Wide Angle: How picky should I be?

I've been shooting my 1DS MkII with a 50mm/1.8 II for a while now; I'm finally ready to add a lens or two to my collection, and have a max budget of ~$1300 to spend. I'm no pro, but printmaking was my minor in college, and b&w landscape photography has been a serious (if intermittent) hobby in the last 15 or so years. My preferred focal range is between 20-28mm (full frame). Whenever I've had a walk around zoom with other systems, the majority of shots over the years have fallen in this range.

With this in mind, for the money I'm thinking about: (all used)

1) Quantity: The 17-40mm f4 L and the 24-105mm f4 IS together.

2) Quality: Get a really excellent WA used prime like the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 or Canon 24mm f1.4 II.

3) I could get a more premium version of only one of the lenses in #1 like the 24-70mm f2.8 L II IS (for a more useable 24mm and better overall sharpness) or 16-35mm L II IS. For some reason, considering the price, I have been underwhelmed with the 16-35mm II, with what I've read.

-I have not found the 50mm 1.8 II limiting for general use, except to go wider. I really like the sharpness of this lens, and am concerned that I'll be taking a noticeable step down in this regard with the 17-40 and 24-105.

-Unless I'm making prints > 11x14" or PP at 100%+, would most people even notice the (alleged) softer corners of the 17-40?

-I've seen a lot of PP comparisons, and the 17-40 at f8 with focal lengths in the 20-24 range actually look pretty respectable compared to the Zeiss 21mm and Canon 24mm 1.4 (Especially after a lens profile is applied). Do you think there is an $800 difference (for non-rich amateurs) considering this? I know this is completely subjective.

-I've never really owned a really killer lens on a modern system. I appreciate them however, as some of the old 4x5 and Canon FD lenses the college loaned us produced amazing results. Part of me wants to go "all in" on a top-quality lens in my favorite FL, even at the expense of versatility. (and in another 6 months I could probably swing the 24-105mm anyhow)

I'm really trying to be objective here and I know the answer might be just to dive in somewhere-- I can always trade it back if I'm unhappy. If I phrased something that appears to troll, it's not intentional. I'm very happy to spend top dollar and grow my collection slowly, but I don't like wasting hard-earned cash on extreme diminishing returns either. The closest photo shop with any used gear is about three hours' drive away (but maybe it's worth the trip).

Thank you genuinely for any suggestions.

KiwiTux wrote:

I've been shooting my 1DS MkII with a 50mm/1.8 II for a while now; I'm finally ready to add a lens or two to my collection, and have a max budget of ~$1300 to spend. I'm no pro, but printmaking was my minor in college, and b&w landscape photography has been a serious (if intermittent) hobby in the last 15 or so years. My preferred focal range is between 20-28mm (full frame). Whenever I've had a walk around zoom with other systems, the majority of shots over the years have fallen in this range.

With this in mind, for the money I'm thinking about: (all used)

1) Quantity: The 17-40mm f4 L and the 24-105mm f4 IS together.

You could do worse. This is a great combo. While my 24-105 is one of my softest lenses, I still use it a lot. It's fooled me more than once when shooting with my 24-70/2.8L II.

The 17-40/4L is a great little lens. I really liked mine a lot. It was only the 16-35/4L IS that could replace it. The optical difference between the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L II isn't that great. It's that extra stop of light you're going for.

2) Quality: Get a really excellent WA used prime like the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 or Canon 24mm f1.4 II.

3) I could get a more premium version of only one of the lenses in #1 like the 24-70mm f2.8 L II IS (for a more useable 24mm and better overall sharpness) or 16-35mm L II IS. For some reason, considering the price, I have been underwhelmed with the 16-35mm II, with what I've read.

The 24-70/2.8L II is just about as sharp as my 100/2.8L IS Macro at 24 according to my Reikan FoCal calibration tests. It's an amazing lens. It's also an expensive lens. For what you're talking about, you might not need it save for the light gathering potential.

-I have not found the 50mm 1.8 II limiting for general use, except to go wider. I really like the sharpness of this lens, and am concerned that I'll be taking a noticeable step down in this regard with the 17-40 and 24-105.

Yes, you will but not that much.

-Unless I'm making prints > 11x14" or PP at 100%+, would most people even notice the (alleged) softer corners of the 17-40?

I will post some side-by-side 100% sized shots from a 6D, 16-35/4L IS vs 17-40/4L. You can do whatever you like with them, perhaps it will help you decide.

