How wide is wide enough?

My current widest is a 35mm

Just a few occasions where I feel I need wider so how wide is wide enough?

My choices currently are:

Canon 20mm 2.8

Canon 17-40mm f4

Tokina 16-28 2.8

This is a budget based decision for now, otherwise I would buy the 24mm 1.4 and the 16-35 2.8.

Depending on your style also consider the Samyang 14mm F2.8

16mm on full frame. I only use OEM lenses, I find I have far fewer problems that way. Canon lenses on Canon bodies, Nikon lenses on Nikon bodies.

For weddings anything wider than 16\17 is pretty much for novelty shots.

Pulled the trigger on the Tokina, it seems the best bang for buck and I have never had a problem with 3rd party lenses.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17698609
For weddings anything wider than 16\17 is pretty much for novelty shots.

agreed. but those can be fun.

jimeuph1 wrote in post #17698655
Pulled the trigger on the Tokina, it seems the best bang for buck and I have never had a problem with 3rd party lenses.

i use mine at 20 and above most of the time. I bought it so i could have a zoom with virtually no distortion between 22 and 28. Use it there and be aware of possible flare issues and you will be fine. With 2.8 you can crank the ISO and shutter speed to shoot one handed and block any strong light against the front element with your spare hand.

From the choices you provided, I'd go for the Tokina. It's faster and wider than the canon lenses, however the fact that its front element sticks out is a major downside for me. For myself, i prefer to use the 16-35.

Pencil, the 16-35 was out of budget, it's the sort of thing I would upgrade to if the UWA proved its self an invaluable addition to coverage.

16-35 (used on the wide end)

e.g. 1

e.g. 2

e.g. 3

e.g. 4

e.g. 5

It really isn't that hard to use it a lot on the wide end.

Thanks Peter, while I have uses for it set out in my head, I am still quite budget and that comes with places I need to disguise rather than show off more often than not, so we shall see what my real world results are.

jimeuph1 wrote in post #17699150
Pencil, the 16-35 was out of budget, it's the sort of thing I would upgrade to if the UWA proved its self an invaluable addition to coverage.

I think it all depends on your style really. The Tokina is good, I had a friend who used it before he went to the canon 16-35. It's only the front element that scares me and the fact that I can't use regular filters for creative purposes.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17698609
For weddings anything wider than 16\17 is pretty much for novelty shots.

And unless you are wanting to make the Fat Lady fatter compared to the thin man farther away, or the lady with the Big Buns look even bigger, I even would avoid shooting a group shot with people (vs. a scene-establishing shot with poeople in it), unless they are 12-15' away at least...as the possibility of inducing perspective distortion with too-close subject distance is too great.

erm... none of the above. I have 8mm at the moment as my widest...
(dont ask why i was shooting that high iso... long story....

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ynJq​mR

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yjNQ​G9

I know it's to be used with caution regarding people.

I guess we are talking full frame focal lengths, right? I don't think I could get a lens wide enough. I've shot as wide as 12mm on FF and wished I had more.