Heck yes Nikon

hmmm, not sure how I feel about it. I mean, yeah, it's great, but it will seem to be awkwardly placed (and priced) between the two already available options. If it has a price tag of $2k, which it probably will, you're better off going for the 14-24, no?
 
Ugh, why didn't I check the date!

At that price point I'd take the 14-24 over it for sure.
 
I hope it's better than Canon's 16-35/2.8L II. Nothing I've read about that lens, or the 17-40/4L makes me want to pony up for either. The 11-22/4-5.6 IS STM I got for my EOS-M performs better than either.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I hope it's better than Canon's 16-35/2.8L II. Nothing I've read about that lens, or the 17-40/4L makes me want to pony up for either. The 11-22/4-5.6 IS STM I got for my EOS-M performs better than either.
Click to expand...

Whaaaat? You crazy. With the exception of Nikon's 14-24 (which wins because it's a wide-er angle zoom, and impressively sharp for something that wide while being a zoom...) the Canon 16-35 and 17-40 are basically second to none. Hell, even the v1 16-35 and original 17-35 are pretty darn hard to beat (discounting primes and TS-Es of course, that's not a fair comparison to zooms).
 
Last edited:
That depends on your use- the main advantages to Canon's pro WA zooms is that they're a) fast and accurate to focus and b) take filters. The disadvantages? They're sharp enough in the center, but the corners are hopeless, and the distortion doesn't help.

And really, a good zoom lens should be competitive with most primes concerning sharpness; that's certainly the case with Canon's other pro zooms, including the 24-70L II, 70-200L II, and 200-400L 1.4x. Primes that exceed the zoom's performance usually only offer wider apertures, CA control at comparative apertures, and lower distortion, but that's not always the case either.

Optically, the EF-M 11-22 is a surprise; I hadn't planned on getting it, or anything in the EOS-M range. But the 22/2 and the WA zoom convinced me to spring for the kit since it was at fire-sale pricing, and because the EF -> EF-M adapter works so very well with every single EF lens I've mounted to it from the stellar 24/2.8 IS to the mediocre long end of the 70-300 non-L. Hell, it even handles manual lenses like my Samyang 14/2.8 and Minolta 45/2 and 50-135/3.5 well!

Note that the mentioned EF-M 11-22 is both stabilized and accepts inexpensive 55mm filters; I use a 55mm -> 58mm step-up ring to attach my Marumi CPL/B+W UV combo.

As for the 14-24- well, it's great and all, and does see use on Canon bodies with thin adapters, but it's bulbous objective end makes using filters a pain, limiting it's use, which is one of the reasons that the 16-35/2.8L II and 17-40/4L are so popular. They make great WA action lenses, with the faster lens able to do low-light WA work with exceptional speed and precision in tough environments.

But sharp? No. Landscape? Hardly, unless again in harsh environments (and the 24-70/2.8L II gets the nod more often here). And if shooting FF, don't overlook the Samyang (nee Bower, Rokinon) 14mm F/2.8 lens. Bulbous front, manual focus (and manual, non-reporting aperture on my Canon version, there's a chipped Nikon version), but sharp as all get out and easy to focus.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
That depends on your use- the main advantages to Canon's pro WA zooms is that they're a) fast and accurate to focus and b) take filters. The disadvantages? They're sharp enough in the center, but the corners are hopeless, and the distortion doesn't help.

And really, a good zoom lens should be competitive with most primes concerning sharpness; that's certainly the case with Canon's other pro zooms, including the 24-70L II, 70-200L II, and 200-400L 1.4x. Primes that exceed the zoom's performance usually only offer wider apertures, CA control at comparative apertures, and lower distortion, but that's not always the case either.

Optically, the EF-M 11-22 is a surprise; I hadn't planned on getting it, or anything in the EOS-M range. But the 22/2 and the WA zoom convinced me to spring for the kit since it was at fire-sale pricing, and because the EF -> EF-M adapter works so very well with every single EF lens I've mounted to it from the stellar 24/2.8 IS to the mediocre long end of the 70-300 non-L. Hell, it even handles manual lenses like my Samyang 14/2.8 and Minolta 45/2 and 50-135/3.5 well!

Note that the mentioned EF-M 11-22 is both stabilized and accepts inexpensive 55mm filters; I use a 55mm -> 58mm step-up ring to attach my Marumi CPL/B+W UV combo.

As for the 14-24- well, it's great and all, and does see use on Canon bodies with thin adapters, but it's bulbous objective end makes using filters a pain, limiting it's use, which is one of the reasons that the 16-35/2.8L II and 17-40/4L are so popular. They make great WA action lenses, with the faster lens able to do low-light WA work with exceptional speed and precision in tough environments.