-I've seen a lot of PP comparisons, and the 17-40 at f8 with focal lengths in the 20-24 range actually look pretty respectable compared to the Zeiss 21mm and Canon 24mm 1.4 (Especially after a lens profile is applied). Do you think there is an $800 difference (for non-rich amateurs) considering this? I know this is completely subjective.

F8 is the great equalizer. All bets are off as so many lenses are similar here.

-I've never really owned a really killer lens on a modern system. I appreciate them however, as some of the old 4x5 and Canon FD lenses the college loaned us produced amazing results. Part of me wants to go "all in" on a top-quality lens in my favorite FL, even at the expense of versatility. (and in another 6 months I could probably swing the 24-105mm anyhow)

Used versions of both the 17-40 and 24-105 should be plentiful, and in good condition. I sold my 17-40 and it was brand new in appearance and performance.

I'm really trying to be objective here and I know the answer might be just to dive in somewhere-- I can always trade it back if I'm unhappy. If I phrased something that appears to troll, it's not intentional. I'm very happy to spend top dollar and grow my collection slowly, but I don't like wasting hard-earned cash on extreme diminishing returns either. The closest photo shop with any used gear is about three hours' drive away (but maybe it's worth the trip).

Thank you genuinely for any suggestions.

Below are shots from all of the EF lenses mentioned above. They are all 100% 1:1 and zero PP, straight from RAW to JPEG. Pixel peep the corners, or save and print to see if you can determine enough difference. Most shots were at comparable ranges and f stops (f4).

BAK wrote:

If you make prints that meet conventional stand sizes, 11x14, 16x20 for instance, you'll cut off the edges and corners anyway.

To fill an 11 inch dimension, representing the 2 in 2:3, the other dimension will be be 16.5 and your final image will have an inch and a half chopped off each side.

On a 16x20, you'll lose 4 inches on the long side.

BAK

That's an excellent point that I overlooked!! Clearly it's been few years since I've done much printing! (I remember using those offcuts as graduated development/contrast test strips!) If corner sharpness might be an issue for something large I'd like to print, I could of course compose anticipating the crop.

Victorian Squid,

Thank you very much for taking the time so answer with so much detail, and share those comparison photos. I downloaded all the originals and the 17-40mm is definitely soft in the corners at f4. 100% isn't even necessary to see it at that aperture.  I found a nice review comparing the 17-40 at 21mm, the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 (and the Nikon 17-35mm 2.8 @ 21mm). On the fourth page (linked below), smaller apertures are compared, and predictably the difference in sharpness diminishes greatly (small samples though).

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1740_nikon1735/c1740vn1735d.html

My point being I guess that as long as I have some range at all at which I can get really nice sharpness across the frame for those times where I'm shooting very deliberately on a tripod, maybe I can live with the rest (until I can't!).

-Sean

If you don't need f/2.8 then the canon 16-35 f/4 is probably the best bang for your buck for uwa zoom. If you are always shooting f/8-f/11 then most of the lenses are pretty close, corner softness is mostly an issue wide open. There are also third party options, the tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is very popular and cheaper than the canon. There is also the tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC which is newly released.
--
-Adam
https://www.flickr.com/photos/90719248@N04/

Just an update. I pulled the trigger on a 16-35mm f4, brand new (with the $100 Canon rebate, it seems to be as cheap as the almost-nonexistent used market). I took it out on a quick walk around shoot to put it though it's paces a little bit. It's a fine lens that exhibits all the characteristics described above, and elsewhere on the web: very low CA (even with extreme contrast), sharpness across frame to the corners (although extreme corners forgivably soft at f4), etc.

If I sound underwhelmed, it's only because my impression of this lens so far is that it's greatest strength is that is has few weaknesses. I'm coming from a very cheap, fast, and sharp prime as my main lens, so the fact that I have trouble telling images apart, except for focal length, speaks volumes about both lenses.

I'm still wrestling with the price/value of it for my use. I was just remorse shopping KEH and saw they have EX+ 17-40mm copies for $529-$549, with a warranty. This lens is such a good deal now with the 16-35, that I just don't know if this new lens is worth $550-650 more for my use (variance due to mail in warranties not exactly as good as spot cash in your savings account, IME). Obviously, this is something I must decide for myself. I'll shoot some more and see if I can be swayed and build a relationship.

Either way, I think either of these two is an excellent choice. Again, thank you to all for your thoughts above-- you really gave me things to think about that I couldn't find elsewhere.