Canon lens recommendation

[AvidVisionary]

I have a 5D MKII

Lens
Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8



I would like to get one of the following but a bit torn between them.


EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - £339.95
EF 28mm f/1.8 USM - £359.95



I am leaning towards the 28mm because of the wide aperture. However, I love wide angle lens and the 20mm is fantastic but the aperture is not as appealing.



Suggestions?

[jaker]

20 mm is a great lens to use  particularly for landscape and architecture and will give you a wider range of widths in your collection . if you can afford it, go for 17-40mm, this is one of my most used lenses, you will not regret it.


JAMES KERR ABIPP
photography - finalist international garden photographer of the year 2011

www.jameskerr.co.uk

[Semillon]

What to you want to use the lens for? Typically a wide angle lens is used with a greater depth of field, the wider aperture would rarely get a work out.

The EF 28mm f/1.8 is not a great lens from an image quality perspective, likewise the EF 20mm f/2.8 has corner sharpness and vignette issues, you would be better off buying the EF 17-40mm f/4 L as suggested above.

Another lens to consider if you want to push the budget is the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L Lens.

[Ken Bennett]

I own both of these lenses, and they get very little or no use. One word summation: Meh. The 28/1.8 isn't bad if you need the speed for some reason, say for reportage. The 20/2.8 is likewise merely okay. For journalism I usually end up with the 16-35/2.8 (which has its own issues), or the 24/1.4 (much better than the 28 imho). If I am shooting architecture, I go for the Sigma 12-24, of which I have a very nice copy.

If I were shooting landscapes, I'd want the 17-40, as noted above.

[AvidVisionary]

Thank you for responding. My budget is £400 which does not allow for a L series lens. I wanted a wide angle lens because I have none and I love wide angle pictures and architecture with landscape. Now, I have no experience with any other lenses then Canon. I can save a bit more if that is what you are suggesting and buy an L series lens. I read up on those lenses I mentioned and yes the EF 20mm f/2.8 has corner vignette issues which put me off.

I knew those lenses were not great but when money is an obstacle then it can be difficult. However, I can save up and wait a little while. It will be worth it.


Now it's between a;

EF 16-35mm f/2.8
EF 24mm f/1.4

I am thinking more of the 24mm because of the extra aperture. I always want more light especially if it's natural. The 16-35mm is cheaper compared but the 24mm is better.

Should I just wait, save up and get the 24mm instead?

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thank you for responding. My budget is £400 which does not allow for a L series lens. I wanted a wide angle lens because I have none and I love wide angle pictures and architecture with landscape. Now, I have no experience with any other lenses then Canon. I can save a bit more if that is what you are suggesting and buy an L series lens. I read up on those lenses I mentioned and yes the EF 20mm f/2.8 has corner vignette issues which put me off.

The 17-40L is currently £540 at Amazon. I suggest that unless you have an urgent need to buy something now, you save and buy the best you can reasonably reach.

Bodies may come and go but the lenses you buy will last. I remember the amazement I felt when I first looked at images I'd shot using L-series lenses. You'll never regret buying a better quality lens.

Jeremy

[AvidVisionary]

The problem with the 17-40L is the f stop which is 4, fixed. I want a wider aperture.

[AvidVisionary]

The 17-40L is looking good from reviews. I may just get that if no one recommends another.

[jaker]

Unless you do a lot of reportage type photography in which case a fast 24mm would suit - save up for the 17-40 - for the few occasions when you need a little more speed just put the iso up a notch. As a very experience architectural and interiors photographer with a wide range of wide angle lens  I find this lens invaluable - I own a Sigma 12-24 for  really really wide angles, a 24-70 - most useful all round lens but nor cheap, and a 24 t/s  invaluable when you need it. Its will give you all the sharpness you need for 95% of the time, and build quality is excellent. If you are doing serious landscape and architecture you will be using a tripod and stopping down to at least F11 /16, shallow depth of field is not what you need. 

JAMES KERR ABIPP
photography - finalist international garden photographer of the year 2011

http://www.jameskerr.co.uk/

[Paul Sumi]

The 17-40L is looking good from reviews. I may just get that if no one recommends another.

I've owned the 17-40 for about 6 years.  I bought it for my Canon 10D (1.6x crop FOV) and now use it occasionally with my full frame 1DS2.

If possible, I would suggest you borrow or rent the lens for a weekend to test its suitability before buying one.  Remember that the 17-40 was introduced when 11 megapixels was the most a DSLR had.  You'll have to decide for yourself if this lens can adequately resolve your camera's 22 megapixels.

That said, using my 1DS2 I find center sharpness very good, but soft towards the corners.  Stopping down to f/11 or so seems to help.  This is more of an issue at the 17mm end.  IMO, YMMV and all the usual disclaimers.

