Lens for full frame

[kev145]

Hi all,
Have upgraded to a canon 5d mk2 and would like to replace my superb canon 10-22 efs lens with a similar wide angle lens. Already have a 24-105L lens and thought about the 17-40L lens but it seems to overlap the 24-105L by too much. Can anyone suggest a lens. Do like canon lens, the 16-35L gets good reports, but the cost????. Would consider a 3rd party lens-sigma etc- if anyone can recommend one. Would use mainly for landscape and night photography.
Hope someone can help.
kev

[ap4a]

The 10-22 was created as the EF-S equivalent to the 16-35. The 17-40 is the cheaper, slower, alternative. You could consider a prime, such as the 14mm f/2.8L if you don't want any overlap, but that's more expensive than the 16-35 IIRC.

Your 3rd party alternative is the Sigma 12-24 which is about half the cost of the 16-35, and obviously a fair bit wider, but a lot slower. You should check out a few reviews before deciding as they're a mixed bag.

[kev145]

Thanks for the quick response, have looked at quite a lot of reviews and get so many different opinions I was getting quite confused as to which one to go for. Was hoping someone had already gone down this route and could make a recomendation.
kev

[KeithT]

Hi Kev,

I use a 5dMKII and use only a 24-105L F.4 IS (see results on my Flickr gallery), which I had with my original classic 5d. It's a cracking lens, though like all lenses it does have a few faults, but none that can't be worked around. It's a great walk-about lens, light, and easy to use. There are a couple of things to remember with full frame: because of the surface area of the sensor, it will show up all the faults of budget end lenses, so good lenses are recommended. Most go for the L series, but Sigma EX DG lenses are a good alternative (though build isn't up to the standard of L series). Remember that you cannot fit EF-S lenses to the 5D MKII. If you have the money to spend I would suggest the EF L 24-70 and the EF L 70-200. Both lenses will deliver cracking images, but they are quite heavy, and will cost you some serious Wonga.

EDIT:The17-40 is a really nice lens, but the 16-35 II is the bee's knees if you have the money to spare. But don't forget, wide is WIDE on full frame, so even 24mm is a satisfying wide angle to have.

Keith

[nikonian]

Have a look at the PHOTOZONE for a comprehensive write up on lens. Get to know the codes for crop and full frame.For example D11 for crop Tamron. But I do say some of the shots are hard to believe.

[kev145]

Thanks for the input, as keith says only good glass or the faults will show up, the 70-200 is on the radar for the future and yes maybe 24mm is wide enough, will have to get out and get more images to see if I need to go wider.
kev