# Wide angle lens for Canon full frame.



## wgp1987

I have a canon 5d MK II as some know. The 24-105 is a very nice lens but isnt ideal for really wide shots (for weddings, clubs, etc.). I think my next lens investment is going to be something wider than 24mm. I really would want a Sigma 20-40 f2.8 but it is discontinued and scarce online from what i have found. It seems there is no 3rd party or more inexpensive option to the 17-40 f4L from Canon. Any suggestions or insight?


----------



## davebmck

I have the 17-40 f/4L.  You can't go wrong with that.  You really need a high quality lens for your 5DII.  I didn't find any third party comparable lenses when I was looking.


----------



## Iron Flatline

Try and find a 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mark I used... Still expensive, not sure what the realistic discount should be to the Mark II version of that lens... but expect it to hold its value for a while.


----------



## Dao

I think 17-40 f/4L is your best bet.   Other good quality new zoom lenses from 3rd parties will cost about the same.


----------



## Rockford

It appears you are wanting a tad more wider at 20 -40

Tamron makes a 10 22 or 24 dont remember , but its a f3.5


----------



## Azriel

Iron Flatline said:


> Try and find a 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mark I used... Still expensive, not sure what the realistic discount should be to the Mark II version of that lens... but expect it to hold its value for a while.



I agree. The 16 35mm is the only real choice for full frame.


----------



## davebmck

The 16-35 is about twice as expensive as the 17-40.  They both rate about the same in the lens tests I have seen, so the only real advantage of the 16-35 is the f/2.8 aperture as opposed to the f/4 on the 17-40.  Personally, I don't see a lot of need for a large aperture on a wide angle lens.


----------



## Iron Flatline

davebmck said:


> The 16-35 is about twice as expensive as the 17-40.  They both rate about the same in the lens tests I have seen, so the only real advantage of the 16-35 is the f/2.8 aperture as opposed to the f/4 on the 17-40.  Personally, I don't see a lot of need for a large aperture on a wide angle lens.


For weddings and clubs? It's not my preferred way of shooting people, but you can actually get a group of people sufficiently in focus (in terms of DOF) with that lens. The 5D Mk II has pretty good ISO performance so the other lens might suffice... I am not an advocate of shooting wide - wide-open... but it actually works across a table or bar counter with that lens.


----------



## wgp1987

Well if i spent $$ in the 7-800 range i would invest in the 70-200 f4L or the sigma 70-200 f2.8. That is my only problem  ...... do you guys think looking for that 20-40 f2.8 used is a good idea?


----------



## Montana

I agree with looking for a 16-35 mkI.   I own the mkII version and really like it.  You are asking for quite alot when you want a decent ultra-wide for dirt cheap to use in dark clubs.  LOL


----------



## davebmck

Here are some review on the 20-40. Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EX DG Aspherical - SLRgear.com!


----------



## wgp1987

yea the 16-35 mk I would be ideal if i was made of money! lol im gonig to try and find the sigma used :/ ...... let me know if you guys find one!


----------



## wgp1987

i found a canon 20-35 3.5-4.5 L .... that is only 300
1


----------



## sinjans

You should be able to get the 17-40 f/4 L for a good price. great lens


----------



## astrostu

Don't forget, there's always the 14mm f/2.8L II.  It's only $2120.


----------



## AverageJoe

Someone mentioned a Sigma 10-20mm, I'm pretty sure that is only compatible with APS-C sensors... I have the 17-40mm on a 40D and so far I'm mixed on it, maybe it's a bad copy but it feels a little soft for me...


----------



## usayit

Personally, I'd go with the 17-40L.  If low light, I'd go with some primes.  A compromise of course would the be the wonderful 16-35mm f/2.8L with the older 17-35mm f/2.8L USM as another option to consider.




wgp1987 said:


> i found a canon 20-35 3.5-4.5 L .... that is only 300
> 1



No such thing...

20-35 f/2.8L (nonUSM) was an early wide EOS wide angle in the "L" line.  Introduced about the same time EOS was first introduced.

20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM is a non-L lens that was introduced several years later.  USM but not L.



btw.. I find it extremely strange that someone who just dropped that type of cash on a 5D MII would suddenly be looking for a dirt cheap optic to stick in front.


----------



## davebmck

AverageJoe said:


> Someone mentioned a Sigma 10-20mm, I'm pretty sure that is only compatible with APS-C sensors... I have the 17-40mm on a 40D and so far I'm mixed on it, maybe it's a bad copy but it feels a little soft for me...


No, its a full frame lens.


----------



## wgp1987

I got my 5d fo free, earned dat shiz! It doesn't need to be the best lens. i wouldn't consider anything but the best. pending on the lens. Im trying to get a decent lens, and it does need to be the best. Ill make it work


----------



## chip

The 17-40mm is a good deal. I have that lens and the 5D2 and they work together well. But the 16-35 mm version II is better and I wish I had bought that instead. Yes, it is 2x the price but it is a 2.8 vs. 4 plus 16mm is noticeably wider than 17mm. To me the two benefits are worth the extra $720. Now the 16-35 uses 82mm filter while the 17-40 uses a more standard 77mm filter. It will be expensive to be a good 82mm circular polarizer - my guess is another $300 just for that.


----------



## astrostu

davebmck said:


> AverageJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone mentioned a Sigma 10-20mm, I'm pretty sure that is only compatible with APS-C sensors... I have the 17-40mm on a 40D and so far I'm mixed on it, maybe it's a bad copy but it feels a little soft for me...
> 
> 
> 
> No, its a full frame lens.
Click to expand...


Not to beat this to death, but the sigma 10-20 mm has been discussed a lot on this forum and I'm 99.98% sure it's only for APS-C sensors.  Considering what the Amazon page on it says:  "Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM is, on paper at least, a very attractive option for APS-C users looking for an ultra-wideangle zoom."  And what the B&H page on it says:  "Not suitable for 35mm film SLR cameras or for any digital SLR camera with image sensor bigger than APS-C size, e.g. 1D series or Kodak Pro SLR/c."


----------



## Iron Flatline

Don't put a circular polarizer in front of a 16mm lens... the left side of the image will be polarized, and the right won't.


----------



## wgp1987

I dont use any polorizing filters. I just purchased a B+W 010 UV filter for my 24-105 so that 17-40 would mtach up well with what i have now. Im trying to figure out which lens to go with. Either the 17-40 or 70-200! Do i need wider or more zoom? Since im not a professional it will be for more random shooting. I figure for indoor shooting it would be ideal to have the 17mm ..... but the 70-200 is a great lens. Arg, when am i getting my w2 forms!


----------



## Dao

wgp1987 said:


> Do i need wider or more zoom?




I think you are the only one in this world can answer the above questions.  


Is 24mm wide enough for you in daily shots?  It should be pretty wide with a FF camera like yours unless you like ultrawide angle.

The field of View should be wider than those who use a cropped Canon with the 18-55mm kit lens or my 17-50mm Tamron.


----------



## davebmck

[/QUOTE]Not to beat this to death, but the sigma 10-20 mm has been discussed a lot on this forum and I'm 99.98% sure it's only for APS-C sensors.  Considering what the Amazon page on it says:  "Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM is, on paper at least, a very attractive option for APS-C users looking for an ultra-wideangle zoom."  And what the B&H page on it says:  "Not suitable for 35mm film SLR cameras or for any digital SLR camera with image sensor bigger than APS-C size, e.g. 1D series or Kodak Pro SLR/c."[/QUOTE]

My bad, I misread.  I though you were referring to the 20-40.


----------

