Sharpest wide angle

of course. the 24L II is more a specialty lens. if you "needed" it you wouldn't be asking the peanut gallery lol!

16-35L f/4 gets a lot of love. I think Canon got this one right.
I have what I believe is a very good copy of the 16-35L f/2.8 II, but if I were starting over I'd get the f/4 version.

Is there any lens wider then a TSE 17mm ?
Except maybe a fish eye.

Normally I can be inches away and still get the whole subject in the frame.

Am about 2ft to 3ft away from this way cool F1

IMAGE LINK: http://s1110.photobuck​et.com …tion_zpslwmfy0z​4.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s1110.photobuck​et.com …DASH_zpsulvyqwz​p.jpg.html

I think I am the only one not in love with the 16-35 f4 IS

I tried it over Christmas and f4 was just not what I need.

If anyone here is interested. See me FS thread in my signature. Like brand new.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #17913672
I tried it over Christmas and f4 was just not what I need.

i agree. while i have not tried the Canon, my Tokina 16-28 @2.8 allows me to get at least some background blur. With such wide shooting anything else just won't get you there.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #17913672
I think I am the only one not in love with the 16-35 f4 IS

It's a technically excellent lens, but it's not a bokeh master. Wonderful for stopped-down landscape stuff though. It holds its sharpness to the edges of the frame impressively, even in the corners, something neither its f/2.8 siblings nor the 17-40L can do. A landscape photographer absolutely can't go wrong with the 16-35mm f/4L.

Now, if the OP is looking for a wide-angle just for the T2i, the 10-18mm is a great choice if you can live with a slow lens, and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is probably the best fast option. Considering the price, I expected the 10-18mm to be a mess in the corners, and I was floored by how it actually performs on my 60D. It holds it's own against the 6D + 16-35/4 combo, surprisingly, except for rejecting lens flare. Sharpness and colors are great.

On other lens I've been looking seriously at lately is the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 fisheye, because I'm interested in doing more starry night landscapes. This lens is getting great reviews for sharpness and near total lack of field curvature, and its view is very wide even when de-fished and cropped. Just throwing that out there.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #17913672
I think I am the only one not in love with the 16-35 f4 IS

I tried it over Christmas and f4 was just not what I need.

If anyone here is interested. See me FS thread in my signature. Like brand new.

Just as a matter of interest, what is it you didn't like about that lens?
I agonised for months between the f4 and the f2.8 version and finally decided I wanted IS for those longer than usual shutter times.

absplastic wrote in post #17913902
It's a technically excellent lens, but it's not a bokeh master. Wonderful for stopped-down landscape stuff though. It holds its sharpness to the edges of the frame impressively, even in the corners, something neither its f/2.8 siblings nor the 17-40L can do. A landscape photographer absolutely can't go wrong with the 16-35mm f/4L.

Now, if the OP is looking for a wide-angle just for the T2i, the 10-18mm is a great choice if you can live with a slow lens, and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is probably the best fast option. Considering the price, I expected the 10-18mm to be a mess in the corners, and I was floored by how it actually performs on my 60D. It holds it's own against the 6D + 16-35/4 combo, surprisingly, except for rejecting lens flare. Sharpness and colors are great.

On other lens I've been looking seriously at lately is the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 fisheye, because I'm interested in doing more starry night landscapes. This lens is getting great reviews for sharpness and near total lack of field curvature, and its view is very wide even when de-fished and cropped. Just throwing that out there.

I'm with you on the bokeh thing but I personally don't consider that a factor with super wide lenses.
In truth, if I want background blur, I grab my 85 1.2. That's its primary function.

I could be really wrong here of course.

I have both the 24L II and the 16-35 f/4. Both are just brilliant, but they play such different roles in my lineup:

24L: low light, indoor, artsy stuff w/ wide aperture
16-35: versatile outdoor, travel, landscape

95% of the time I grab the 16-35. It's wwiiiiiiide vs. 24mm, sharp edge to edge, has excellent color, and the IS is the icing on the cake. Due to its versatility, it has taken the place of the 24L in my travel/walk around kit.

