Can anyone help recommend a new lens?

[woojiebear]

Hey there - I currently have a Canon EOS 5D and a 50mm f/1.2 lens.
I am going to be doing lots of camping this summer and am looking for a good quality zoom/wide angle lens for waterfalls/family photos, etc...something along the lines of the 17-40mm. Is it possible to get something like that with around a 2.8 fstop? instead of 4?
If anyone has any recommendations for me it would be much appreciated.
thanks very much

 

[bigtwinky]

Budget is always the first question asked. What is yours?
On a full frame, the premiere lens for wide angle is the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8. Its around $1450 USD. If the 2.8 is something you are really looking for, this I think is your best bet.

I have a crop sensor camera and have the equivalent focal range in my Canon 10-22mm and I love the zoom range in the lens for cityscapes and landscapes.

The 17-40mm, as you said, is an f/4.0 lens and is priced around $700 USD for the Canon version. So if double the price for 2.8 is worth it to you, then go for the 16-35. If budget is a concern, I have heard good things of the 17-40mm.

You lose 1mm on the wide end and gain 5mm on the long end. Not sure if that’s a major factor for you.

You could always look at 3rd party lenses to get something similar to the 17-40. I’m not sure on the image quality on the 5D of a 3rd party lens though.

 

[Big Mike]

There is the 16-35mm F2.8 L. It's a fair bit more expensive than the 17-40mm F4 L...but that may or may not be an issue for you. Large apertures are not as essential on wide lenses as they are on longer lenses, which is one reason the 17-40mm is so popular. Not to mention that it's one of the lowest priced L lenses you can get.

 

[woojiebear]

great thanks for the advice.
it looks like the 17-40 is going to be my way to go.
i'm looking in the under $1000 range... my f/1.2 was already over budget haha
i'm just hesitant about the f4 since i'm so used to a 1.2 but i'm willing to work with it.
thanks again

 

[teneighty23]

thats the lense i use almost exclusively, i love it! tho its my only lense besides the standard kit one.
great price though!

 

[blash]

great thanks for the advice.
it looks like the 17-40 is going to be my way to go.
i'm looking in the under $1000 range... my f/1.2 was already over budget haha
i'm just hesitant about the f4 since i'm so used to a 1.2 but i'm willing to work with it.
thanks again

Better you save up for the 16-35 then, nice rule of thumb is that if you compromise, you're going to regret your purchase and just save up in the future for what you really wanted, buy that, then be happy - and find that you wasted money on the inferior product. Of course, $700 more is a lot to save up, but it will get you what you really want.

 

[DRoberts]

Dont be to quik to dismiss the 70-200 f/4. You might want that little extra range if shooting any wildlife you run across.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Dont be to quik to dismiss the 70-200 f/4. You might want that little extra range if shooting any wildlife you run across.

I agree.

F-stops don't stay constant as they pertain to depth of field. You can still isolate a subject nicely with f/4 at greater distance.

I own the 16-35 L and a 5D, and I find that lens too wide to be useful in most cases. The 24-70 is the zoom lens I use the most (normally I prefer primes) but I have noticed that it is pretty short. Sometimes I wish it would go longer, and the 24 - 105 is a good length. If you're outdoors during the day, this might be the perfect lens for you.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Dont forget this lens!
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Its not as wide as you would like, but it is F/2.8 and its $1,190 on B&H

Canon | Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L | 8014A002

Just another option... I know its over budget, but at least its 2.8 and has wider zoom: 17-40mm