Ultra Wide Angle Lenses for Full Frame Canon Cameras

[Fotobuff]

Hi!
I am trying to get a uwa lens like 16-35 or 17-40 mm for my Canon EOS 6D. I would like to keep the cost down so I will forego IS and will not insist on a constant aperture lens (f/4 or F/2,8) and I am willing to consider third party manufacturers as well. I would like to know what choices are available in the market and at what price ?  Color fringing and vignetting , especially at the wide end is, of course, to be minimum and auto focus must work well in different light conditions. I believe some new lenses have come recently in the market.

Thanks and regards

[Bob Atkins]

The Canon 17-40/4L is around $800, so I assume you're looking for something significantly cheaper.

That does seriously restrict your choices, especially since you're looking for something with full frame coverage, not just APS-C. Sigma don't have a full frame (DG) series lens with that type of zoom range that's any less expensive and Tamron don't have anything in their Di (full frame) lineup either.

Your only real option would be the Tokina 17-35mm F/4 AT-X Pro FX at around $450. I think the Canon 17-40 is sharper, and it gives a little more zoom range, plus it has faster focusing. The Tokina may have lower vignetting and distortion, but both of those can be corrected in software anyway.

[UPDATE] - I forgot about the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4.0L IS USM. It's still out of your price range at $1100 (currently with a $100 mail in rebate to make the final cost $1000), but it is another alternative.

Persoanlly I'd go for the Canon 17-40/4L if I could afford it. The Tokina 17-35mm F/4 AT-X Pro FX is $350 cheaper though, so if that's a deal breaker, it's not a bad lens and probably the best you can do if ~$500 is your absolute limit.

As for new lenses, yes, there are some in this range but they are either for APS-C format only or they are more expensive than the Canon 17-40. The new Tamron SP 15-30MM F/2.8 DI VC USD looks very nice, but it's $1200.

[Fotobuff]

Thanks for the comprehensive survey. I think the best option for me would be to increase my budget. I may have to wait a little but perhaps it will be worth it. 

[mjperini]

For what it's worth, I own a lot of Canon lenses and the 17-40 is one of my favorites. I don't know if I got a particularly good copy of the lens but my results are frankly amazing from a picture quality / price standpoint.     I also own the 17mm T/S f/4  which is a world class lens, and for most things I pick up the 17-40.  Good luck

[Fotobuff]

Thanks. Does yourr 17-40 lens have IS ? Probably not but it seems that IS has recently been introduced in the 17-40. I may be wrong.

[Bob Atkins]

I'm not aware of an IS version of the EF 17-40 (but see next post, below). No doubt if they bring out a MkII version with IS, the price will go up by about 50%, so be careful what you wish for!

The  Tamron SP 15-30MM F/2.8 DI VC USD is the only f2.8 EF compatible superwide zoom for full frame that has IS that I can think of. If you wanted APS-C, then there's the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM, which at $249 is quite a bargain and is the equivalent of a 16-29mm in full frame terms. It's rather slow though.

 

[Bob Atkins]

Sorry, I forgot about the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4.0L IS USM . I guess that effectively is the IS version of the 17-40/4L, but with a slightly different zoom range. It's still out of your price range though at $1100 (which is 38% more than the 17-40/4L). There is currently a $100 mail-in rebate, but that still makes it a $1000 lens.

[mjperini]

Sorry for the delay, No my lens does not have IS.  While  IS is a nice feature, it adds complexity and cost.
And while I wouldn't want to be without it on long lenses, it is less necessary on really short lenses.
If you are on a budget, the 17-40 is the best lens for the dollar in the superwide category.
I tend to use zooms as dual focal length lenses. Probably 90+% of the pictures I take with it are EITHER 17 or 40
I know what 17 looks like and I know what 40 looks like. I see the pictures with the camera at my side. As I'm raising the camera to my eye I can flip to 17 or 40 without looking.
Additionally, the diagonal (and thus 'normal FL) of FF is 43mm. So at 40mm the lens has a normal look.  At 17 the horizontal coverage exceeds 90 degrees. You can stand in a corner and get a whole room.
I absolutely appreciate being on a budget, but remember it is the lens that draws the picture, you want the best you can afford.
I love the lens. I may have gotten a better than average copy, but I recommend it highly.
I hope that helps.
M