I'm planning on buying the 1DsIII and want something wider than my 28-70L. In his review of the 1DsIII Michael said something to the effect that with 21meg the quality of the attached lens will really be tested. So my question is, does anyone use this lens with the 1DsIII and what do they think? Does the lens stand up? Although it's an "L" class lens it's a LOT cheaper than the 16-35II. You usually get what you pay for but since I'm already spending more than I should for the body I'd like not to have to spend the extra money unless it's necessary.

Thanks.

Mark F

I own the 17-40 L (second copy) and must say that while it is a versatile lens, the quality on the 5D is not satisfactory. This for critical work like architecture or landscape, where the performance in the edges is poor even at aperture 11. the 16-35 II is to be said nothing better, mostly it is worse than the 17-40. I am really getting angry about Canon, because they dont see their poor wide angle optics as a problem, might be that a lot of canon shooters are doing press and sports, where edge sharpness of Wide angle lenses is not that important, and in the high iso and tele canon has always been superb. As the lenses in my opinion are the most important factor for high resolution cameras I will take a close look to the new lens offerings of Nikon (14-24 and 24-70) if you want to stay with canon you can adapt these G lenses with an adaptor I have heard. Next week I will get both the 1Ds MarkIII and the Nikon D3 with the 14-24 and 24-70 for testing. If the new Nikon lenses are really that much better as a test at 16:9 suggests I will have a hard time to decide into which system I will invest, but I think it will be in the system with the better optics as this is what now and in the future is needed with high resolution cameras.

I used the 17-40 for several years with a 1D MkII and was 95% happy with the results. I borrowed a 5D for a month long trip to Italy (thanks CPS) last year and found the edge performance with it to be not good.

Thus I bought the 16-35 II when I got a 1Ds MkIII a month ago, and while the edges are a little soft, they are a lot better than the 17-40 on a 5D. You simply can't expect perfection with a lens of this type, assuming you'd like like it small enough to hand hold and cost less than five figures, ;-)

The 17-40mm has a few saving graces, it resists flare very well, has good colour, good contrast and sharp in the centre, but resolution at the edges is close to a Lens baby, the distortion is comedy lens stuff. It has to be used stopped down a long way to give the edges a chance.
It will not be any worse on a mkIII than it is on a 5D or MkII at a same size print.
Having said all that because I can shoot into the sun and get good strong colour I use it much more than I should. I wish other Canon lenses had the punch this one delivers, but on no account buy it for it's resolution. Overall Canon need a kick up the backside regarding wide performance.
This is the main reason I would switch brands or formats, poor wide lenses.

Kevin.

Just to add
I have a love hate relationship with this lens, I curse it everytime I use, then again I probably use it more than any other lens I have. I also have the Sigma 12- 24mm, it has much better distortion control and more consistent across the frame for sharpness, of course it's also wider. I still end up using the 17-40mm more, the colour is very punchy. If you use it at 32mm it's even not bad at the edges.
One day when Leica bring a high pixel count SLR to the market I'll consider that for it's lenses.
I would think that even a cheap extreme wide voigtlander on an M8 resolves more across the frame than any Canon wide.

Kevin.

Here is a very old test. It includes the 17-40, 16-35mkI, the Nikon 17-35 and the Sigma 15-30. All taken with a 1DsMKII.

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test

My standard these days on the same camera is the Sigma 12-24.
I must say the new Nikon looks very attractive.

Well, you might want to try out the new Nikon 14-24 f2.8. Don't know whether you would call it perfect, but it really is an impressive lens. From the results I see on the D3, it appears that this lens was designed to deal with much higher pixel counts...

Cheers,
Bernard

There was an issue thom hogan had with the nikon lens. I just skimmed it so I don't know for sure what it was and now I can't go back because of the dpreview forum crash. I don't suppose you saw his message?

This is what he was saying...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=26422774

Nice lens just not necessarily that practical for his purpose.

I have just bought a 1Ds Mk3.

I already owned the 17-40, 50mm macro, 90mm TSE and 100mm macro, all of which I had been using with my 5D.

The 17-40mm is seriously compromised by the 21Mp. In short, it is made to look crap.

The 90mm TSE is the best glass I have ever owned, period. Even better than the Schneiders on my Sinar. It is truly astonishing and it gives full expression to the 21Mp. I shot some commercial portraits at the weekend on a job and, without any sharpening whatsoever, zooming in to 100% reveals scary detail!

Canon may be winning the pixel race but Nikon's tradional superiority in glass across the board may mean that their fewer pixels are producing better pictures.

D.

ps. I haven't tried either the 45mm TSE or the 24mm TSE, but I've heaard they're as good as the 90mm. Apparently, in order to cater for the movements that these lenses have, the optics have to be first class. Now why can't they just put those optics in all their other lenses? I need very few lenses (the 50mm macro is my staple) and I would happily pay TSE prices for a 50mm equivalent.

