Which ultra wide angle for Canon 6D?

Hello!

I'm going to complete my camera equipment and need at next a ultra wide angle.

On my focus are the following lenses:

Tamron 17-35
Canon 17-40
Canon 16-35
Canon 20 2.8
Canon 24 2.8 IS
(Canon 24-105)
(Tamron 24-70)

I'd like to have it for holidays and city trips. So it's important that the lense is not to heavy and big. I'll shoot landscape, architecture or a portrait sometimes.

Or is there any lense which is better to use it on the Canon 6D?

I should say the Canon 17-40 and 16-35 are your best options.

Both have similar performance, but the 17-40L is lighter but only f/4, which is perfectly fine for landscape since you will be stopping down anyway. The 16-35 is a little more hefty but performs very well wide open at f/2.8. The 16-35 is double the price, though.

On a 6D, you ideally would want a 16-17mm wide end for some great perspective.


I would recommend the 17-40L though in your case, and maybe pick up a Samyang 14mm for those times you really want extreme wideness. Both can be had for less than the 16-35 by itself (the Mark II).

Invertalon wrote in post #16591119
I should say the Canon 17-40 and 16-35 are your best options.

Both have similar performance, but the 17-40L is lighter but only f/4, which is perfectly fine for landscape since you will be stopping down anyway. The 16-35 is a little more hefty but performs very well wide open at f/2.8. The 16-35 is double the price, though.

On a 6D, you ideally would want a 16-17mm wide end for some great perspective.


I would recommend the 17-40L though in your case, and maybe pick up a Samyang 14mm for those times you really want extreme wideness. Both can be had for less than the 16-35 by itself (the Mark II).

Pretty much this. The 17-40 is a nice ultrawide. Some will criticize corner sharpness but stopped down it does well for the price.

If you can afford it 16-35L

I love mine. Sharp in the center and okay on the corners. Vignettes a bit strong but hey, the 17-40 performs weaker so the 16-35 is you best option from canon.

Otherwise, the tokina 16-28 is a nice lens FWIW i heard, but i prefer to have a bit more zoom range...

I've been looking at the Samyang 14mm manual focus for an UWA

Manuel focus is not good for me in the Holiday with the Family. It needs to much Time.

Bjoernyy wrote in post #16591211
Manuel focus is not good for me in the Holiday with the Family. It needs to much Time.

You really dont want to be shooting holiday photos with the family using an ultrawide anyway. Manual focus is less of an issue than you might think with the massive depth of field you get from an ultrawide.

Yes! The Canon 17-40 is nice. 17mm for lanscape and 40mm for some portraits. Don't you like this?

Bjoernyy wrote in post #16591228
Yes! The Canon 17-40 is nice. 17mm for lanscape and 40mm for some portraits. Don't you like this?

40mm for portraits on a 6D isnt particularly flattering, but the range is nice.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16591231
40mm for portraits on a 6D isnt particularly flattering, but the range is nice.

Yes, portraits with 40mm are nice. Not much bokeh, but nice.

Bjoernyy wrote in post #16591240
Yes, portraits with 40mm are nice. Not much bokeh, but nice.

You must not have heard about perspective distortion.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16591266
You must not have heard about perspective distortion.

Yes, that's right.

Bjoernyy wrote in post #16591211
Manuel focus is not good for me in the Holiday with the Family. It needs to much Time.

find infinity then bring focus back a smidgen (technical term, grin), set aperture to f/8, set mode to Av, AWB, whatever else and have at it. bracket if uncertain.

no fuss, no muss. everything (damn near) is in focus. so point and shoot.

Invertalon wrote in post #16591119
I should say the Canon 17-40 and 16-35 are your best options.

Both have similar performance, but the 17-40L is lighter but only f/4, which is perfectly fine for landscape since you will be stopping down anyway. The 16-35 is a little more hefty but performs very well wide open at f/2.8. The 16-35 is double the price, though.

On a 6D, you ideally would want a 16-17mm wide end for some great perspective.


I would recommend the 17-40L though in your case, and maybe pick up a Samyang 14mm for those times you really want extreme wideness. Both can be had for less than the 16-35 by itself (the Mark II).

Canon's wide angle glass is kinda ~meh. The 16-35mm is uber-$$$ and is better than the original version - e.g. - condemned by faint praise. it's also an isometric workout and anything but inconspicuous.

I spent 8 hours last week testing my new 100mm L on a crop body at a local botanical gardens (great lens). As an after-thought, I mounted the lowly 35mm f/2 (non-IS) on my de-gripped 5D as a second body/perspective (thus avoiding most lens changes - although we did carry the 10-22mm uwa).

The point, to this anecdote, is that days later, the 300+ images from the 35mm stole the show. Mostly SooC, they are simply stunning. And from an inexpensive lens - that's cheap, unobtrusive, short, light - - - what's not to like?

Nothing against red-ringed lenses (see comment re 100mm L above), but good images are good images. Regardless.

I am actually in this same position, but have time on my side as it is winter here and I don't truly need an uwa until spring. As such, I have my fingers crossed for Canon to update the old 20mm 2.8 as they did last year with the 24, 28 and 35 or release some other prime around 17 or 18mm. Or perhaps the rumored Sigma 16-20 f/2 will prove to be true. Otherwise I will need to figure out if the 24mm is wide enough or if the 16-28 from Tokina is worthwhile.

I have owned the 16-35ii and 17-40, but wasn't overly impressed with either. Both are fine and serve purposes, they just don't fit my shooting and/or are too expensive for what you get for my purposes.