WA Zoom lenses for Canon 5D

[hoovermd 0]

I'm currently shooting a Canon 5D with the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM lens on it.

Nice WA coverage but both a bit soft in the corners when wide open (probably due to a variety of issues) and this lens is REALLY wide and therefore somewhat boring to use when the WA scenery just isn't there.

Also, I'm headed to Galapagos at the end of October and am considering other choices.

 

Here is my quandry: spend $800 or spend $1600 ? Make the wrong choice and I'll never get authorization to buy another lens Also, this lens might become my primary land lens.

 

Here are my choices:

 

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (about $800)

 

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...mp;modelid=8940

 

 

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (about $1100)

 

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...mp;modelid=8503

 

 

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (about $1600)

 

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...p;modelid=14907

 

 

Pros? Cons?

Edited March 8, 2007 by hoovermd

[Pasquale 0]

hey mark,

what a great problem you have.

Just this past year, I went to the 5d in a Subal and it took a little getting used to with the full frame.

I went to cocos island, so similar diving as Galapagos,

this was my first trip using the 5d w/17-40 that you are looking at.

here are a couple of shots,

this took 3rd in LAUPS 06 (toot toot)

night diving just insane and fun, ashame I waited to the last night to do this.

you can see the whole trip gallery here,

View gallery: Cocos Islands - July 2006

the home page pic is also the EF17-40.

I am now looking to use the sigma 12-24, just getting a exr for the dome customized to fit.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Pasquale

[synthetic 4]

My shark pics in the show off gallery are taken with the 17-40mm. I really like it and haven't wished for a wider lens yet -- 17mm is plenty wide for me. It's a great lens for big animals.

 

The only downside on my housing (Ikelite) is that the wide end of the lens is too wide for my zoom ring to slide on. Because of the construction of the housing, I need to take the lens off the camera and put it on one the camera is in the housing. I used to be really worried about taking the lens off a wet housing, now I'm only slightly worried.

 

17mm f/6.3 (so the corners are a bit soft)

 

17mm f/22

 

28mm f/7.1

 

40mm f/8 (cropped)

[drsteve 6]

I love my 17-40, but I wish it was a little faster. It is an amazingly sharp lens. Here are couple image taken with it at 17mm. Click on the images for more details. When I need a wider lens, I use my 15mm fisheye.

 

 

[msmendel 0]

The 24-70 lens is too big to house, although it is a better choice on land, IMO. The 17-40 or 16-35 would be a better choice for WA underwater. The 17-40 is much smaller and lighter than the 24-70.

 

For macro, I use the 100mm macro lens with the 5D.

 

For land use my 24-70 and my 70-200 f2.8 are more frequently used than the 17-40, but I don't take either of them diving.

 

Another question is whether to use a diopter with your WA lens. I use a +2 diopter with my 17-40 and a 6" Ikelite dome port. A diopter isn't required for that lens and port combination, but supposedly there is less softness at the edges with it. (My edges are still soft, though the softness can be cropped out.)

[gregarius 0]

I have the same Canon 5D/Subal setup that you have.

 

I've shot quite a bit with the 16-35 MKI underwater (with the big FE-2 Subal Dome). A very noticable amount of the corners are, IMHO, unacceptably soft at most aperatures. I'll dig out some pictures and post them on Monday.

 

I went for the 24-70. You can house it in the Subal. But it's a real pain in the butt to mount the port. I basically put the lens in the port and slide it down onto the camera, leaving the camera exposed. And it's very hard to get it in there. Usually takes me about 20 minutes or so. The real bummer is that there is no zoom gear on the lens. The zoom gear on the housing goes right onto the rubber of the lens. And since the lens telescopes, unlike the 16-35 which is easy to zoom because it's internal, it takes a great deal of force to zoom. It's better than shooting each dive with a fixed focal length, but zooming certainly isn't something you can quickly do to get a shot on the fly.

 

So, in the end I still find myself shooting with the 16-35 more and working around the soft corners.

