Just for fun, what UWA do you prefer?

i just recently got the 16-35 IS f4 on my 5d3 so I haven't had a chance to really play with it - but my first impression are quite positive. I have an impression that there is more distortion on the 16-35 than my 7d and 10-22 at 16mm (ff) vs the 10mm (crop)- but that is only aa non-scientific impression. I have never played with something wider that 16 or 16 equivalent.

Since one year, my ultra-wide needs are well covered by my Samyang 14mm + 24mm TS-E II which can be "ultra-wide" by stitching shifted images. Before that, I owned a 17-40L.

Titi

I have a 16-35 2.8 L USM (Mark1), and I LOVE it.
I actually do prefer a zoom, and I frefer f/2.8 (for night shots), and such.

The copy I have is really sharp in my opinion up until around 28mm, and gets less sharp between 28-35mm, but I use it mostly between 16-28 anyway.

On the other hand, you can never go Wide enough, so a 14mm f/2.8 is a nice lens, but aggain lacks the versatility of a zoom.

NemethR wrote in post #17185745
I have a 16-35 2.8 L USM (Mark1), and I LOVE it.
I actually do prefer a zoom, and I frefer f/2.8 (for night shots), and such.

The copy I have is really sharp in my opinion up until around 28mm, and gets less sharp between 28-35mm, but I use it mostly between 16-28 anyway.

On the other hand, you can never go Wide enough, so a 14mm f/2.8 is a nice lens, but aggain lacks the versatility of a zoom.

I've been shooting 14 for a few years now, before that, had a 17-35 and generally happy, but exactly like you said, you can never go wide enough....

14 on one body, and 24-xxx on another body. I find that I'm ok missing the range in between. 16-35 F4IS is incredibly sharp and more of a one lens solution, but how long would I be able to give up that 14 before yearning for it again..........

I could just buy a 16-35 since it's in the budget, but I really dislike carrying both the 14 and 16-35 around, one definitely just sits around. I also have the 17 TSE sitting around for the past few months, but reluctant to use it around water.

The lenses I use are not on your pole either

16 to 35 2.8 and 8 to 15

Charlie wrote in post #17185792
I've been shooting 14 for a few years now, before that, had a 17-35 and generally happy, but exactly like you said, you can never go wide enough....

14 on one body, and 24-xxx on another body. I find that I'm ok missing the range in between. 16-35 F4IS is incredibly sharp and more of a one lens solution, but how long would I be able to give up that 14 before yearning for it again..........

I could just buy a 16-35 since it's in the budget, but I really dislike carrying both the 14 and 16-35 around, one definitely just sits around. I also have the 17 TSE sitting around for the past few months, but reluctant to use it around water.

Well in this case you coud wait.
Canonrumors already mentioned multiple times that a 12-24 is in developement by C
Canon.

One of my most used tools is the 16-35L f/2.8 mk2. I'll shoot a reception (with 2nd body with longer prime or zoom) or Bday party with the UWA.

Change the perspective foot zooming and flick of the wrist changing FL. One second your UWA and the next normal 35mm. I love this lens for my workflow.

For my application I've never even consider the new 16-35 f/4 due to being one stop slower.

I think that not everyone understood my real question. Canon and Nikon have had always two sorts of UWA zooms. Both are made for different tastes.

One does really need the extra reach on the wide end and need 2.8 but doesn't care that it haves a bulbous front element. And the other one doesn't really need the few extra mm on the wide end and doesn't care much about the 2.8 aperture, he likes to use filters instead.

I am not talking about primes or TSE lenses. I just asked which you would prefer. A wider and faster UWA zoom with a bulbous front element, or a less wide slower zoom which can hold filters and could have IS.

the 16-35 f/4 IS is an awesome lens although i do not own it one of my buddies do and i have use it a few times and it has great IQ plus it is a zoom plus it has IS if you in to that sort of thing oh and it take filters. with that said i personally prefer and own a 14 f/2.8 because it is wider, the f/28 is nice but not a deal breaker for me and also i do not need IS on this type of lens. i would like to find a non expensive filter holder and a 10 stop filter for it and that would be my biggest gripe.

bob

ErgoSpacePig wrote in post #17186126
the 16-35 f/4 IS is an awesome lens although i do not own it one of my buddies do and i have use it a few times and it has great IQ plus it is a zoom plus it has IS if you in to that sort of thing oh and it take filters. with that said i personally prefer and own a 14 f/2.8 because it is wider, the f/28 is nice but not a deal breaker for me and also i do not need IS on this type of lens. i would like to find a non expensive filter holder and a 10 stop filter for it and that would be my biggest gripe.

bob

Introducing, the ND throttle

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pt5Y​W3

Bonbridge wrote in post #17185953
I think that not everyone understood my real question. Canon and Nikon have had always two sorts of UWA zooms. Both are made for different tastes.

One does really need the extra reach on the wide end and need 2.8 but doesn't care that it haves a bulbous front element. And the other one doesn't really need the few extra mm on the wide end and doesn't care much about the 2.8 aperture, he likes to use filters instead.

I thought your question was self-explanatory, but I think people here get pretty hung up of what they actually have, rather than a hypothetical question (or semi-hypothetical since you can use the Nikon with an adapter).

especially after the 16-35 f4 came out a number of people were wishing it were more like the Nikon, particularly f2.8 but without IS.

I shoot Nikon FF and opted for a 16-35 f/4 VR, which has been an excellent purchase for me. The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be a fantastic lens, but I didn't want anything with a protruding front element. However, if I were primarily shooting landscapes I would have probably gone with it along with something like a Lee filter system.

Bob_A wrote in post #17187127
I shoot Nikon FF and opted for a 16-35 f/4 VR, which has been an excellent purchase for me. The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be a fantastic lens, but I didn't want anything with a protruding front element. However, if I were primarily shooting landscapes I would have probably gone with it along with something like a Lee filter system.

But for the overall IQ or the 2.8 and width? (just to be clear since Canon users like me may not be familiar with the 16-35 f4 VR). In fact I didn't even realize Nikon had a 16-35 f4 VR. So Canon had nothing decent while Nikon had BOTH the 14-24 AND a 16-35 VR. @$!#@#^!!!

Anyway, the Canon 16-35 IQ is about as good as it's going to get at the wide end (I think), so the choice here is not really about IQ. However, I haven't seen comparisons with the 14-24 which would be interesting, but the Canon 16-35 compares well with Canons 'sharp' TS-E's.

14-24 would be amazing but a canon version doesn't exist

Neither of the poll options.

I'd take a 12-xx, 13-xx or 14-xx, without IS, and f/4 or f/4.5 is fine by me. A filter thread would be nice though...