Public Voice Network
- Show some recent work 55535553
- Xbox: New Generation Reve… 5555
- San Francisco 1717
- WtF? 99
- Client of the Day 148148
- starting a design busines… 33
- DaftPunk 205205
- Server-side Video FX 1111
- Pic of the Day 7470374703
- Stag Do - London
- Name this design style 3737
- WTF 22
- FMT170513 1414
- Bitcoin 118118
- movies on YouTube 116116
- blog 5770357703
- the gif animation thread 1844818448
- Kickstarter of the Day 6666
- Apple Manufacturing 1010
- The drug that eats junkie… 1515
- New Title 1212
- Vid of the Day 1505115051
- The Purge 1111
- WTF Musée 88
Wide angle lense for Canon 3232 Responses
Last post: 1 year, 2 months ago | Thread started: Jun 12, 11, 5:04 p.m.
- CyBrainX
I should be more of an expert with lenses but the information is kind of overwhelming. Some of the pricing doesn't make sense to me. $1200 and it's manual focus only?? This is what google search gave me http://goo.gl/RDVWu
What recommendations can you make? I have a Canon 5D Mk II.
- Jun 12, 11, 5:04 p.m. – Permalink
- irrelevant
If you want a low light lens you are going to pay dearly for it.
If you are ok with a 4 lens and ok with a zoom the 17-40 is a nice L lens for the money. If you have the moola, the 14mm lens is the shiznit.


- Dog-earJun 12, 11, 5:07 p.m. – Permalink
- irrelevant
The 16-35 is also awesome but then you are back in the thousands.


- Dog-earJun 12, 11, 5:08 p.m. – Permalink
- adumbratesly
How wide angle is wide angle for you? This is mine: http://bit.ly/jtN9o6 but as pointed out, lower the light requirement the more you are gonna pay... regardless: I do love this lens.

- Dog-earJun 12, 11, 5:10 p.m. – Permalink
- irrelevant
I have the 17-40 on my mark II. Its a great L lens but requires some decent light if shooting indoors.


- Dog-earJun 12, 11, 5:33 p.m. – Permalink
- slappy
I have a 5dmkii too and the 17-40L is fine as when I'm shooting interiors or architectural stuff I use a tripod anyway and I'm shootng in the sweet spot of f9 - f13.
If you have a 24-70 or 24-105 already I would consider the 17mm TSE if you have the funds. That will be my next lens after I update my macro.


- Dog-earJun 12, 11, 5:41 p.m. – Permalink
- reinitialize
i purchased the 17-40/L Refurbished through Canon. it looks and performs like brand new. it think it was around $680. i love it.


- Dog-earJun 12, 11, 8:57 p.m. – Permalink
- carianoff
http://www.flickr.com/groups/tok…
http://photo.net/equipment/tokin…
I regret selling this every day for the last year.

- Dog-earJun 13, 11, 2:39 a.m. – Permalink
- vaxorcist
want cheap? get an old Nikon 20mm F2.8 or 20mm F3.5and a FotoDiox adapter... manual focus on a lens that wide is ok.... Both seem better than the Canon 20mm F2.8 in my usage....
if you don't need so wide, the Contax 28mm F2.8 Zeiss is a gem, add an adapter and it's still pretty cheap.. and VERY contrasty/sharp....


- Dog-earJun 13, 11, 6:30 a.m. – Permalink
- colin_s
wait, you bought a 5mk2 and you want to save money on the lens?
poor form, man. better to get a shitty body and an amazing lens. a mk2 with a crap lens is going to look about the same as a rebel with an L series.
do yourself and your photos a favor. invest in a real lens. they make the photos, not the camera (these days). i use the 17-40 on mine, the 16-35 is great but has corner distortion. the 24mm prime or a 35 prime would be great, too.
but you'll be spending $$$


- Dog-earJun 14, 11, midnight – Permalink
- vaxorcist
the 24 28 prime and 28 2.8 primes are not bad. The 35 F2 prime is okay optically, buzzy AF, but nice, especially after F2.8.
The old Nikon 28mm F2.8 AIS is great, and cheap with adapter if you can stand the manual focus...
colin_s is right.... I see all these people with 5D mark II's and cheap lenses and try not to say anything rude... I'd rather have an old nikon D200 and a good prime...


- Dog-earJun 14, 11, 6:25 a.m. – Permalink
- CyBrainX
It's about as much as my 5D Mk II but look at this lens.
http://goo.gl/NqSU2I might go there tomorrow and get it. So much for going the cheap route. More detaiols here: http://goo.gl/kO8qD


- Dog-earJun 17, 11, 9:05 p.m. – Permalink
- CyBrainX
The only down side of the 17mm Tilt-Shift Lens is that you can't put any protective filter lens on there and that thing sticks out like a vulnerable boob waiting for damage.
I also looked into this 16-35mm f2.8 II USM which would have a range that might be more practical in a lot of cases. However, most reviews say the TS-E 17mm f/4L is a lot sharper.
http://goo.gl/KQXEo
- Dog-earJun 18, 11, 7:57 a.m. – Permalink
- ok_not_ok
Checkout the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL-II. It's specifically made for EOS cameras.
http://www.adorama.com/VT2035EOS…
Samples here:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/cv2…

- Dog-earJun 18, 11, 8:32 a.m. – Permalink



