Lens Questions

I have two different questions which I am sure you wise people will have input on. The first is in regard to a lens that a client of mine had with him about a week ago. He had one of the new Nikon wide angle lenses that is known for being incredibly sharp with no distortion on the edges. It seems to achieve this by having an almost fish-eye looking end in which the glass actually extends well beyond its case. I'd never seen a lens quite like it. The question I have is that I couldn't use a GND with it so that it would cover all the area. Has anyone else dealt with this? Is there a work-around solution in case I have this come up again?

The second question also has to do with outer edge distortion. I shoot a Canon 5D and primarily use the 17-40 F4. The outside edge on a full-frame camera is so soft that it drives me crazy. I shoot a lot at very wide angles and can't really get away with it with this lens. What other lenses do you guys suggest to get roughly this range but much sharper? Should I be looking at Zeiss lenses or are there some more affordable options?

Thanks in advance!

You're probably talking about the 12-24mm. I almost bought one for Canon use, but the adapter maker (16-9.net) seems to missing in action this year. (I still haven't received my adapter, and the owner won't respond to emails.) I had planned to use two exposures for GND needs. Obviously, you wouldn't use a polarizer for a lens this wide. I would have really missed straight ND filters though - and might have tried handholding the largest rect. filters.

I went another direction, which addresses your second question. The 17-40mm edge softness is even worse in 1dsIII files, as you can imagine. I found an older lens that meets my needs, for now. It's a Contax Zeiss Distagon 18mm f/4. The edges are nearly as sharp as the center zone - certainly sharper than the Canon edges. It's slightly sharper than the 17-40mm all around. It's an older lens - i.e. no autofocus. I love it. Again, no filter ring - but I haven't missed it. I found my wide angle use was typically focused on the really wide end, so the 18mm is perfect for me. You might consider it. They are roughly the same price as a new 17-40mm - if you can find one at places like KEH.com.

the previous (current?) Nikon 12-24 lens glass doesn't extend beyond the lens front so I'm not sure what lens Erik is talking about, unless there is a newer version that does that. I have one and it is my choice of landscape lens. It does distort a little.

There are those who are predicting that Zeiss's new "ZE" lens line might be EOS-mount. Stay tuned to Photokina news for the Big Reveal...
http://www.zeiss.com/photo
Note the empty slot for ZE in the photo graphic at the top.

I must say that I've been more pleased with my (now discontinued) Tokina 17mm than I ever was with the 17-40.

I believe he is talking about the either the 9 year old Nikon 14mm 2.8 which is extremely wide for full frame or the new 14-24mm zoom. Both are praised for their amazing sharpness. Both of them the lens protrudes out and require special caps.

These are Nikon's Full Frame wide lenses.

That's what I meant ... the 14-24mm.

I can't believe I've never seen the Tokina 17mm. I'd strongly consider that one, Erik.

And I hope ZE is indeed Canon-mount!

The lens you saw was probably the 14-24mm Nikkor. Incredible lens. Nothing comes close. It out performs fixed 14, 16, 18, 20 and 24mm lenses (on a Dx format anyway). It doesn't take filters and no way of using one but holding it in front by hand. I guess they think everyone will shoot digital and HDR.

The 17-40 is known to be a pretty good lens. Maybe you got a bad one. Canon has had real problems with quality control for a while. They will all be a little soft at the edge, but they should get good by f11. The Zeiss lenses will probably be very good, but I would test any lens as soon as I get it to make sure you didn't get a bad one. Even the Zeiss.

There are not a ton of alternative lenses out there in this focal length range.

The Contax Zeiss 21mm is a very well liked lens. The Leica R and Contax Zeiss 18mm or 19mm are both supposed to be good performers. The problem is that all of these are quite expensive. They're all significantly more than the 17-40L and some probably cost more than your 5D.

Olympus lenses are well liked and reasonably priced. I know they have a 21mm and I think they have an 18mm.

There was a Pentax Super Takumar or SMC Takumar in the M42 mount, which is supposedly a good performer. I think its an 18mm f3.5.

There is the above mentioned Tokina 17mm.

I'm now using quite a few Super Takumar lenses on my Canon XT. The aperture is manual, the focus is manual and the metering can be off, but the lenses have all been pleasantly surprising. A common problem with the third party older lenses is that they often have issues with CA and or fringing when used on a digital body.