But sharp? No. Landscape? Hardly, unless again in harsh environments (and the 24-70/2.8L II gets the nod more often here). And if shooting FF, don't overlook the Samyang (nee Bower, Rokinon) 14mm F/2.8 lens. Bulbous front, manual focus (and manual, non-reporting aperture on my Canon version, there's a chipped Nikon version), but sharp as all get out and easy to focus.
Click to expand...


I respect your opinion in the sense that it's your money and you're obviously voting with your wallet. However, there are plenty in the industry that disagree with you opinion, namely a lot of the folks that are landscapers and are on the Canon side.

I don't follow a lot of landscapers in general but I know at least:
Jay Patel as an example uses the 17-40L
And I have experience with the 17-40L as well (my friend owns one and I shot both it and the Sigma 12-24mm, which I own, side by side many times while going out).

As far as the 16-35mm goes
Ken Rockwell (polarizing I know) says it's the creme de la creme.
The-Digital-Picture rates it extremely well.
As does the general consensus of Fred Miranda and dPreview.
Even DXO Mark (which I personally don't put too much stock in). Rates it well in terms of sharpness, distortion, and transmission. Their only complaint about the lens is CA and vignetting which is now easily correctible in software (or in camera with peripheral illumination correct or with software, which they mention).

I didn't bother to link the 17-40mm reviews, but they're by in large the same in terms of it being highly rated.

In short, I would say that most feel that both of those lenses handle wide angle extremely well. I'd jump at the chance to use a 16-35 II, but I have used the 17-40L on numerous occasions, always for landscape/architecture and I have never felt let down by its performance.

So if you don't like these, I guess the good news is there are plenty of other options on Canon's system. The most notable if you ask me is the 17mm TS-E. Or the 14mm f/2.8L II. I personally have no interest in Samyang, or any offbrand lens for that matter. (Wellll maybe the Zeiss 21mm). And in case you're wondering, my Sigma is currently for sale. It's probably going to be my first and last third party lens.
 
The 16-35 and 17-40 are very impressive lenses from Canon. Both are excellent landscape lenses and used by many professionals.

Don't be fooled by gear junkies and "tests" online, in the field both perform amazingly.
 
I've read all of those- but you have to be careful if you really want to get a sense for what these lenses do. For instance, the 16-35L II rates highly for sharpness- in the center. Look at the field map, though, at various focal lengths and aperture widths, and find out that the corners never really sharpen up. Read what people have said about the lens in a less polarizing than 'I paid for this expensive lens and I think it's awesome' context, and along with the 17-40L, the same complaint surfaces again and again.

And that's why I went looking- as I was interested in either, given my disdain for third party lenses for workhorse purposes that require accurate, responsive handling, and preference for the ability to easily use filters outdoors. In the end, and EOS-M and the 11-22, imported from Canada no less, was a cheaper setup than either of the above options, while providing quite a bit more utility.

Just remember not to buy into the whole 'it's always been good so it must be good!' mentality, and also that Ken Rockwell thinks all lenses are sharp :).
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I've read all of those- but you have to be careful if you really want to get a sense for what these lenses do. For instance, the 16-35L II rates highly for sharpness- in the center. Look at the field map, though, at various focal lengths and aperture widths, and find out that the corners never really sharpen up. Read what people have said about the lens in a less polarizing than 'I paid for this expensive lens and I think it's awesome' context, and along with the 17-40L, the same complaint surfaces again and again.

And that's why I went looking- as I was interested in either, given my disdain for third party lenses for workhorse purposes that require accurate, responsive handling, and preference for the ability to easily use filters outdoors. In the end, and EOS-M and the 11-22, imported from Canada no less, was a cheaper setup than either of the above options, while providing quite a bit more utility.

Just remember not to buy into the whole 'it's always been good so it must be good!' mentality, and also that Ken Rockwell thinks all lenses are sharp :).
Click to expand...

Something to be said for that mentality. The only reason why I pointed out what I did was to show that there were many people satisfied with the lens as well as working professionals.

I also mentioned my own handling with the 17-40m. I've mostly shot with it from f/11-f/16, and I've been more than happy with results. I used it in SF and got a great shot of the Port of SF that I posted in the post your photos thread earlier in the year. I feel quite satisfied with the results out of it across the frame. From my reading at f/4 the 16-35mm sharpens up across the frame, even though you've noted now twice that you feel even stopped down it never gets there. Anyway, I think this has gone far enough. You've reached your conclusion and don't have any interest buying any of this stuff (not that I'm trying to convince you per se), and you already have the tool you prefer for the job so there is little point in continuing.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Something to be said for that mentality. The only reason why I pointed out what I did was to show that there were many people satisfied with the lens as well as working professionals.

I also mentioned my own handling with the 17-40m. I've mostly shot with it from f/11-f/16, and I've been more than happy with results. I used it in SF and got a great shot of the Port of SF that I posted in the post your photos thread earlier in the year. I feel quite satisfied with the results out of it across the frame. From my reading at f/4 the 16-35mm sharpens up across the frame, even though you've noted now twice that you feel even stopped down it never gets there. Anyway, I think this has gone far enough. You've reached your conclusion and don't have any interest buying any of this stuff (not that I'm trying to convince you per se), and you already have the tool you prefer for the job so there is little point in continuing.
Click to expand...


