which lens 10-20, 16-35, 17-40

Hi

I'm looking to buy the 5D update when it comes out and are starting to have a think about lens's.

I already have a 70-200 f4 lens that will fit but don't know what to get in the wide area.

Sigma 10-20 or canon 10-22 or 16-35 and for the other lens a 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-105 f4
Any feedback would be appreciated.

Graham Richards said:

Hi
I'm looking to buy the 5D update when it comes out and are starting
to have a think about lens's.
I already have a 70-200 f4 lens that will fit but don't know what to
get in the wide area.
Sigma 10-20 or canon 10-22 or 16-35 and for the other lens a 24-70
f2.8 or the 24-105 f4
Any feedback would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

The Canon 10-22 is EF-S so it will not fit on a full frame (5D), not sure about the Sigma's. If you're upgrading from a crop and doing mostly wide landscapes, I would go for the 17-40 which seems reasonable at its price and it's only 1mm above 10-22 on a crop (17 vs 10x1.6). Then again if you have the money to spend and/or want a faster lens by all means go with 16-35 L.

On the other lens, I prefer th 24-70 L, unless you need the IS. But as in most cases when the lens question comes up, it comes down which you would prefer personally. Do you need IS? and longer range? 70 may be a bit short for some people.

Hey thanks for the info

I suppose I'm trying to find out if there is a quality difference between the 16-35 f2.8 and the 17-40 f4 and the same for the 24-70 and 24-105 or is the only difference the speed?

I've got a 70-200 f4 so that covers the longer end.

I also heard that the sigma 10-20 is a great lens.

FYI I've currently got a 400d with the 17-85 IS

Graham Richards said:

Hey thanks for the info
I suppose I'm trying to find out if there is a quality difference
between the 16-35 f2.8 and the 17-40 f4 and the same for the 24-70
and 24-105 or is the only difference the speed?

Click to expand...

16-35 is good. If you don't need the 2.8 constant aperture, the 17-40 I hear is the logical choice. If you shoot landscapes that include the sun in the frame, you'll want the latter, though (flaring).

Generally, longer range FL zooms aren't as good throughout their range as those with a lesser range - the longer the range, the harder to attain good IQ throughout. But folks rave about the 24-105 - a discerning member found that the 24-70 has an edge on the 24-105 IQ-wise, but not to a great degree. Either should satisfy, though.

--
...Bob, NYC

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/btullis

The Canon 10-22 cannot be mounted on a full frame camera because the rear element protrudes back and would interfere with the mirror. The Sigma 10-20 may be mountable on the 5D, but it is also designed for APS-C size sensors and will vignette with full frame.

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

As far as I know, sigma 10-20 will not work on FF, but the 12-24 will. As told earlier, canon 10-22 is not for FF.

Graham Richards said:

Hi
I'm looking to buy the 5D update when it comes out and are starting
to have a think about lens's.
I already have a 70-200 f4 lens that will fit but don't know what to
get in the wide area.
Sigma 10-20 or canon 10-22 or 16-35 and for the other lens a 24-70
f2.8 or the 24-105 f4
Any feedback would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

--
opinions are like @$$holes: everybody's got one and most of them stink
http://sebbastian.blogspot.com

Graham Richards said:

Hey thanks for the info
I suppose I'm trying to find out if there is a quality difference
between the 16-35 f2.8 and the 17-40 f4 and the same for the 24-70
and 24-105 or is the only difference the speed?

Click to expand...

When I went from a 1.6X FOV crop to a 5D I also got the 16-35 f2.8 mk-II to cover the same perspective range as the ef-s 10-22 provided on the 1.6x cropped body. I can't tell you how disappointed I was with the 16-35L II! I shot the same exact scene with the crop body and the 10-22 at 10 and the 5D with the 10-35 at 16 and when printed to the same size the corners were tack sharp from the 10-22 but unacceptably soft with the 16-35. I also tried a 17-40 and while it has much better edge sharpness it has much worse chromatic aberrations. In my opinion Canon just does not have any decent full frame ultra-wide lenses with good edge-to-edge sharpness, low chromatic aberrations and without massive light falloff on the edges. Chromatic aberrations can be mitigated in post processing with the side effect of loss of high detail color information, and light falloff can be fixed in post processing at the cost of more noise in the under exposed edges...

Both the 24-70 and the 24-105 are excellent but not exceptional lenses. The 24-105 is half the weight and the IS allows sharp images at slower shutter speeds as long as nothing IN the picture is moving (it can NOT compensate for a fast moving child or pet). The 24-70 is better for low light and or where the subject is moving. Also the wider aperture provides for the potential to blur the background to make the subject "pop" or stand out better...

Here are just a couple or good sites for lens reviews;

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews

http://the-digital-picture.com

http://www.photozone.de/reviews (results from crop sensors only)

As many said already EF-S 10-22 will not work on FF DSLR. More importantly that range is fisheye to ultra wide on FF so its a pretty extreme wide zoom. It is designed for the APS-C crop factor. The 16-35 is the FF equivalent ultra wide angle zoom. So you are comparing very different type of lens with some that are not compatible. 24-70/2.8L will be a good normal zoom. 17-40 or 16-35 will be 10-22 replacement.
--

What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

That is a great general purpose lens, see the samples with 5D:
http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/articles/canon-5d/

If you want wider, then 17-40/4 or 16-35/2.8

--
http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/best-photos/

Take a good look with the Sigma 12-24.

Thank you to all for your help on this one.
Regards Graham

PG said:

When I went from a 1.6X FOV crop to a 5D I also got the 16-35 f2.8
mk-II to cover the same perspective range as the ef-s 10-22 provided
on the 1.6x cropped body. I can't tell you how disappointed I was
with the 16-35L II! I shot the same exact scene with the crop body
and the 10-22 at 10 and the 5D with the 10-35 at 16 and when printed

Click to expand...

...and the 5D with the 16-35 at 16...

Get a 24-70 2.8 for sure. If you have the money, get the 16-35 2.8 L for the wide end. In case your budget is limited you should consider also the Sigma 12-24 or Tokina 12-24 as an real UWA on FF. They are a little slower, but offer a wider FOV. Sigma 10-20 is not a FF lens, same as Canon 10-22. I like fast lenses (and really often shoot "at the full hole" without stopping down), so a decent 70-200 2.8 IS would complete your set very nicely. Good luck!
--
Erik

dopravopat wrote:
In case your budget is limited you should consider

dopravopat said:

also the Sigma 12-24 or Tokina 12-24 as an real UWA on FF. They are a
little slower, but offer a wider FOV. Sigma 10-20 is not a FF lens,
same as Canon 10-22. > --
Erik

Click to expand...

The Tokina 12-24 is a DX specific lens, not for FF. Only the Sigma 12-24 is a FF lens. ;-)

http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/articles/canon-5d/#16-35II

--
http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/articles/

Thanks for correcting.
--
Erik