What Wide Angle for the Canon 5D3

I am looking to buy a quality wide angle lens as
my 24-105 4.0 IS - is not giving me good results. I would like
some thoughts on the Canon 24-70 2.8 II and 4.0 IS
on the Canon full frame 5D3 so I may try my hand at some landscapes.

I am also considering the Canon 16-35 2.8 II

Also does 2.8 become moot on a 1DX since you can bump the ISO
to get the shutter speed you need in low light and still have really clean files?
I do prefer a zoom over a fixed focal length.
Just trying to figure it all out. Thanks.

FB

From the reviews I've seen, the new 24-70 would be the lens to go with. The 16-35 is an "OK" lens, like the 24-105 IMO. The 24-70f4 version is not in the same league as the new 24-70.

The 24-70 II is exceptional. The best lens in it's class from any manufacturer.

I think you will find the 24-70 II to be a great lens. The 2.8 is fairly important IMO because it provides just enough control w/ DOF on a FF camera to be a good portrait lens...

If you have the money I would say the 24-70 II with no question.  If you do not I have the Tokina 16-28 and the Canon 24-105 with a 5D3  The Tokina covers the bad part of the 24-105 and the price is much less. I have no complaints about the Tokina at all and I like the long end on the 24-105.

The Canon 24-70 2.8 II and a 5D3 is a great combination for landscapes for me. I don't believe you would regret buying the 24-70 2.8 II if 24mm is wide enough for you.

Dear FB:

Ditto E.J.'s reply. My old EF 24-70 F2.8L USM was pretty good; but my new EF 24-70 F2.8L II USM
is in an altogether different and superior league.

Best Regards,

Roman

Thanks for all the feedback. It looks like the
24-70 2.8 II is the clear winner and that will be my first purchase.

What about the 16-35 II for the slighly wider angle to compliment it?
If not is there another brand that is better for the wider angle?

Thank you again.

You can do a lot better than the Canon 16-35 II on the wide end. In the Canon brand, the 17mm TS-E lens is a candidate as is the 14mm f/2.8 II. Third party, the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 and 21mm f/2.8 surpass anything that Canon has. If you really want a zoom lens, the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is superior to the Canon but not as good as the three prime lenses above.

I would recommend trying the lenses out in person if at all possible at a local camera store over buying on line. Many smaller camera store keep a good stock of all these lenses. I wish that could be done with the big super telephotos too, but few small camera stores keep a good stock of lots of them. If you are on good terms with a local camera retailer I think it is best to try all these lenses out for yourself how you will be using them, run home and download the results and then buy which ever one works best for you. All these lenses are known to have copy to copy variation too. It really is worth spending a few extra bucks locally to find what you're looking for I think.

For me I use exclusively 1D4's at the moment, so I don't see the corners of all these lenses, but I was looking for a flexible lens in the 24 mm range recently too. I'm very picky about having a lot of razor sharp details in the foreground corners in wide angles. For the past few years I have been using the 24 f1.4L II lens and was very happy with it until I got greedy and wanted more range. I also have the 14 f2.8 II lens. One man's meat is another's poison so they say. Some people aren't bothered by distortion, but it sure bothers me. I find distortion very distracting and annoying when any straight lines are present in the viewfinder whether that be buildings or a horizon. For that reason I wouldn't ever be happy with the 24-70 f2.8 II lens as my main lens at 24mm, although it is sharp and can be easily corrected when processing files. I recently bought and sold the new 24-70 f4 IS. I liked it in the 35mm range and beyond, but hated it at 24mm. My copy wasn't sharp at all at the wide end, just as bad as the 24-105L. It also had visible distortion at 24mm, but not quite as bad as the 24-105. I also tried the new 24 f2.8 IS and hated it. It was worse in every way (sharpness, CA, distortion) compared to the 24L. The store I was at let me take out a few Zeiss lenses too. What I ended up buying was the 16-35 f2.8L II. On my 1D4 sensor It was razor sharp from corner to corner in the 24mm-35mm range with little detectable distortion or CA stopped down and is acceptable down to 20mm. It's really awful at 16mm, even on my 1D4, but I do have the 14mm to go to at the wide end. For now I really like the 16-35 and will mainly use it at the long end. If and when I do get a full frame camera in the next few years I will probably want to sell it or add some better primes, but for what I want right now it's the best option for me.

Simply turning on Lens correction in your RAW converter eliminates the curved lines Robert.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Simply turning on Lens correction in your RAW converter eliminates the curved lines Robert.

Thanks for the news flash, but I as I said, I just don't like seeing it in the viewfinder. When there is a lot of distortion I can never get things straight and always have to end up doing some rotation with the canvas after processing. I know it doesn't bother most people, but it is an issue I would rather not deal with at all. To each his own.

Have you considered the 24mm TSE II? I really like mine.

Robert Royse wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:Simply turning on Lens correction in your RAW converter eliminates the curved lines Robert.

Thanks for the news flash, but I as I said, I just don't like seeing it in the viewfinder. When there is a lot of distortion I can never get things straight and always have to end up doing some rotation with the canvas after processing. I know it doesn't bother most people, but it is an issue I would rather not deal with at all. To each his own.

Note that most viewfinders are not perfectly rectilinear - the optics in the viewfinder themselves cause some barrel distortion in the view that you see.  That is wy the manufacturers always say Approximately 100% viewfinder coverage.

E.J. Peiker wrote:You can do a lot better than the Canon 16-35 II on the wide end.  In the Canon brand, the 17mm TS-E lens is a candidate as is the 14mm f/2.8 II.  Third party, the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 and 21mm f/2.8 surpass anything that Canon has.  If you really want a zoom lens, the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is superior to the Canon but not as good as the three prime lenses above.

Agreed. Wide angles are not the strengths of the Canon lens lineup, and I'd look into some off brands for alternatives if you want zooms. On the-digital-picture.com you can compare lenses side by side for sharpness, light falloff, CA, etc.

Canon's old F 2.8 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 IS make up my portrait kit. And on portraits, I am not seeking ultimate sharpness. Not that these lenses aren't sharp, but not sharp enough for highly discerning landscape artists here.

But since you are just "trying your hand" at landscapes, you might save some $ by starting with used version 1 lenses, which are less than half the price of the newer glass. If you want to upgrade later to get the last small percentage of clarity then the used lenses are already depreciated out and you will be able to sell them with little or no loss.

However, if you buy the new version 2 and do not use them, that is a lot of $ to have sitting in a closet. And you will take a hit on selling them as used.