Just about to buy the canon 17-40 f/4L when...

[finbarqs]

I saw the Zeiss Distagon T 21mm f/2.8 for double the money. Now I'm wondering, should I even plop down the money for a narrower lens, but superior quality, and more work? Or should I forget it even exists and go for a pretty darn good super wide angle?

Or maybe one day, they'll play nice together?

 

[ElFenix]

what do you have? 5D2?

 

[speedy2]

Yeah depends on the body and what lenses you already have. lol

 

[slashbinslashbash]

^^ Ditto. Whatcha got already?

I would never recommend the 17-40 for somebody with just a crop body.

 

[twistedlogic]

According to this thread, 5d mark 2.

 

[Madwand1]

I saw the Zeiss Distagon T 21mm f/2.8 for double the money. Now I'm wondering, should I even plop down the money for a narrower lens, but superior quality, and more work? Or should I forget it even exists and go for a pretty darn good super wide angle?

The 17-40 is nice on a crop, but shows its weaknesses more on a full-frame. On a full-frame, 24 is pretty wide, so the 24-105 tends to get much more utility. That said, the 17-40's not a bad lens, and despite the edge weaknesses, you can get some pretty dramatic images with it on FF.

The Zeiss is probably nice, but you might also consider the Canon TS-E's -- these are high quality when used straight, and also gives you T/S capability, which is especially useful when you go ultra-wide. Note however that T/S has some image degradation when invoked, and that the 17 has natural issues with flare and protection. Oh, and they're somewhat big and heavy.

 

[angry hampster]

I never had anyissues with myold 17-40 on my 5D. Took some amazing image with the setup in Tasmania back in '08. WIll buy another when funds allow.

 

[996GT2]

I saw the Zeiss Distagon T 21mm f/2.8 for double the money. Now I'm wondering, should I even plop down the money for a narrower lens, but superior quality, and more work? Or should I forget it even exists and go for a pretty darn good super wide angle?

Or maybe one day, they'll play nice together?

Depends on how much you care about absolute sharpness. The 17-40 needs to be stopped down to f/8 for best performance, but the Zeiss is pretty good straight from max aperture. On the other hand, the 17-40 is more versatile and has AF for half the price.

 

[finbarqs]

yeah, i've read the 17-40 is pretty darn good (better than the 16-35 f/2.8 I, but falls in a bit short in ver. 2) Since it's gonna be mainly used in landscapes, I'm going to be setting this at least around f/8 and above, when i'm doing scenery.

4mm doesn't seem like much, but given that my 24-70 is just 3mm wider... Also, I'd like to be the guy who'd be the ONE to pull out the almighty 21mm distagon when everyone unleash their L's.

 

[corkyg]

For that general range, I like my 16-35mm f/2.8L with my 5D. It also worked well with my old 20D cropper.

 

[finbarqs]

yeah... ill see.. maybe they'll rent one?

 

[finbarqs]

Okay... so I decided to purchase the 17-40 f/4L... With that money I saved, I decided to proceed to purchase a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

 

[finbarqs]

next... 135 f/2L, maybe the 100 IS f/2.8L Macro, and then... maybe this'll be a good collection for a while! Heck... Maybe I'll plop down some serious dough if canon comes out with an awesome 14-24 like nikon's