[hoovermd 0]

I have the same Canon 5D/Subal setup that you have.

 

I've shot quite a bit with the 16-35 MKI underwater (with the big FE-2 Subal Dome). A very noticable amount of the corners are, IMHO, unacceptably soft at most aperatures. I'll dig out some pictures and post them on Monday.

 

I went for the 24-70. You can house it in the Subal. But it's a real pain in the butt to mount the port. I basically put the lens in the port and slide it down onto the camera, leaving the camera exposed. And it's very hard to get it in there. Usually takes me about 20 minutes or so. The real bummer is that there is no zoom gear on the lens. The zoom gear on the housing goes right onto the rubber of the lens. And since the lens telescopes, unlike the 16-35 which is easy to zoom because it's internal, it takes a great deal of force to zoom. It's better than shooting each dive with a fixed focal length, but zooming certainly isn't something you can quickly do to get a shot on the fly.

 

So, in the end I still find myself shooting with the 16-35 more and working around the soft corners.

 

Actually my housing is the UK-Germany one

I am actually able to squeeze the Canon 85mm lens into this. Uwe's ports are pretty large diameter.

Since the 24-70 is smaller than the 85 I'd probably be able to squeeze this in.

85 3.6" dia x 3.3" long 36 oz.

24-70 3.3" dia x 4.9" long 34 oz.

 

Your comments about the 16-35 are exactly what I'm afraid of given my 14mm experience.

Steven Frink also commented on some softness when he tested the 14mm also.

This would be a pretty expensive solution to still have soft corners IMHO.

[james 0]

Hi Mark,

 

I would start with the 17-40L. It's not sharp 100% corner to corner but it's not bad at F8 and above. It's small and pretty light, takes 77mm filters/diopters and it's a weather sealed L lens.

 

If you are in absolute need of a sharp fast lens then wait for the 16-35L II

 

The 24-105L is probably one of the most highly recommended and versatile lenses for on-land use.

 

Cheers

James

[JimG 27]

Another vote for the 17-40mm. I am really pleased with mine as a general purpose wide to medium lens on my Canon 5D (Aquatica) where I don't need a supplementary. I rarely drop below f8 - tend to wind the ISO up first - so don't notice a problem with the corners and it is superbly sharp. I have read several times that there may be quality control issues with the manufacture of Canon wide zooms and that they can vary in performance from one to the other. I am sure mine is a good one ( I bought it off Ebay and I'm not usually that lucky!) so if you get the chance, it could be worth doing some test shots before you put your money down.......or buy from somewhere like B & H who have a good returns policy.

[StephenFrink 9]

<edit>

[StephenFrink 9]

The 24-70 lens is too big to house, although it is a better choice on land, IMO. The 17-40 or 16-35 would be a better choice for WA underwater. The 17-40 is much smaller and lighter than the 24-70.

 

While the 24-70 (as well as newer 24-105) is a much different tool than 17-40, depending on the housing it can be easily used. On the full frame Canon I find it is good for many of the same subjects the Nikon 17-55 covers on the cropped sensor.

 

Here is a sample of the zoom range from 24mm to 70mm, all from the same distance. Note time EXIF.

 

First one was at 3:32.27 (24mm) and the last was 3:32.46 (70mm). So, 19 seconds for this series of 6 images, same distance/same aprerture/same strobe power.

 

Seacam with wide port, 24-70 with +2 diopter

[hoovermd 0]

Interesting that the 24-105 has been mentioned...

I already have this lens. Nice all around lens but I've never thought about trying to house it.

 

The 1.5 foot minimum focus distance doesn't quite seem close enough but perhaps it is because the 24-70 is about the same and the 17-40 is only about 6" less (as is the 16-35).

 

 

Any thoughts on the 24-105? This would probably be a PITA to house because the front element(s) move quite a bit meaning the port would be a challenge to get correctly positioned

 

So far for the price difference the 17-40 seems to be winning!