- Last post
- 32 Responses
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.
The 16-35 is also awesome but then you are back in the thousands.
16-35L is a great lens
I have the 17-40 on my mark II. Its a great L lens but requires some decent light if shooting indoors.
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.
adumbratesly, I like your lens. I think I'm ok with an f4.5 since my immediate need is for outdoor shots.
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.
The sigma 12-24 is sharp and fairly decent in the corners, it can be a bit inconsistent with focusing, I couldnt fix it with macro adjustment either, might have just been the copy I used though.
Seems to be a good thread to ask...I have 16-35 II. How do I find the sweet spot for this lens? Is it different for every body?
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....
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 $$$
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...
I have the same Tokina that carianoff is talking about... 11-16. Love it. Super sharp, and good quality. It's about 800-900....
I have 17-40L on 5D. It is good and generally sharp and contrasty but corners are very noticeably soft in wide angle. Not sure if 16-35 would perform much better.
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.