Wide angle lens for Canon 7D?

[kaneohebud]

I'm considering my next lens purchase for my Canon 7D. I currently own an EF70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM and the kit EF28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lenses. I'm looking for a sharp wide angle primarily for landscape work. With the 1.6 crop factor for the 7D, it's tough to get wide. I rented the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM but it was too wide.

I'm seriously considering either the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM or the Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/21. Prices are comparable. A friend had a Zeiss on his Sony camera that took great pictures.

Does anyone have experience, good or bad, with either of these lenses? Has anyone tried the Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/21 on a 7D (i.e., will it be wide enough)?

[rpcrowe]

Bud,

You consider the 10-20mm too wide so I would expect that both the 11-16mm and 12-24mm Tokina lenses would also be too wide for your needs. However, the 12-24mm is a longer lens at both ends.

The 16-35L is a great lens but, IMO, it is a better focal length for a full frame camera because you really don't have a great choice when it comes to full frame lenses. It is wide enough as a wide lens but really is not long enough as a mid-range zoom.

I have not shot with a 21mm Zeiss but, when my widest lens was a 20mm Canon on a 1.6x crop camera, I didn't consider it quite wide enough. I also did not like being saddled with a prime lens because now that zooms have very-good to excellent image quality, I prefer shooting with zooms.

IMO, one of the best all around lenses (including for landscapes) on a 1.6x camera is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, closely followed by the 17-50mm Tamron f/2.8 (VC or non-VC). I absolutely love my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and use it, combined with a 70-20mm f/4L IS for virtually all my photography. The 17-55mm would match quite well with your 70-300mm lens (I don't miss the 55-70mm gap at all) and you could either sell your 28-135mm or keep it as a back-up lens. I gave mine on my older 350D camera to my son-in-law who absolutely loves the lens.

It is wide enough that I don't "need" to carry a wider lens (the 27.2 mm equivalent is wide enough for me in most of my shooting) and the constant f/2.8 aperture and great IS makes this a very viable low light glass. The lens provides excellent AF and great IQ. In fact, one of the main reasons I remained with the 1.6x format is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Bud,

The EF16-35 F2.8L USM II is (traditionally) one of my primary work horses. Often on my FF camera it's wider than I need, but on a CF camera like the 7D I think it would be perfect.

I've written this many times before (and here it is again), but I think a LOT of people mistakenly assume that "wider is better" for landscape (or automatically associate "wide angle" and "landscape" in their minds), but often I think that they don't do themselves any favours. The problem is that the wider the angle, the less detail that you capture -- to the point where mountains in the distance can cover hundreds and hundreds of miles - and often it's just not a satisfying look. where they DO come into their forte is when you can get very agressive perspectives on foreground objects.

I wrote an article for Singh-Ray's blog on this topic some time ago ...

http://singhray.blogspot.com/2009/09...-for-your.html

These days - for landscape - I'm actually using my EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II more than any of my wide-angle lenses though





Edit: Just read through Richard's post - I agree that the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS probably makes more sense (I use a EF24-70 F2.8L USM to cover that range).

[kaneohebud]

Thanks for the lens input Richard.

I'm including this picture of my friend's labradoodle because of your interest in the breed. We'll be house-sitting with him for 10 days. A great dog!

[kaneohebud]

where they DO come into their forte is when you can get very aggressive perspectives on foreground objects.

Thanks, Colin. I know what you mean. I want the wide angle for just that purpose, especially in Hawaii. What I really want is a tack sharp lens. There are great opportunities here to include beautiful flowers in the foreground with a breath-taking Hawaiian backdrop.

[William W]

The EF16 to 35F/2.8L MkII is an astounding lens and I use it on my APS-C cameras as my standard zoom: HOWEVER if I only had a 7D and if I decided that a 10 to 22 was too wide for my needs – I would be buying the EF-S17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM – (and not just for the use of making landscape images).

As you mention “tack sharp”, and you seem to have a passion for zoom lenses – then with the purchase of the 17 to 55 one could consider the worth (or not) of keeping the 28 to 135 . . . and then it is only step away from re-consideration of the 70 to 300, making way for the EF70 to 200F/4L IS USM – arguably the sharpest or second sharpest 70 to 200L Canon has produced – that’s if one can really see, in day to day shooting, any differences between the five of them.

If you want to pursue the route of manual focus Prime Lenses: to reap maximum rewards from them, especially for Landscape Photography purposes, you should consider changing your camera format.

I have not used the Zeiss Lens you mentioned.

WW

[William W]

Double post??? Don't know why and I cannot delete it.