The 24L gets the nod when I want a different look that a wider aperture gives, but I really have to go out of my way for this kind of shot. Plus, like fordmondeo said above, if I want background blur I reach for a more capable lens (50L, 100L, 70-200 even). I'm on the fence about keeping it even though it's one of the lenses I have had the longest.

fordmondeo wrote in post #17914859
I'm with you on the bokeh thing but I personally don't consider that a factor with super wide lenses.
In truth, if I want background blur, I grab my 85 1.2. That's its primary function.

I could be really wrong here of course.

MatthewK wrote in post #17914891
I have both the 24L II and the 16-35 f/4. Both are just brilliant, but they play such different roles in my lineup:

24L: low light, indoor, artsy stuff w/ wide aperture
16-35: versatile outdoor, travel, landscape

95% of the time I grab the 16-35. It's wwiiiiiiide vs. 24mm, sharp edge to edge, has excellent color, and the IS is the icing on the cake. Due to its versatility, it has taken the place of the 24L in my travel/walk around kit.

The 24L gets the nod when I want a different look that a wider aperture gives, but I really have to go out of my way for this kind of shot. Plus, like fordmondeo said above, if I want background blur I reach for a more capable lens (50L, 100L, 70-200 even). I'm on the fence about keeping it even though it's one of the lenses I have had the longest.

Yeah, tbh, 24L and 35L are more event/people-street lenses for me.

fordmondeo wrote in post #17914859
I'm with you on the bokeh thing but I personally don't consider that a factor with super wide lenses.
In truth, if I want background blur, I grab my 85 1.2. That's its primary function.

I could be really wrong here of course.

i agree, but in the shot i posted above i would have had to been 20 feet on the other side of a wall to get that shot. While it's nothing special, just a marketing shot for a bed and breakfast, there are certain times when you just have to have a wider angle of view.

on the other hand, you're right, a wide prime like the Canon 24 1.8 would have been better.

MatthewK wrote in post #17914891
I have both the 24L II and the 16-35 f/4. Both are just brilliant, but they play such different roles in my lineup:

24L: low light, indoor, artsy stuff w/ wide aperture
16-35: versatile outdoor, travel, landscape

95% of the time I grab the 16-35. It's wwiiiiiiide vs. 24mm, sharp edge to edge, has excellent color, and the IS is the icing on the cake. Due to its versatility, it has taken the place of the 24L in my travel/walk around kit.

The 24L gets the nod when I want a different look that a wider aperture gives, but I really have to go out of my way for this kind of shot. Plus, like fordmondeo said above, if I want background blur I reach for a more capable lens (50L, 100L, 70-200 even). I'm on the fence about keeping it even though it's one of the lenses I have had the longest.

And as you say, the 70-200 2.8, very respectable blur. Not very wide but awesome background diffusion.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17914963
i agree, but in the shot i posted above i would have had to been 20 feet on the other side of a wall to get that shot. While it's nothing special, just a marketing shot for a bed and breakfast, there are certain times when you just have to have a wider angle of view.

on the other hand, you're right, a wide prime like the Canon 24 1.8 would have been better.

I'd love a wide angle prime but, as an amateur, the loss of versatility is a consideration for me.

anyone selling a 24mm ii ? ^.^

fordmondeo wrote in post #17914859
I'm with you on the bokeh thing but I personally don't consider that a factor with super wide lenses.
In truth, if I want background blur, I grab my 85 1.2. That's its primary function.

Yeah, wide angle for landscape and wide angle for subject isolation in environmental portraits or product shots are really two different applications that ideally use different lenses. I bought the 16-35mm f/4 for the former, but would really like to get a 35mm f/2 IS for the latter, some day.