Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 29 Sep 2014 (Monday) 14:46
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Which UWA lens would you choose for your shooting style?"
16-xx mm, f/4.0 with IS and with a filter thread
32
59.3%
14-xx mm, f/2.8 without IS and without filter thread
17
31.5%
I never use an UWA so I don't prefer anything
5
9.3%

54 voters, 54 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Just for fun, what UWA do you prefer?

 
ceriltheblade
Goldmember
2,481 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2007
Location: middle east
     
Sep 30, 2014 03:21 |  #16

i just recently got the 16-35 IS f4 on my 5d3 so I haven't had a chance to really play with it - but my first impression are quite positive. I have an impression that there is more distortion on the 16-35 than my 7d and 10-22 at 16mm (ff) vs the 10mm (crop)- but that is only aa non-scientific impression. I have never played with something wider that 16 or 16 equivalent.


7D/5dIII
50 1.8 II, MP-E65, 85 II, 100 IS
8-15 FE, 10-22, 16-35 IS, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS, 100-400 ii, tamron 28-75 2.8
600 ex-rt, 055xproB/488rc2/Sirui k40x, kenko extens tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
titi_67207
Senior Member
Avatar
496 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Strasbourg, France
     
Sep 30, 2014 07:07 |  #17

Since one year, my ultra-wide needs are well covered by my Samyang 14mm + 24mm TS-E II which can be "ultra-wide" by stitching shifted images. Before that, I owned a 17-40L.

Titi


Canon 5D MkII + Sony A7 + 24x36 & 6x6 B&W film cameras .
CV 15 4.5 III | TS-E 24L II | FE 28 2 | (50+85) 1.4 | 135 2 | 70-200 4.0L | a collection of old Zuikos + FD + Adaptall + AI-s + M42

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NemethR
Senior Member
Avatar
861 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 199
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
     
Sep 30, 2014 08:19 |  #18

I have a 16-35 2.8 L USM (Mark1), and I LOVE it.
I actually do prefer a zoom, and I frefer f/2.8 (for night shots), and such.

The copy I have is really sharp in my opinion up until around 28mm, and gets less sharp between 28-35mm, but I use it mostly between 16-28 anyway.

On the other hand, you can never go Wide enough, so a 14mm f/2.8 is a nice lens, but aggain lacks the versatility of a zoom.


Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G | Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,622 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5678
Joined Sep 2007
     
Sep 30, 2014 08:42 |  #19

NemethR wrote in post #17185745 (external link)
I have a 16-35 2.8 L USM (Mark1), and I LOVE it.
I actually do prefer a zoom, and I frefer f/2.8 (for night shots), and such.

The copy I have is really sharp in my opinion up until around 28mm, and gets less sharp between 28-35mm, but I use it mostly between 16-28 anyway.

On the other hand, you can never go Wide enough, so a 14mm f/2.8 is a nice lens, but aggain lacks the versatility of a zoom.

I've been shooting 14 for a few years now, before that, had a 17-35 and generally happy, but exactly like you said, you can never go wide enough....

14 on one body, and 24-xxx on another body. I find that I'm ok missing the range in between. 16-35 F4IS is incredibly sharp and more of a one lens solution, but how long would I be able to give up that 14 before yearning for it again..........

I could just buy a 16-35 since it's in the budget, but I really dislike carrying both the 14 and 16-35 around, one definitely just sits around. I also have the 17 TSE sitting around for the past few months, but reluctant to use it around water.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K ­ Soze
Goldmember
Avatar
1,684 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3152
Joined Dec 2011
     
Sep 30, 2014 08:46 |  #20

The lenses I use are not on your pole either

16 to 35 2.8 and 8 to 15


I try to make art by pushing buttons

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NemethR
Senior Member
Avatar
861 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 199
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
     
Sep 30, 2014 09:08 |  #21

Charlie wrote in post #17185792 (external link)
I've been shooting 14 for a few years now, before that, had a 17-35 and generally happy, but exactly like you said, you can never go wide enough....

14 on one body, and 24-xxx on another body. I find that I'm ok missing the range in between. 16-35 F4IS is incredibly sharp and more of a one lens solution, but how long would I be able to give up that 14 before yearning for it again..........

I could just buy a 16-35 since it's in the budget, but I really dislike carrying both the 14 and 16-35 around, one definitely just sits around. I also have the 17 TSE sitting around for the past few months, but reluctant to use it around water.

Well in this case you coud wait.
Canonrumors already mentioned multiple times that a 12-24 is in developement by C
Canon.


Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G | Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,084 posts
Gallery: 80 photos
Likes: 979
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Sep 30, 2014 09:21 |  #22

One of my most used tools is the 16-35L f/2.8 mk2. I'll shoot a reception (with 2nd body with longer prime or zoom) or Bday party with the UWA.

Change the perspective foot zooming and flick of the wrist changing FL. One second your UWA and the next normal 35mm. I love this lens for my workflow.

For my application I've never even consider the new 16-35 f/4 due to being one stop slower.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bonbridge
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,263 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 415
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Netherlands
     
Sep 30, 2014 10:18 |  #23

I think that not everyone understood my real question. Canon and Nikon have had always two sorts of UWA zooms. Both are made for different tastes.

One does really need the extra reach on the wide end and need 2.8 but doesn't care that it haves a bulbous front element. And the other one doesn't really need the few extra mm on the wide end and doesn't care much about the 2.8 aperture, he likes to use filters instead.

