Posted by Derek Sedillo on September 4, 2007 at 12:39 AM
I was just curious if anyone here has tried this new lens. I am planning to upgrade to a FF 5D and wondering if this thing is really worth 3x the cost of the 17-40L.
I have seen many great shots on this forum taken with the 17-40L and that is why I ask the question. While your shots look great on the web, it is hard to tell how the corners hold up in large print.
Also since most landscapes shots are taken with maximum DOF as a goal (foreground to background sharpness), it would seem that @f11+ both lenses might perform similar (speculation of course).
Lastly as an alternative for the best micro detail and sharpness I have considered manual primes as well such as:
1. Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8
2. Zeiss Distagon 35/2.8
3. Leica 19/f2.8
Any thoughts or experiences with these lenses appreciated.
- Derek
Posted by Zack Schnepf on September 4, 2007 at 2:55 AM
I've had a good experience with the 17-40L on the 5D, but there is room for improvement. I've heard good things about the 16-35L Mark II. When I move to something higher res than the 5D, I will upgrade, who knows maybe even before.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on September 4, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Thanks for the input Zack. Your photos are definately an inspiration and I respect your opinion since you use the 17-40L on a regular basis.
I noticed you mentioned moving to something higher resolution than the 5D. I guess I am looking to move up from my 'old' 10D. So the 5D would be a major upgrade for me.
I have heard that the 5D II is scheduled to be released sometime next year, possibly as early as the 1st quarter with PMA. Also the 21mp 1Ds III looks like a big jump forward. But that price point is very prohibitive for most people. Although there are several folks over on the RMNP forum who plan to get one.
All this new technology is very hard on the wallet that is for sure.
Posted by Zack Schnepf on September 4, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Hehe, I hear ya Derek, my wallet is wincing just thinking about the next camera.
Posted by John Lehmkuhl on September 4, 2007 at 3:10 PM
5D Mark II should be amazing. Given the awesome new Nikon cameras, Canon has to answer the call !! I can't wait just for the sensor cleaning system so that I don't deal with cloning specks from my skies any longer.
As to the lens, do some reading (everybody seems to LOVE it big time over the 17-40):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=313
Posted by Derek Sedillo on September 4, 2007 at 4:42 PM
John,
The majority of what I have read about this new lens has been *very* positive.
The only slight ding I have heard at all is that it is not quite as sharp corner to corner as the Zeiss 21 prime. But the Ziess 21 is a ~$4000 manual lens reputed to be the absolute best 35mm WA prime ever made. So even being 'close' to that lens is a huge endorsement. Plus it zooms.
It only makes sense that Canon would focus its efforts on these new WA lenses with the new bodies being released. Otherwise what would be the point of all that resolving power? Many pros and other WA shooters were starting to look outside of Canon for superior lens performance. By contrast Nikon's 17-35 2.8 has always been a good performer as a WA zoom.
- Derek
Posted by Darien Chin on September 4, 2007 at 6:09 PM
I don't want to get into he said, she said stuff...but I have a friend who just bought the 16-35 MKII after using the 17-40 for a long time, and he said he was blown away by the clarity, mostly around the edges.
Discussion
6 repliesI have seen many great shots on this forum taken with the 17-40L and that is why I ask the question. While your shots look great on the web, it is hard to tell how the corners hold up in large print.
Also since most landscapes shots are taken with maximum DOF as a goal (foreground to background sharpness), it would seem that @f11+ both lenses might perform similar (speculation of course).
Lastly as an alternative for the best micro detail and sharpness I have considered manual primes as well such as:
1. Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8
2. Zeiss Distagon 35/2.8
3. Leica 19/f2.8
I found this review and comparison of the new 16-35L II interesting:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1635ii_a/c1635ii_a1.html
Any thoughts or experiences with these lenses appreciated.
- Derek
I noticed you mentioned moving to something higher resolution than the 5D. I guess I am looking to move up from my 'old' 10D. So the 5D would be a major upgrade for me.
I have heard that the 5D II is scheduled to be released sometime next year, possibly as early as the 1st quarter with PMA. Also the 21mp 1Ds III looks like a big jump forward. But that price point is very prohibitive for most people. Although there are several folks over on the RMNP forum who plan to get one.
All this new technology is very hard on the wallet that is for sure.
As to the lens, do some reading (everybody seems to LOVE it big time over the 17-40):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=313
The majority of what I have read about this new lens has been *very* positive.
The only slight ding I have heard at all is that it is not quite as sharp corner to corner as the Zeiss 21 prime. But the Ziess 21 is a ~$4000 manual lens reputed to be the absolute best 35mm WA prime ever made. So even being 'close' to that lens is a huge endorsement. Plus it zooms.
It only makes sense that Canon would focus its efforts on these new WA lenses with the new bodies being released. Otherwise what would be the point of all that resolving power? Many pros and other WA shooters were starting to look outside of Canon for superior lens performance. By contrast Nikon's 17-35 2.8 has always been a good performer as a WA zoom.
- Derek