Preferred landscape lens for 35mm

Hello,

I am planning on upgrading to the 5D and wanted to get some feedback from folks who shoot 35mm full frame with either film or digital.

Currently I use my old Canon 10D 1.6 crop body with the Tokina 12-24/f4. I am really happy overall with the Tokina. But I am looking at FF alternatives for the 5D.

So far I am considering the usual Canon FF suspects:
17-40L
24-70L
24L

I guess I am wondering how these wider lenses work for landscapes (eg - corner detail, vignetting, light fall off, barrel distortion, CA, etc...).

Thanks,

- Derek

I have the 17-40L on my XT. At 1.6 it performs better than my Canon 10-22 in the corners and the 10-22 is supposed to be very close to the 12-24 in performance. I'd suspect on full frame the 17-40L it is at least as good as your existing lens with a similar field of view. Personally, I prefer the 24-50mm range of focal lengths when they'll work because they keep the relationship between objects more realistic to the way we see the world. But the good news is that the 17-40L covers most of this ground and gives you that extra bit on the wide end. Maybe a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 would be a good backup lens for when you need a longer focal length?

I was really happy with my 17-40L on the 10D.

On FF, my copy is REALLY bad in the corners. Not just pixel peeping
Even at f/8, on a 12x18 print, the corner softness is VERY noticeable.
Others seem to find their copies acceptable.
I don't know if this is just sample variation, or since mine was an early copy, maybe the later versions are just better.
One of these days I need to find another copy of this lens and do a comparison. It is such a great focal range.

If you only want a single lens in your pack, and 24mm is wide enough, be sure to also consider the 24-105L IS.

Wow,

I guess copy variation really makes a difference here. Bill I also find it interesting that you didn't notice the softness issue until you went FF.

I know a number of other folks here like Jesse Speer, Mike Dawson and Marc Adamus use the 17-40L with good results. But I have noticed some vignetting @ 17mm. I just heard back from Mike Dawson at his latest shot on ESS here:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=78076&b=vg2&st=0&la=764&ph=38&sid=23254&u=23254

He states he shoots 60% of his stuff @17mm including this one. So I am guessing it is a roll of the dice the get a real good copy. Bill, have you considered sending it in for calibration? Just curious if Canon might be able to fix the problem.

I would also consider the 16-35L if it is really worth 2x the price in terms of superior IQ.

With the old 16-35, it was two times the price for f2.8. It didn't have consistently better image quality than the 17-40L in any comparison that I had seen, especially when stopped down. But it was the lens to use when light was scarce.

With the new 16-35L mk II, not only is the lens more expensive, but it would require a new set of filters for its 82mm thread size (even GNDs because the Cokin P is only 85mm wide). If I were shooting full frame landscapes, I'd have to think really hard about that jump for the minor improvement in image quality over the 17-40L stopped down.

I'd agree that the 24-105 is also worth a look. You might ask yourself what focal lengths you're using on the Tokina. If it is mostly 12mm, then a 20mm or wider lens is going to fit with your current style best. If you are spread out, then maybe 24mm would be enough for you.

Mel-

I shoot the 24-70L but if you dont need the speed I would go with the 24-105L(IS)

Interesting comparison

RichieV

Derek,
I really wouldn't consider slight vingetting to be a big consideration in purchasing a lens.
It is so easily corrected in ACR or Lightroom. A nuisance, but not a show stopper.

Mike's seastack shot is wonderful, but doesn't have ANY corner detail to test the lens.
But I'm sure if he is using it for 60% of his work, he has a better copy than I have.
Hey, with my 17-40, I don't need to buy a LensBaby.

If you have your 5D when you buy the 17-40, then I don't see it as a big risk.
Just check it out immediately and return it if you find your copy does not meet your specs.
I didn't have FF until 2 years after purchasing my lens. B&H wouldn't exchange!

I shoot a 5D and a 24-105IS. I get vignetting in the corners, but Lightroom gets rid of it
simply. I would recommend that after you get your 5D, that you use your present lens for a while and use Lightroom.
See if it doesn't do the job for you.

Art L.

Thanks for the input guys.

I think, like Rich, I would prefer the 24-70L for the extra stop of light. I also have a 50 1.4 prime and 70-200L. So I don't really want the extra length of the 24-105L.

I am really more concerned with its ability to resolve detail in the corners of the frame.

Art - unfortunately my Tokina 12-24 is designed for cropped sensor cameras. So I will sell it to help finance a FF lens with potentially similar range and optical quality.

I would consider giving up some zoom range for better IQ across the frame. Several folks on DPReview recommend the all manual Zeiss Distagon primes. But I don't know if the differences are that noticable once the lenses are stopped down.

Derek, if you don't mind the weight I think you will really like the 24-70L. It's a BIG beast but it's a wonderful lens. I've been shooting with a 24-70 for almost a year and have never regretted purchasing it.