prints out of ISO 4000 if you expose it right so 1 stop doesn't validate the extra $ very well
    www.overfocused.com
  • Options
    borrowlenses.comborrowlenses.com Registered Users Posts: 441 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2010
    The 17-40 is great L glass for the money, the 16-35 f/2.8 Mark II if you have some more money, and if you win the lottery the 14mm prime.
    http://www.BorrowLenses.com
    Your professional online camera gear rental store

    Follow us on Facebook
    http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
  • Options
    SeefutlungSeefutlung Registered Users Posts: 2,781 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2010
    I have the the 16-35 on a full frame. Great lens ... very sharp. The 2.8 allows the camera to focus better and faster. If you have the money ... and appreciate "available light" ... then go for the 16-35 ... if you have the money and get the 17-40 ... everytime you use it in marginal light ... you'll always wonder if you made the right choice.
    My snaps can be found here:
    Unsharp at any Speed
  • Options
    ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 23,899 moderator
    edited July 12, 2010
    Seefutlung wrote: »
    ... if you have the money and get the 17-40 ... everytime you use it in marginal light ... and you'll always wonder if you made the right choice.

    I could afford an EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM (model I or model II) if I wanted it. I have the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM and it does everything I "need" it to do. For me, the 17-40mm is the right choice because it meets my needs.

    If my needs change, I'll consider the Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM II, but I might also consider the Nikkor 14-24mm, f2.8G ED AF-S in a Novoflex (16:9 dot net) Nikon G adapter. That will be a tough choice. :D

    (I know what you meant and I'm just poking fun.)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.