UWA for Full Frame: which would you chose?

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.

Thank you!

FWIW, I recently grabbed a Sigma 15-30 for $300 and it really surprised me interns of IQ. AF is lightning fast but that's not what I was looking for in an UWA. I did a fair amount of research before buying and everything I read suggested its much better than the 12-24 and it eve less money. I'd imagine the 16-35 might be a touch better all around but not $1000 better based on the one sample I tried. I've also owned a few 17-40s and while they are also a slight bit better than the Sigma, it's to that big of a difference and not at twice the price. Lastly, I've owned the Canon 17-35L and would never recommend it if for no other reason than its marginally soft and the CA is awful.

FWIW, I recently grabbed a Sigma 15-30 for $300 and it really surprised me interns of IQ. AF is lightning fast but that's not what I was looking for in an UWA. I did a fair amount of research before buying and everything I read suggested its much better than the 12-24 and it eve less money. I'd imagine the 16-35 might be a touch better all around but not $1000 better based on the one sample I tried. I've also owned a few 17-40s and while they are also a slight bit better than the Sigma, it's to that big of a difference and not at twice the price. Lastly, I've owned the Canon 17-35L and would never recommend it if for no other reason than its marginally soft and the CA is awful.

The Tokina 16-28 stacks up to the 16-35L. Maybe not the mark II though.

I want the Tokina 16-28, however no one is selling.

I would go to the Tokina.

If you want a wide, and don't mind prime, get the Samyang 14mm.

kay188 wrote in post #15043896
The Tokina 16-28 stacks up to the 16-35L. Maybe not the mark II though.

I want the Tokina 16-28, however no one is selling.

I would go to the Tokina.

If you want a wide, and don't mind prime, get the Samyang 14mm.

there is a big difference between 12mm and 16mm. How wide do you want to go without stitching?

The Sigma 15-30mm 1:3.5-4.5 EX DG IF works very well on my 5D. There is some barrel distortion at the wide end but it can be mostly corrected. The lens is quite sharp at all apertures. These are inexpensive used and wider than any Canon zoom.

I also really like Sigma 12-24mm 1:4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM on my 5D although it isn't quite as good optically as the 15-30. It has quite low distortion, even at 12mm. I use DxO Optics Pro to correct its aberrations and distortion which helps a lot. There is some field curvature which will show at wider apertures. Don't expect a perfect flat plane of focus. This lens should be stopped down a lot for most uses. My copy has a bit of a centering fault but it usually doesn't bother me. I like how close it focuses.

I haven't tried the new 12-24 but apparently it is sharper but has strong barrel distortion and is much more expensive.

What about the 17mm tilt shift? Very sharp & with the shift function it can be very wide indeed.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=701861

From reading among different sites, I hear there may be a new 16-35 coming out later this year or next year. If you are thinking long term, you may want to exercise some patience.

I shoot the current 16-35mII. There is some softness around the edges, of which I have not found a way around. Sometimes it is a pain and other times it is barely noticeable unless you are a pixel peeler.

Otherwise I love the lens.
This lens shines at dark/night images.

Thank you all for the input guys!
I'd love to get the 17 TSE but as wonderful as it is, it's MF only and that's a big concern to me: kinda hard to snap photos with MF under churches. I tried before and it's just not my thing.

Unfortunately I can't wait for the 16-35 III as I'm going to Torres del Paine in 1 month. Renting is not an option here in Brazil unfortunately.
Perhaps I end up just buying the L for this trip and selling it when I come back, so I can wait for the version III.
The Tokina has its appeal, specially being very spoiled with a super-sharp copy of the 11-16 when I had the 7D.

Oh, boy. Every time I need a new lens I go trough this!

frizzle wrote in post #15044354
What about the 17mm tilt shift? Very sharp & with the shift function it can be very wide indeed.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=701861

+1 on that.
Add a 1.4x extender and you have a 24mm UWA TS-E.

That's my dream UWA lens on a FF.

Alex_Venom wrote in post #15044510
Thank you all for the input guys!
I'd love to get the 17 TSE but as wonderful as it is, it's MF only and that's a big concern to me: kinda hard to snap photos with MF under churches. I tried before and it's just not my thing.

At 17mm FF and f/4 (wide open) your hyperfocal distance is 2.43m with focus from 1.22m to infinity.

At f/8 you gain another 60cm.

andrikos wrote in post #15044537
At 17mm FF and f/4 (wide open) your hyperfocal distance is 2.43m with focus from 1.22m to infinity.

At f/8 you gain another 60cm.

Oh, now that's good info! And considering the 1/FL rule, I think it would be pretty easy to maintain 1/17 and still get enough DoF to get the whole church in focus!
I'll research a bit more on that one!

have you excluded the 17-40L for a reason?

24L and stitch.

The distortion on the 16-35 and 17-40 is brutal.

I've tried most and my favorite all-around is the 16-35II - it's my workhorse lens and possibly the best night lens there is.

However, the 17TS-E is my new favorite lens and is just about the best UWA you can get. I love mine.