wide angle lenses

[barrisster]

I finally broke down and purchased a 5d mk III.  Now I would like to purchase a wide angle lense.  I have a 24-105 is L; 70-200 is f4L and and a 50 1.4. 

I am not married to canon for the wide angle, but would like a quality lense, be it prime or zoom.  Any suggestions?

[cicopo]

 A lot of people go for the 17-40 F4 L or those willing to spend a lot more for faster glass buy the 16-35 f2.8 L version 2. One other choice I like is the Sigma 12-24 but that's really wide on a full frame. With that said I've never felt the 17-40 L deserved / lived up to it's price (and yes I have one plus the Sigma)

[hsbn]

Rokinon/Samyang 14mm F2.8 or TS-E 17mm.

[TCampbell]

The EF 16-36mm f/2.8L II USM is extremely nice. The EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is a bit more affordable though (f/2.8 zooms are never cheap).

I have the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM -- an exceptionally good lens... but not cheap. But a 14mm lens on a full frame body is extremely wide.

All of these are "rectilinear" wide angle lenses -- which means the lens is designed to keep "straight" lines in real life looking "straight" in the photo.

Canon also makes the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM. A "fish eye" is a curvilinear lens... meaning that straight lines are allowed to start to round out into arcs. This is a completely different look than a typical wide angle.

[ratan]

It really depends on your budget and what purpose.

If you like to take landscape photographs and have all in the time in the world, I would choose prime lenses

If you like to versatality and just mainly focus on AF then I would choose zoom lenses.

(remember primes have superior quality to zooms, but zooms got the versatality, therefore you have to sacrifice either one)

• the 16-35mm is the most used canon lens with stellar quality and perfect range. If you get this you can cover the full range (16-35, 24-105, 70-200)
• the 14mm is a specialty lens, definetly worth the money and any landscape photographer's jewel. Just 14mm range to some is not a practical range.
• the 35mm 1.4 Sigma art lens --> the underdog that can perform better than their canon nikon counterparts (arguably best 35mm on the market)
• If you want to go economical... then 17-40.. you don't have to ask if its good or not. its a bang for the buck.

Personally I would push for the 16-35 or the 35 1.4

Hope this helps

I hope this helps.

[ebiggs1]

Most of photography is use orientated. I f you have good equipment. The rest is up to you.

I recommend the 17-40mm f4 L. Yes, on a focus target, the 16-35mm f2.8 L is probably better. In the real world of photography, I doubt anybody can tell the difference. Plus the f4 to f2.8 L is only one stop. One stop is not a deal breaker or maker, most of the time.

The 8-15mm f4 L is by far the most fun lens to have. And like I said it ia all bout how the photographer, you, uses it.

This lens may not be the most practibile but it is a ball to play around with. Get the 17-40mm f4 L and you won't go wrong.

[amfoto1 · Accepted solution]

I really like the EF 20/2.8 on my FF camera...

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

[barrisster]

Thank you for our inputs.   I think I am going to a prime with 20mm looking the best all around for my needs.