Good wide-angle zoom lens for Canon 5D Mark III?

S

Spock

So I just recently bought a Canon 5D Mark III, and I need help picking out a good wide-angle lens. It came with the 24-105mm f/4l, and I'm planning on getting a 50mm prime with f/1.4 or f/1.8. What would be a good wider lens that could cover what the big zoom lens can't? I don't generally the fish-eye effect, so I'd be looking for something that can do between 14 and 20mm or something like that. Budget is $1000 dollars but preferably less.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Canon's 16-35 f/2.8 L is one of my favorite lenses - unfortunately it's going to be a bit out of your price range (~$1600). I haven't tried the newer 17-40mm f/4 L but other than the slower aperture it should be a good alternative, runs ~$700. It seems like most of the other good ultrawide zooms are designed for crop sensors and wouldn't work on the 5D.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah, I'd LOVE to have that 16-35, but it truly is more than I'm willing to put up right now. I'm looking more for something cheap that I can use until I have the funds to upgrade, at which point I'd probably sell the old one. I'd prefer a faster aperture than the 17-40. If I went for that one I'd essentially only be buying it for the 16-23 mm capability seeing as my other lens already covers what's beyond that at the same aperture. Not ideal. Would something like this be a good alternative? I know it's a third party but I've heard good things about one of their other lenses.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Might be good, wasn't aware of that one - tokina's seem to vary considerably in terms of quality. Here's a comparison:

http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/canon-16-35mm-ii-tokina/

Sounds like it competes reasonably well considering the price difference, and considering a super-wide isn't usually an everyday lens it may well be good enough. I can't believe it's over half a pound heavier than the Canon though, that's already a fairly solid, chunky lens.

One drawback I notice just looking at the two lenses is the Tokina doesn't have a front filter ring - the front element has too much curvature and protrudes forward of the lens barrel. It means if you want to use any kind of filtration - ND, polarizers, etc - you'll likely need a matte box with drop-in filters.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ah, thanks for those tidbits. I didn't even think to look for a comparison. The filter thing is a pretty big drawback I must say... but unless someone else comes along with a better recommendation it looks like that's the one. After all, the image quality looks to be generally fine and sometimes even better than the Canon lens. In any case, the majority of my stuff will be shot with a different lens anyway so this'll do fine for an as-needed thing. Thanks for the help.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
^Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Do I even need a wider lens than what I have? Perhaps the money would be better spent on a 35mm prime or something like that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Spock said:
^Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Do I even need a wider lens than what I have? Perhaps the money would be better spent on a 35mm prime or something like that.
Click to expand...

If you need really expansive exterior shots, or you need to shoot in a broom closet, then you might need something like a 16mm or 14mm. For most standard set ups a 24mm is about as wide as you'd ever go on a FF. If I didn't have one I'd add a fast (relatively) 28mm or 35mm to the fast 50mm before I went into ultrawides (again, unless some specific reason you need it).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was wondering why you need a wide-aperture UWA lens, myself... If you're shooting in a bathroom, maybe. But then you don't really need a really wide aperture unless you simply don't have enough light.

You might consider the very new 16-35 F4L. It's around $1200, but I bet you can find a demo or used if you are patient.

Edit: now that I think about it, you might look for the old EF 20-35 F2.8L. It's supposed to be a good lens at ~$500, but clearly doesn't have much zoom range. The 16-35 will be MUCH wider and likely much sharper, at 25% shorter focal length and a very new design. Also, check what Sigma might have in their newer stuff... they have turned out some excellent lenses these past couple years.

Edit 2: If this sigma lens is anything like their APS-C 8-16 version, it'll be a kick-ass lens. However, it is NOT very fast and has a variable aperture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I use a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. It can be purchased for around $300, which is plenty affordable for a zoom lens. It works very well on my 5D.

I highly recommend it for the low f-stop and price. Anything similar for Canon would cost a lot more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ha, I wish you guys had responded a week ago. I went ahead and bought the Tokina lens. I am actually very satisfied... It performs very well and I'm looking forward to shooting something serious with it. The weight does make the camera somewhat awkward, though. That lens is a chunk.

Though, Stef, you're right I suppose I don't need that fast of a lens at all. I kind of just blindly carried forward with the idea that "wide apertures are better" without thinking about when I'd need it. That being said, now that I have it it certainly doesn't hurt and I'm quite satisfied that I got my money's worth. Though that older EF lens does sound pretty nice.

Thanks for the comments guys.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top