Wide angle lens for Canon 5d mk3

G

Grumps1974

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,602
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
I am thinking of buying a wide angle lens for my 5D mk3.

Currently my widest lens is a 24-70. I previously had a 17-40 which I sold and I am now regretting it. The 17-40 was a good lens but I fancy a change. I could go for a Canon 16-35 but do I go f2.8 or f4? I could also go for another make e.g Tamron or Sigma. I would prefer not to buy a prime as I like the versatility of zooms.

Can anyone advise on what lens you think I should go for and why. No particular budget in mind but I want to buy second user not new.

Thanks everyone.
 
Sold my 2.8 and bought the f4 and not regretted it at all, the i.s. opens up the no tripod options....
 
I have the 17-40 and a 21mm prime on a 5d3, but if I was in your position then its the 16-35 f4 all the way.
The 2.8 is prone to corner softness, and unless you really need the 2.8 - then the f4 is a much better performer
 
Thanks to all who have contributed.

So the concensus so far is clearly the Canon 16-35 f4. Has anyone any experience of a wide angle zoom non Canon lens they would like to share?
 
PS the tamron may not take filters? Worth a double check if that is important for you.
 
As above, if you don't need the 2.8 then the 16-35 F4 is the way to go. A far superior lens IMHO.
 
I would support the f4 argument and also find it a great lens on the 5 dsr - the decider for me was the larger size / potentially more expensive filter issue for the f2.8 - having splashed out on some Lee filters the 77 mm filter size on the f4 suited me better so you may want to consider this....?
 
I have the 16-35mm 2.8. It does have the same filter size as the 24-70 II so that may be worth considering if you already have that lens. They are both 82mm filter threads.

The f4 version wasn't available when I purchased mine. I probably would have gone for it if it had been - I'd like IS and don't really need 2.8.
 
Thanks to everyone for their contributions. It seems that the overwhelming majority go for the 16-35 F4.:)

I have however been looking back over my Lightroom collection and I find to my surprise that I have only taken 300 photos using a wider setting than is currently available on my 24-70. This works out at less than 20 per year. From this it is clear that I don't really need a wide angle lens and that spending over £600 on one is false economy. So for once I am going to let my head rule my heart. If I do decide to buy a lens it will be at the budget end of the scale. For my (very) limited needs this seems to be the best value for money.

If my photography activities change in the future then I will look for a 16-35.

Once again thanks everyone for their contribution.
 
What about an older ef 20-35 usm? They're full frame (film derived) and can be had for modest money. I've got a 17-40L but i still won't give my 20-35 up.
 
The 16-35 f4 is definitely better than the f2.8 the IS is more valuable than one extra stop of light.
 
RumpFace said:
What about an older ef 20-35 usm? They're full frame (film derived) and can be had for modest money. I've got a 17-40L but i still won't give my 20-35 up.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought but I am not sure that the difference between 20mm and 24mm is that significant to make it worthwhile bearing in mind how many photos I took with my 17-40.
 
The 2 budget options that spring to mind are the Cosina/Vivitar?others(?) 19-35 and the Sigma 12-24. The Cosina does suffer from fairly obvious distortions at the wide end especially (possibly correctable in PP?) and the Sigma is extremely well corrected as far as distortions go but exaggerated perspective it has in spades! The Cosina has a 77mm filter thread but the Sigma needs either gels that are cut to size and fit behind the rear element or a rather expensive set of kit from Lee if you want to use grads.

ETA... Oh, the extra few mm of width makes a BIG difference at the wide end!
 
Thanks for the continued contributions everyone but I have decided not to pursue the purchase of a wide angle lens at this time. Looking at Lightroom I have taken less than 300 photos at less than 20mm in 15 years. It does not seem worth purchasing a lens for such rare use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top