Wide angle zoom for my Canon??

[WesternGuy]

I am looking at the EF 16-35 mm f2.8 L II USM as a wide angle for my 5D. I am interested in hearing from others who have the lens and their experience with it, regardless of the camera. I would also like to know if there are some Sigma or Tamron lenses that I should consider and do they make an equivalent of the Canon L lenses? Any insight that anyone can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. :thumbsup:

Cheers,

WesternGuy

[livin4lax09]

no 3rd party lenses really are an equivalent of L lenses, they're in a class of their own. The construction, USM, and overall excellent performance can't really be matched by sigma or tamron. L is certainly luxury, and not many lenses come close to an L lens. Can't tell you much about that lens though. have you check out the 17-40? yeah it's an f/4 but its pretty incredible from what I hear. and since you have a FF camera you're getting the true 17mm.

[WesternGuy]

Brent thanks for the insight on the L lenses. I have not checked out the 17- 40, but I will have a look. I see a lot of references to it in this forum and others as well, and everything I read says that everyone who has one is quite satisfied with it.

Cheers,

WesternGuy.

[lightsmith]

I would rent and try before you buy. Lensprotogo.com has them on a weekly rental basis with free shipping in both directions.

I see a lot more WA distortion, almost a fisheye effect with the 16mm setting. More obvious than what I saw with the 14mm prime. You need to be very careful to avoid unwanted distortion with this lens with subject positioning in the center of the frame.

Bruce

[DEvianT]

Until very recently I used a 17-40mm f/4 L on the 5D. It's a great lens with excellent contrast and sharpness. It really is one of Canon's gems. Great for landscape work and environmental/street stuff. It's not worth spending the extra on a 16-35mm of any description unless you're working professionaly in which case you may want the 16-35mm f/2.8 MK1 or MK2.

I swapped to the 16-35mm f/2.8 MKII on the 5D as I wanted the extra stop available for flash/lowlight work though I also use it for arcitecture, the odd wedding and street photography. It has slightly better contrast and sharpness. It has a great colour and very good distortion ocntrol (notably better than the 17-40). I'm not sure it's worth the extra premium but there is no doubt it is slightly better than the 17-40mm. That said unless you need the f/2.8 then the 17-40mm is more than capable of getting the results.
Hope thats of use?
D