UWA for Full Frame: which would you chose?

For you trip to Torres Del Paine I would be inclined to go with something less wide but with excellent IQ, and stitch the shots together, so maybe something like a 24L.

From what I have seen and read about the area, I would rather have a high quality and detailed panoramic shot printed large, than a single UWA shot printed large (and I would be printing them large too when I returned!)

(very envious you are heading there - been wanting to visit Patagonia in general and there specifically since I was about 7yrs old)

ZachOly wrote in post #15045302
24L and stitch.

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

but... distortion is so FUN! how many boring panoramas can you look at?

yeah, distortion can work for or against you, depending on the subject. I suggest picking up a 17-40 used, and try it...if you don't like it, you can always sell it later. I love that lens.

TS-E 17, TS-E 24 (shift and stitch) and Nikon 14-24 with adaptor.

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.

Thank you!

mike_311 wrote in post #15045295
have you excluded the 17-40L for a reason?

^^^
This

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.

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.

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!

I think the 17 TSEII has AF confirm. I don't have the lens so don't know for sure. I have just ordered the 24mm TSEII.

Since cost is not an option, my choice would be none of these. Instead, I'd choose either the 17 or 24 TS-E. Both are extremely sharp and you can stitch images to get a significantly wider field than a simple lens can provide.

My preference is for the 17 because adding a 1.4x tc gives me access to both focal lengths. My tests at f/8 convinced me that the 17/1.4x combination was sharper than the 24 TS-E. In practice, this depends on how well the subject suits the resulting field curvature.

Apart from the cost, the principle issue with the 17 is that you need to make an adapter to suit the Lee holder if you want to attach 4x6 filters.

noisejammer wrote in post #15047262
Since cost is not an option, my choice would be none of these. Instead, I'd choose either the 17 or 24 TS-E. Both are extremely sharp and you can stitch images to get a significantly wider field than a simple lens can provide.

My preference is for the 17 because adding a 1.4x tc gives me access to both focal lengths. My tests at f/8 convinced me that the 17/1.4x combination was sharper than the 24 TS-E. In practice, this depends on how well the subject suits the resulting field curvature.

Apart from the cost, the principle issue with the 17 is that you need to make an adapter to suit the Lee holder if you want to attach 4x6 filters.

The filter issue was the sole reason I went with the 24mm.
Is it true they have AF confirm?

Yes, all Canon TSEs have AFconfirm.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #15047421
Yes, all Canon TSEs have AFconfirm.

Thanks Todd. Mine is on it's way.