Alex_Venom wrote in post #15042892
Now that I'm a member of the full frame club, I need to fulfill the UWA gap as I love shooting interiors of churches when I travel.
Also, I planned a trip to Torres del Paine and I know there is a lot of UWA potential there.
I'm thorn among:
Canon 16-35L: good IQ overall, fast aperture, weather sealed, FTM
Tokina 16-28: OK IQ, fast aperture, cheaper
Sigma 12-24: Wiiiiiiide, so so IQ, 1 1/3 stop slower
Among those which one would you buy and why? I'm thinking long therm here so price is no problem. I just want wide and sharp as I can get.
mike_311 wrote in post #15045295
have you excluded the 17-40L for a reason?
You said you want as wide and as sharp as you can get, so...
I would actually suggest two lenses you didn't even mention. The 17-40L and 14L.
I just started a thread a few days ago about the 17-40L and 16-35L and I was in the same boat... price wasn't an issue. However, why spend more money JUST to spend more money?? This is what I really feel like getting the 16-35 is doing. It's not any sharper than the 17-40....at all. Actually, my 17-40 was visibly sharper than my now returned 16-35. The 1mm difference was much less than I thought it would be, the 17 feels very wide, the 16-35 doesn't really feel any wider (if that makes sense) There wasn't a single scene where I thought "glad I had that extra 1mm" I wanted to like the 16-35 so badly, I just didn't.
I also suggest the 14L just because it would be so much fun to shoot with and from what I've read, it's sharper than both the 17-40 and 16-35. Test shots seem to prove this as well.