Hey, what's a good wide angle for the 5D?
 

Simple question
What's a good wide angle for the 5D. I have been looking at the 28mm f2.8 It's selling here in Oz for around the $315 mark

I'm not sure on DSLR wide lenses and need some guidance.

Cheers

14mm is awesome, 15mm is nice and sharp, but it's fish eye, and I love 16-35mm

The 16-35mm almost never comes off my boss' camera (which means I'm left to cover medium and telephoto angles most of the time). He loves it as wide as it goes, and I can see why - it makes a pretty great image...

I love the Sigma 20mm f/1.8.

I use my ancient pre-AI Nikkors. The 24mm is my wide angle. So far I haven't needed anything wider. I do have a Tamron 17-35 but I haven't used it.

I second the 16-35mm recommendations -- next to my 70-200mm, it's the lens I've used the most on the 5d2.

-- peer

Sigma EF DG 17 - 35mm F2.8
 

I use this lens - got it really cheap on the Bay. I love it. Takes great photos too.

The 28mm f/2.8 is a poor lens and even at $315 I'd say it's over priced. A much better low cost affordable wide is the Canon 28mm f/1.8.

The Canon 14mm is a special lens, though I'd categorize it as super-wide. The Canon 16-35mm is also excellent, but my favorite wide lens for the 5D is the Canon 24mm f/1.4 - it aint cheap though!

I will also add my vote for the Canon 16-35mm F2.8 L.

I'm a prime-lens fan, especially the pro-level Nikkors, Pentax A*, and Canon 'L' series...but I have also come to love some older professional-grade zooms, especially the wides, such as the legendary Nikon Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8 D which is one of my favourites.

My most-used wide-angle zoom lens on the 5D Mark II is the Canon L 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom.

Used corrrectly it can be a fantastic tool in your wide-angle armoury. I've use it extensively for everything filmed from land, air and underwater; and it is also very good for normal stills photography.

The newer and more expensive 16-35mm f/2.8 L is also a very nice lens to use, although I found it only very slightly sharper at extreme corners compared to the 17-35mm, but the 17-35mm f/2.8 L matched it for sharpness in centre and right out to the four powerpoints of the frame (which to me is the most important aspects in photography and filming).

I completely agree. Although I often use the newer 16-35mm L, I own a 17-35mm L that I think is the most underrated lens out there -- in fact, I have difficulties seeing much any difference between the two (besides its purchase price, that is ;^)

-- peer

Thanks for the advice guys. The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L looks great and I have been looking at this but it carries a heavy price attached with it. I might dig around some second hand shops, Ebay etc... and see what I can find.

Cheers

I will also chime in for the Canon 17-40 F4 L. It sells for half of the price new that the 16-35 F2.8 L sells for, is pretty much the same sharpness, it is slower, but it is half of the cost also. The 16-35 is a better lens but for video, I think is overpriced. It is also heavy and large whereas the 17-40 is not at all heavy or large.

For used glass, check out Buy & Sell New & Used Cameras ? Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica & More - KEH.com I have bought many used lenses and bodies from them, they are great. Their grading system is very accurate and they ship you what they say they are going to as far as the items condition. Lenses, as long as they have been taken care of, are one of the few items I always buy used now, you save so much over brand new glass. I won't typically buy used digital cameras but lenses work out great when I buy used.

Dan Brockett

Personally, my favorite is the 24mm f/1.4 L II, but the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 is much more inexpensive.

Definitely 24 1.4. I do not like the look of the 16-35 at all. Not just the distortion but just the odd dull/oversharpened look it has.

And right now there's a piece of plastic with numbers in my hand telling me to pick up the 14mm rectilinear.