As an alternative. If I remember correctly you still shoot with 4X5. I've often seen 58mm Super Angulon XL lenses on sale in the used section of some photo boards. If by nothing else you'd end up with a sharper because of the decrease in enlargement. But I also think the newer designs have increased the image circle as well as the sharp image area. You can always crop with the 4X5.

The other alternative could be to use a solid 20mm+ lens and stitch, but when you work this wide, the distorion makes it likely that you have stitching and parallax errors.

This is a great discussion. I have been thinking about going with a Zeiss lens but I had no idea about the new ZE mount. Thanks for the link Todd! ZE = Zeiss Eos - seems to make perfect sense. I would imagine they will really tap into a lot of folks that aren't terribly impressed with Canon wide glass. Jimmy Gekas has invested in some Z glass I think - maybe he will wander by and give us his two cents...

Looks like there are gonna be a lot of big annoucements at Photokina this year!!!

To your first question: I would buy the large Singh-Ray (4x6) GND's that provide significantly more coverage than any other standard size GND. This should work, handheld, without any trouble.

As for the 17-40mm lens softness, my experience is pretty similar to yours. One day I'll likely upgrade to the 16-35mm lens (you know, when that tree in my backyard starts sprouting hundred dollar bills). The Zeiss lenses sound interesting too, though.

Great input on all of this. You guys are right, it is the newer Nikkor 14-24 that I was talking about. Weird looking lens!

Thanks for the suggestions to replace the 17-40. I'll try to find some time to looking at each of the ones that have been suggested. I'll keep watching this thread in case other ideas come up.

Erik,
Have a look at this article posted by Darwin W -
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0508/dw0508-1.html
There's also a thread about NDs and the Nikon lens over on the equipment review forum.
Good luck with this decision. Having to replace lenses is one of the reasons I haven't gone full frame yet.

Paul, that was an excellent article. Thank you!!

Erik,
Your 17-40 behaves like mine. I have soft edges even at f8, and it is obvious on 12x18 prints - no need to pixel peep

Mine is one of the early ones, others with more recent copies appear to be happier. So, an option might be to see if you can find an acceptable copy. It's a great focal length range at a great price, if you can find a good one. When I had it on a 10D, I thought it was a GREAT lens.

I'm really hoping that Zeiss comes up with a viable alternative. I've been pretty disgusted with the corners of my 17-40 as well (with my 5D) and I can only imagine how bad it would be with the 1DS3 or 5D successor. My only problem is that the uber-wide range is actually a small percentage of what I really shoot, so it's hard for me to justify spending a boat load of money on such a lens.

I tried out a Tokina 12-17 f2.8 lens at Englewood Camera today and was very impressed with thr esults...cost $649.00

Jack

I've gotten into the habit of shooting my 17-40 at f/16 -- the corners are much better at that point. The alternatives wider than 24mm get expensive but Olympus made 2 @ 21mm -- the f/3.5 version is cheaper and likely a little better than the 17-40. The new f-mount 18mm Zeiss lens looks promising, but with the possibility of an EF mount looming... The older C/Y mount 18mm that Jesse mentioned is also pretty good stopped down but there is some clearance issues with the newer MM models on the 5D -- the AE model is supposed to work great. Its about the same price as the 17-40, whereas the superb Zeiss 21mm is north of 2K and the Olympus 18mm is getting close to a grand. The Tokina and Tamron 17m lenses are also supposed to be better than the 17-40 -- I haven't gotten my mitts on one of those yet. I guess I'm lucky that my 17-40 seems to be good enough at f/11 and f/16, but I just use it from 17-23mm if I can. I have lots of alternate lenses from 24mm and up, in fact I'm down to just 2 AF lenses and just 1 Canon lens. I get a lot of my ideas from the guys on this board: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55

Erik,have you looked at Canon's relatively new 16-40L? I got that to replace my 17-35L and have found that it is a much, much sharper lens and have no complaints with it.

PS. My wife and I met you this summer in teh gallery during our visit from VA and I was talking about my other new toy, the 1dsmarkIII that replaced my house mortgage.

Love your shot above Bear Lake that you just posted. Cheers.