Full Frame Wide Angle Zoom Dilemma for Northern Lights

jpatrick

jpatrick

Suspended / Banned
Messages
239
Name
Jeremy
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve just bought a 5D Mark III and swapped my 17-55 f2.8 for a 24-105 f4. I now need a wider lens to replace my EF-S 10-22, mainly for landscapes.

I’ve now realised that the Canon full frame wide angle zoom options aren’t ideal. I could afford a 16-35mm II 2.8, but there are reports that it’s rather soft in the corners. The 17-40mm f4 is the obvious choice, but I’m quite fussy and concerned I won’t find it sharp enough unless I stop right down. Also most of my use will be at the wider end where the 16-35mm is reported to be better.

I realise there are many similar threads here, but to complicate matters I travel to Alaska and Northern Canada where the light isn’t always ideal. I will be using this lens to photograph the northern lights in the arctic in November, if they come out on a clear night during the week I’m there. This really needs at least a 2.8 aperture, even with the high ISO capabilities of the 5D, which makes me wonder if a compromise would be to buy the Samyang 14mm 2.8 alongside the 17-40.

I’ve ruled out prime options such as Zeiss and the 17mm TSE because I’d really like to have at least one UWA zoom with autofocus. I’m leaning towards the 17-35mm II at the moment as I’d rather not have to carry an extra lens, but any comments would be appreciated.
 
Personally I would get either the 16-35mm 2.8 II or the Canon 14mm 2.8 II if you can live without the zoom.
Both are awesome when paired with the 5D MKIII for night skyscapes have a search on Flickr for those lenses. :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I would have to raid the piggy bank for a 14mm 2.8 II, so I'd need to be convinced it was significantly sharper than the 16-35 2.8 II to outweigh the loss of focal length options. I'd probably end up wanting a 17-40mm as well.

Rico said:
Personally I would get either the 16-35mm 2.8 II or the Canon 14mm 2.8 II if you can live without the zoom.
Both are awesome when paired with the 5D MKIII for night skyscapes have a search on Flickr for those lenses. :)
Click to expand...
 
Lots of Canon users use the Nikon 14-24mm with an adaptor, manual focus mind, but it is the very best option available on either system
 
jpatrick said:
Thanks, I would have to raid the piggy bank for a 14mm 2.8 II, so I'd need to be convinced it was significantly sharper than the 16-35 2.8 II to outweigh the loss of focal length options. I'd probably end up wanting a 17-40mm as well.
Click to expand...

Think you've answered you own question and the 16-35mm is the one to go for.
 
Last edited:
16-35 II is not brilliant wide open. If you want detailed aurora shots this is not the one to get. 17-40 is worse and you will certainly want to stop it all the way down. I only use it above F/11 :lol: rubbish.
The option is to get either Nikon 14-24 or 14mm and optionally sell them on the way back to recoup the costs. Zeiss 21mm is another option but may not be wide enough?! Some folk successfully use Canon 24mm f/1.4 II for that. Good if you have that money!
 
Thanks for a really helpful response. The aurora requirement isn’t a one off, so I wouldn’t sell the lens after this trip, but I was hoping to get a versatile lens as it’s an occasional use for me. The 14mm looks to be promising quality, but I worry it would be too wide for landscapes. A 24mm 1.4 would be excellent for aurora and of high quality, but it duplicates a focal length I already have and I’d still want a wider capability. I’d rather keep AF which rules out the Zeiss and Nikon options.

The 17-40mm is definitely not fast enough for the aurora though, so it looks like the 16-35mm II may be the best compromise. I just wish that it was better quality for a grand though, which is what lead me to wonder if I should get the 17-40mm plus a sub £500 2.8 or faster wide prime. Pity the 20mm 2.8 doesn't have a great reputation.
 
Try Googling "photographing the northern lights."

There are lots of sites describing how to do it including what kit and settings they recommend.
 
16-35 II > 17-40
Better build, mm wider and also 2.8. Best UWA zoom replacement for the 10-22 on FF.
 
Why not rent the 16-35L and 14L for the trip, assess the results and then purchase one if you need the use of an UWA more regularly?
 
Many thanks for the comments. I think my ideal lens for the Northern Lights would be the 14mm 2.8, but I've just ordered a 16-35mm 2.8 from Panamoz, as I am really looking for more of an all rounder. Perhaps I'll buy a fast prime wide angle at a future date, but as wildlife is my main interest, a 300mm 2.8 would be the first purchase if I come into some money :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top