Also, with filters like polarizers you'll probably have to use the thin version (no front thread) to prevent vignetting at the wide end.


Paul

 

[AvidVisionary]

Good idea. I will rent it and try it out. If it's not what I want then I will try the 16-35mm f/2.8L. The L series lenses are truly magnificent. I don't believe I will be buying normal lenses from now on.

[stever]

the 17-40 has some issues, but so does the 16-35 -- both need to be stopped down to about f8

manufacturing tolerance is a serious issue with wide zooms resulting in assymentry - really low resolution on one side or the other at larger apertures (varying with focal length)

i bought a voigtlander 20 as i don't use wide angle that much and find carrying the 17-40 a nuisance -- very little difference in performance or price, both need to be stopped down to f8 for good corner resolution

for most people, the 17-40 makes sense.  if you really need good performance at larger apertures you need to save a lot longer for a Zeiss 21

on the other hand, you are missing a lot of the 5D2's capability with the 50 1.8 and 75-300 --- i'd be more inclined to up-grade in the most used range first

[AvidVisionary]

Too many lenses with too many problems. Is there a lens I can afford without saving up for far too long? Should I stick with primes when it comes to wide angle lens?

I need one by may but people seem to find problems with the lens I chose. I definitely want an L series lens because they will last but what is the cheapest one. If I cannot afford it then is there a close alternative? Like Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or something equivalent?

[dchew]

I definitely want an L series lens because they will last but what is the cheapest one...

I think we get a little too wrapped up in thinking L lenses are the only ones that last.  I've had a 24 f/2.8 and a 35 f/2 for 16 and 15 years respectively.  Many shots on them, been mountaineering and backpacking with both many times.  They still work just fine.  No, they aren't as sharp as some other options, but they sure are small and light.  I've also had many wide L lenses, including the first 17-35 f/2.8, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 24 TS, 16-35 and 17-40.  In fact, the only Canon wide angle I haven't had at one point or another is the 28 f/2.8 (do you think I have a problem??).

Too many lenses with too many problems. Is there a lens I can afford without saving up for far too long? Should I stick with primes when it comes to wide angle lens?

Generally true with Canon wide angles.  I currently use the Zeiss 21 and Zeiss 35.  As others have mentioned, I believe these two are the best glass, but they are insanely expensive and manual focus. They are the ones that will come close to "getting the most out of your 5DII," which is the Canon camera I use (well in addition to the 24TS L II, which I certainly wouldn't recommend for you).  Frankly, if you are handholding while shooting, I think camera movement and focus inaccuracy will show in the images much more than the difference in sharpness between all the wide angles mentioned above. You are going to get all sorts of opinions, so I'll give you mine:  Based on some of your other posts, it seems like you are on the newer-end of your experience with photography but have a great desire to learn a lot, which is awesome.  Get a prime in the focal length you want.  Don't worry about sharpness, how robust it is, or even what it's max aperture is.  Photographers use wide angles in so many different ways.  Find out how you like to use it over the course of months or years, then jump to other lenses as you learn.

Dave

[AvidVisionary]

Thank you for the advice and kind words dchew.

I have a hunger to learn and yes I am re-entering the world of photography. I do not like auto focus as I don't do photojournalism. I prefer manual because I would like one day to work with cinematography. In film there is no auto anything. Everything is manual. I would like to get into the habit of manual focus.

Regarding the lens. I have chosen to go with two. Irrelevant of reviews and personal opinions.

EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 L USM
EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

I will go for the first. Should I not make the savings count by the middle of April then I shall get the second. I will rent them first and see which will suite me.

[dchew]

I think that is a very good decision.  One suggestion: If you get the 17-40, just remember when you are shooting that when in that 20-30mm range, zooming in or out gives a very different result vs. moving the camera forward or backward - sometimes even a few inches.  Don't forget to experiment with "zooming with your feet" instead of simply rotating the dial.  One's not better than the other, just different.  I think it is important to learn that difference.

Dave

[slb_000]

I had a similar situation a few months ago, and ended up with another choice altogether:  the Canon 20-35.

This is now discontinued, but a local camera shop had a second hand one at £199 - and being in a shop I could try it out before purchasing (and ensure that example was a good one).  Tests showed stopped down a notch or so it peforms well enough - certainly sharp across the full sensor for me on my 5DII - I am aware it has issues close up, but for landscape work its good enough, and much smaller than the L lenses otherwise being discussed.

Simon

[gsman]

get the 16-35 f2.8l.
it's worth it!
my 2nd. favorite lens (1st is the 50mm 1.2l).
especially on a full frame 5d mk2
it's still good on my wifes 40 d as well even with the 1.4 crop.