UWA for Iceland: not an easy choice

Thank you for sharing. Looks sharp and no vignetting. Nothing else I need really, just want to have a very sharp image.

Paulowen wrote in post #16171794
Here's a couple taken with the 17-40mm in Iceland this year. First @f14 for 6 seconds. The waterfall was a stitch of two shots, again at f14 but for 10 seconds. It's a fine lens - and I'm a closet pixel peeper

www.lightpilgrim.com ||1x.com ||500px.com

Canon 6D, & Sony α6000
Own: 24-105mm f/4L | Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 | Rokinon 14mm f/1.8
Want: 24-70mm f/2.8 L II | 70-200mm f/2.8 L II
Website: Jordyn Murdock Photography

Sirrith wrote in post #16170381
If you plan on doing aurora shots, you may want the f2.8 of the 16-35.

This.

For all of your landscaping stuff there's very little difference between the two lenses. But if you're thinking of shooting aurorae then aperture is highly important.

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website

hollis_f wrote in post #16171865
This.

For all of your landscaping stuff there's very little difference between the two lenses. But if you're thinking of shooting aurorae then aperture is highly important.

IMHO September might be a little too early for Aurora shooting? But I found that apertures of f4 and f5.6 were fine - I used a 14mm Samyang and the majority of my Aurora shots were taken at ISO 800 and f4 for 20 seconds.

Image hosted by forum (657988) © Paulowen [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Gear? Don't want my wife seeing how much kit I've got
www.iceland-photography-tours.co.uk

24 mm I already have and I need something wider...like an UWA.

xpfloyd wrote in post #16171500
I have previously owned two 17-40s and can tell you that you wouldn't be disappointed with this lens in Iceland. As others have said the f/2.8 advantage of the 16-35 isnt really an issue assuming that you will be taking landscapes with narrower apetures to maximize DOF.

Alternatively you could spend slightly more and go with the TS-E 24mm (or 17mm) for the sharpest possible shots. With the TS-E 24mm if your camera is horizontal and you shift horizontally a 3 shot stitched pano has the equivalent FOV to a 14.4mm lens

www.lightpilgrim.com ||1x.com ||500px.com

gremlin75 wrote in post #16171540
What about renting a lens?

+1.

Heath
"Some photographers push the envelope. Some sit behind a keyboard and criticize their accomplishments." (seen in the comments of a photo article)
Blog-Twitter-Zenfolio-500px-Pinterest-Gear List

https://www.flickr.com​/photos/jackhenriques/
1DX, 7D, 20D, G7X II, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 24-70 f/2.8 L, 16-35 f/2.8 L II, 50 f/1.8 II, 50 f/1.4, TS-E 17 f/4 L, 8-15 f/4 L, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6, Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro, x1.4 extender II, Kenko extension tubes, 430 EX II x 2, DJI Mavic Air

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16174850
24 mm I already have and I need something wider...like an UWA.

Thats what im saying. The TS-E 24 gives the equivelent focal length to a 14mm lens when a 3 shot shifted pano is made.

Leica M11 | Leica Q2 | Sony α7RV
Voigtlander 28 f/2 Ulton II | Leica 50 Summilux ASPH
16-35GM | 24GM | 35GM | 85GM | Tamron 35-150 | Sigma 105 Macro Art