Wide Angle for Full Frame

[GOMUS]

Do you have the following lense/s?

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC
Tokina AT-X 16-50mm f/2.8 Pro DX
Canon 17-40mm F4.0

Running out of budget of 16-35mm F2.8 MarkIII, overheard MarkII have soft edging.
If you have above lense on your full frame SLR/DLSR, mind sharing your experience by using it?

[grantyale]

I don't have a FF body but this is about it:

The Sigma and Tamron here are designed for cropped sensors, so they are out.
17-40 is not bad and in fact the corners of 16-35 are quite okay when properly stopped down as you'll probably need the DOF anyway.
Sigma 12-24 can be interesting but you need a good sample to find it reasonably sharp across the frame.

[gohaj]

If u want really wide, go for the following
Canon 14mm or
Sigma 12-24mm

[phoakm]

Had been using 17 -40 mm with FF.....very good sharpness.

[Terence]

17-40L, best wide angle zoom made by Canon. I personally think it beats the 16-35L in many areas... especially price.

[Will03]

Originally Posted by GOMUS Do you have the following lense/s? Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Tokina AT-X 16-50mm f/2.8 Pro DX Canon 17-40mm F4.0 Running out of budget of 16-35mm F2.8 MarkIII, overheard MarkII have soft edging. If you have above lense on your full frame SLR/DLSR, mind sharing your experience by using it?

yo bro... depwnds on how wide u want....
17-40 works well on my 5D..
n 14 mm is great for realli wide stuffs..

[GOMUS]

Thanks Brothers...

Sounds like 17-40mm is the choice.

Will03, you mean prime lens 14mm?

[eng_keow]

17-40mm also works well on my 5D. My only grouse about it is that at 17mm, the subjects get pretty stretched/distorted. For group photos, I find the 24-70mm gives me a better outcome.

Heard that the 15mm f2.8 is very good as well but no USM. Has anyone tried this lens? (especially *Terence*) Will03 has shown me his works with the 14mm. Very impressive indeed.

[machiam clown]

I will still go for 16-35 f2.8 (be it Mark I or Mark II) if I ever go FF one day

[Snoweagle]

I vote 17-40 too. Used it on my EOS 30....excellent!

[totoro17]

y not 10-20mm?

[ExplorerZ]

Originally Posted by totoro17 y not 10-20mm?

becos it ain't for FF camera...

[totoro17]

Originally Posted by ExplorerZ becos it ain't for FF camera...

how do u all know that? cannot fit in?

[lightning]

Hahaha...I just sold my 17-40 when I used it with my 5D...did not like the distortion at the 17mm end. So end up buying 24-105. No regrets.

[lightning]

Originally Posted by totoro17 how do u all know that? cannot fit in?

10-22 is for EFs mount. FF can only use EF lenses....

[totoro17]

Originally Posted by lightning 10-22 is for EFs mount. FF can only use EF lenses....

so if im gtg to full frame later on, my lens i cannot use it already...frm 400D to full frame cam

[Frijj]

Originally Posted by totoro17 so if im gtg to full frame later on, my lens i cannot use it already...frm 400D to full frame cam

Yup, that means you've got to sell off all your EF-S lenses...

Your 3rd party APS-C designed lenses can be mounted, but there will be light falloff (depending on the lens, it can be throughout the zoom range, though usually you can use the lens at the upper end of the zoom range - though it might defeat the purpose).

I've tried the sigma 10-20mm on a film camera (that's full frame - for the uninitiated ), at 10mm, there's so much light falloff that the image is almost a circle framed by the edges of the photo. I can't remember at which focal length does the light falloff become less significant, but it never really goes away 100%, even at 20mm (if I remember correctly).

[ExplorerZ]

Originally Posted by totoro17 so if im gtg to full frame later on, my lens i cannot use it already...frm 400D to full frame cam

ur 70-300 can be used, but not ur kit lens

[Stoned]

Im using the 16-35 MK I version, and I actually quite like the output. I really like the wideness I get at 16mm, but of course 17mm is plenty wide too.

To be fair, I must say it's not the sharpest of lenses and distortion is definitely prevalent, but the colour and contrast are 100% L-standard. Plus it's nice and bright for an ultra wide too @ f2.8.

Anyways, since the price came down a bit due to the mkII's release you can probably get one at a relative steal nowadays at about 1.4 or so.

Here are some photos @ 16mm on a 5d,

F11


F2.8


If you don't pixel peep, I think in real world images it's really quite a good performer. Just my honest opinion.

[Kit]

I can never understand the issues with distortions on wide lenses. Its wide, what were you expecting?? If that's something people feel uncomfortable with, then perhaps they should think twice buying wide angles.