I agree- though at F/11 to F/16, all well-built lenses should be 'sharp', as you've ventured well into DLA :).
 
Kind of silly to discount the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 14mm f/2.8 so quickly...all accounts point to it being very sharp, and its only real fault is heavy distortion, which isn't a big deal if you're shooting landscape.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Something to be said for that mentality. The only reason why I pointed out what I did was to show that there were many people satisfied with the lens as well as working professionals.

I also mentioned my own handling with the 17-40m. I've mostly shot with it from f/11-f/16, and I've been more than happy with results. I used it in SF and got a great shot of the Port of SF that I posted in the post your photos thread earlier in the year. I feel quite satisfied with the results out of it across the frame. From my reading at f/4 the 16-35mm sharpens up across the frame, even though you've noted now twice that you feel even stopped down it never gets there. Anyway, I think this has gone far enough. You've reached your conclusion and don't have any interest buying any of this stuff (not that I'm trying to convince you per se), and you already have the tool you prefer for the job so there is little point in continuing.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with the 16-35 is its a strange focal length for a zoom. The only time it's applicable IMHO is if you want to do landscapes and some studio portraiture, or some daylight walk about shots.

If it were 2.8 though, that would be a mighty different story. I've debated long and hard ab out the 16-35.. I'm still not sure.. it's getting ridiculous.

I'm currently debating between a 35 1.4 and a 24-70.. I like primes, but swapping too much is shitty when you're out and about. I think primes are really best when you're moving around but on one lens for a long period of time, or you know mostly what conditions you'll be shooting in.

The bastard of photography, over analyzing what gear you want to build out your kit :/
 
Daggah said:
Kind of silly to discount the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 14mm f/2.8 so quickly...all accounts point to it being very sharp, and its only real fault is heavy distortion, which isn't a big deal if you're shooting landscape.
Click to expand...

It's a highly limited lens. It can be used for one purpose and one purpose only. I'm not against specialty lenses per se, but at least with the 'significantly more expensive' Canon you have access to autofocus and the ability to use it as a specialty lens in a different scenario other than strapped to a tripod.
Additionally, I have no interest in purchasing any off brand lenses from now into the future due to lack of support. There isn't anyone I can take this lens to for service and receive a quick turn around time. CPL service is a pretty big deal to me. The problems are compounded if we were talking about Sigma or Tamron and the problems with reverse engineered AF systems, but I won't get into that.



Weenis said:
I think the problem with the 16-35 is its a strange focal length for a zoom. The only time it's applicable IMHO is if you want to do landscapes and some studio portraiture, or some daylight walk about shots.

If it were 2.8 though, that would be a mighty different story. I've debated long and hard ab out the 16-35.. I'm still not sure.. it's getting ridiculous.

I'm currently debating between a 35 1.4 and a 24-70.. I like primes, but swapping too much is shitty when you're out and about. I think primes are really best when you're moving around but on one lens for a long period of time, or you know mostly what conditions you'll be shooting in.

The bastard of photography, over analyzing what gear you want to build out your kit :/
Click to expand...

The 16-35 focal length has a lot more usage than what you listed. I have a particular interest in the lens for environmental portraiture. Jeremy Cowart and Scott Witter as a few examples use it as a staple of their photography. Scott Witter only uses three lenses... a 16-35, 50mm, and 24-70. But it's not which tools he has or uses, it's how he uses them.

Focal length considerations are far more wide reaching than "wide is for getting everything in the frame and long is for getting far things closer". It's about the effect that those focal lengths have that deliver the impact. Wide lenses emphasize the foreground and de-emphasize the background. Long lenses compress things in the frame. Whether you're using primes or zooms, the focal length chosen shouldn't be whatever fits the frame you want. Ideally you pick the focal length you want in order to get the effect you want and use your feet always to get the correct framing.

Of course at a wedding or an event, there is chaos and this isn't always possible. Similarly while even photographing a non-moving object like a landscape certain focal lengths and positions just may not be viable simply due to an object being in your way. Still, it's ideally how you want to make the choice.

The 50mm prime I think was chosen by such users as Cartier-Bresson because of it's similarity to normal field of vision. He has that particular focal length so well engrained, taking each image was virtually an after thought. If you seek to be like him, a 1 focal length wonder (well two, if you count that his earlier work was primarily 35mm) then yes, primes on the street are great. I personally recommend this method myself as it forces you to have to think more with shooting and prevents you from getting lazy. It also helps with creativity in the sense that you start thinking about how many different types of shots you can do with only a single focal length.
 
I've hand-held my SY14/2.8 numerous times- focusing is stupid easy. Hell, handling is stupid easy. Some examples from AnimeFest:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top