At the wide end, the 17-40/4L shows noticeable shortcomings even on the 1Ds-I. So the 1Ds-III isn't going to treat it any better.

On the long end, it stands up well the the 1Ds-I, though.

Bernard, this guy is shooting Canon. Yes, I know there are adapters for the Nikon 14-24 but you lose functionality like AF. Besides, if you are a landscape or nature shooter, you won't want this lens because it doesn't take filters. How useless is that? And who needs 14mm very often in a landscape situation? I suggest he go for the 16-35 II. Very sharp lens except wide open at f/2.8 but at 5.6 and up, it's very sharp at all focal lenghts. Resolves all 21MP of my 1DsIII nicely.

First, thanks to all for the very useful info. It definitely sounds like the 17-40mm is not the way to go. I guess I'll have to spring for the 16-35 II after all. Sorry for the delay in posting this thanks but just got back from a week in the Everglades and Big Cypress Natl Preserve. If you've never been there, the photography is great! Both landscape and wildlife (mainly birds).

Also sorry for the blank post that precedes this one. I'm new and cannot quite figure out how to delete it.

Test it before you buy it, some friends of mine, also full time pro phtotgraphers were not very happy with the new 16-35 either.

And as I said in another post, the 90 TSE might be a wonderful lens, the 24 TSE plainly just sucks and is useless on digital full frame.

I think some of the 24s might be better -- Darwin Wiggett swears by his on the 1DsII and III.

Comparison

I had a hand picked 16-35mm version I. I compared it to 2 others and at the wide end 16-24 it was much better than the others I had compared it with. However, it was still not outstanding on the FF in the corners. By f8 it was decent at the edges but depending on light could still show some CA and fringing. I tried the 16-35II. I got two lenses. One-- much better 16-24 at the wider apertures but by f8 about the same. Less CA. However at 24-35mm the version II was worse than my already marginal version one lens. The second version II lens was worse or maybe equal at all comparisons with my version I albeit for the CA, which I believe to be better on the version II.

I do not think the 24mm TSE is horrible. It suffers from fringing at the edges that can be corrected in PS. The schneider 28mm PC for the canon is really sharp edge to edge but suffers from fringing. The 90mm TSE is one of my favorite and most outstanding canon lenses. For the wider side I love the 35mm contax PC. Mark

BTW all of my testing above was with the 1DsmkII although i have used all my lenses except the 16-35II (which I returned) on the 1DsmkIII and have not changed my conclusions.

So my choice is not so clear after all... But if I understand all of the comments it seems that the 16-35mm II should be ok for landscape work with a full frame camera so long as I'm willing to use f8 or smaller.

Just another unhappy 17-40L customer, went through 3 samples over two years before I had one that was decent on a 5D. I would look for an alternative like the 16-35II if finances permit, especially on DSIII...fwiw...Canon's own images when the 5D came out were equally bad with the 17-40L....talking in the corners, very soft...

Hi All,

Att Pic Lower Right Corner 100% Crop and data to make one puke!

Canon should pay people who use this lens with their New 1DS MkIII

They should ban it from sale to MkIII owners.

Blah

Des W



http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/team201/1DS3_17_40.jpg

http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/team201/Picture_17.jpg

Received my 1DS Mrk III last weekend down here in New Zealand and have been testing with my 16-35mm MrkII. Certainly I can see a difference in quality around the edges compared to my ID Mark II as one would expect comparing with a cropped sensor.

But in the end it is only in the corners were the softness really shows and at 24mm I was rather impressed after sharpening in Lightroom and adding some "Clarity".

The lens is slightly sharper than my 17-40 and has much less CA. So my advice is if you wish to say with a Canon wide angle zoom the 16-35mm MrkII is currently your best choice. Yes ... and looking through the new super bright viewfinder with an f2.8 wide angle lens is amazing!!!

Yours actually looks better than the 17-40L I had - it was trully atrocious in the corners. I gave mine away to a close friend with a 20D.

Mine's a lot better than those shown, but is still no powerhouse.

Lets hope Nikon's recent revival will give Canon the kick up the derier it needs, part of which being them needing to release an excellent wide angle zoom.

Ha!--Is he still your friend??

Des

And a very happy one, since the 20D's smaller sensor avoids most of the really bad corner stuff .

As a follow up, there is another topic here called "Wide premium lens for 1DsIII" that has a link to http://www.16-9.net/

I went there and if I understand it correctly, these people in the UK sell an adapter that will allow the new very highly rated Nikon 12-24 to be used on the 1DsIII. It's a little confusing, but it seems that the current adapter does not have anything auto except focus confirm, but they are working on an upgrade that will have full auto. If so, that would be great.