I am not talking about primes or TSE lenses. I just asked which you would prefer. A wider and faster UWA zoom with a bulbous front element, or a less wide slower zoom which can hold filters and could have IS.


5DII + 6D | 16-35/4.0L IS | Σ35/1.4A | 40/2.8 | Σ85/1.4A | 85/1.2L II | 70-200/2.8L IS II
iMac Retina 5k | i7 | 24Gb RAM | 512GB Flash | 4GB M295X

Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ErgoSpacePig
Senior Member
Avatar
269 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 34
Joined Apr 2010
Location: St Louis, Mo
     
Sep 30, 2014 11:51 |  #24

the 16-35 f/4 IS is an awesome lens although i do not own it one of my buddies do and i have use it a few times and it has great IQ plus it is a zoom plus it has IS if you in to that sort of thing oh and it take filters. with that said i personally prefer and own a 14 f/2.8 because it is wider, the f/28 is nice but not a deal breaker for me and also i do not need IS on this type of lens. i would like to find a non expensive filter holder and a 10 stop filter for it and that would be my biggest gripe.

bob


5D III | 5Dsr | TS-E 24 f/3.5L II | EF 35 f/1.4L USM | EF 135 f/2L USM | EF 85 f/1.2L II USM | EF 85 f/1.8 USM | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE
Speedlite 580EX II | Flash Point Streaklight 360 TTL | Feisol CT 3441T | Photo Clam PC-40NS | Domke F4AF pro | Click Elite Escape | Think Tank Airport Takeoff
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,622 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5678
Joined Sep 2007
     
Sep 30, 2014 11:59 |  #25

ErgoSpacePig wrote in post #17186126 (external link)
the 16-35 f/4 IS is an awesome lens although i do not own it one of my buddies do and i have use it a few times and it has great IQ plus it is a zoom plus it has IS if you in to that sort of thing oh and it take filters. with that said i personally prefer and own a 14 f/2.8 because it is wider, the f/28 is nice but not a deal breaker for me and also i do not need IS on this type of lens. i would like to find a non expensive filter holder and a 10 stop filter for it and that would be my biggest gripe.

bob

Introducing, the ND throttle :)

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2949/15402723022_95744d6e88_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pt5Y​W3  (external link) ND Throttle (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

only issue is that you have to use it on a Sony Alpha camera. It's basically a EF to Nex adapter with built in variable ND. It's like a gel filter, and does about 2-8 stops of filtration, though the claim is 1-10.

I'm in the same boat as you, except, my problem is solved. I just need to test it out more.

Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,736 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 671
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Sep 30, 2014 21:33 |  #26

Bonbridge wrote in post #17185953 (external link)
I think that not everyone understood my real question. Canon and Nikon have had always two sorts of UWA zooms. Both are made for different tastes.

One does really need the extra reach on the wide end and need 2.8 but doesn't care that it haves a bulbous front element. And the other one doesn't really need the few extra mm on the wide end and doesn't care much about the 2.8 aperture, he likes to use filters instead.

I thought your question was self-explanatory, but I think people here get pretty hung up of what they actually have, rather than a hypothetical question (or semi-hypothetical since you can use the Nikon with an adapter).

especially after the 16-35 f4 came out a number of people were wishing it were more like the Nikon, particularly f2.8 but without IS.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,438 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 46
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Sep 30, 2014 21:54 |  #27

I shoot Nikon FF and opted for a 16-35 f/4 VR, which has been an excellent purchase for me. The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be a fantastic lens, but I didn't want anything with a protruding front element. However, if I were primarily shooting landscapes I would have probably gone with it along with something like a Lee filter system.


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,736 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 671
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Sep 30, 2014 22:22 |  #28

Bob_A wrote in post #17187127 (external link)
I shoot Nikon FF and opted for a 16-35 f/4 VR, which has been an excellent purchase for me. The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be a fantastic lens, but I didn't want anything with a protruding front element. However, if I were primarily shooting landscapes I would have probably gone with it along with something like a Lee filter system.

But for the overall IQ or the 2.8 and width? (just to be clear since Canon users like me may not be familiar with the 16-35 f4 VR). In fact I didn't even realize Nikon had a 16-35 f4 VR. So Canon had nothing decent while Nikon had BOTH the 14-24 AND a 16-35 VR. @$!#@#^!!!

Anyway, the Canon 16-35 IQ is about as good as it's going to get at the wide end (I think), so the choice here is not really about IQ. However, I haven't seen comparisons with the 14-24 which would be interesting, but the Canon 16-35 compares well with Canons 'sharp' TS-E's.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
967 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 306
Joined Apr 2012
Location: san francisco, CA
     
Sep 30, 2014 22:48 |  #29

14-24 would be amazing but a canon version doesn't exist


Canon 1DX | 6D | 16-35/2.8II | 24/1.4II | 24-70/2.8II | 24-105 | 50/1.8 | 50/1.2 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.2II | 100/2.8 IS macro | 400/2.8 IS | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8 Cinema BMD Ursa Mini 4k
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Echo ­ Johnson
Senior Member
Avatar
433 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: UK
     
Oct 02, 2014 13:06 |  #30

Neither of the poll options.

I'd take a 12-xx, 13-xx or 14-xx, without IS, and f/4 or f/4.5 is fine by me. A filter thread would be nice though...


Canon 5D3 | 17-40 | 50/1.4 | 135/2
...and other stuff.
Flickr (external link) | EchoJ.deviantART (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,793 views & 0 likes for this thread
Just for fun, what UWA do you prefer?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Karu
697 guests, 232 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.