Wide/Ultra-Wide Angle Lens For 6D

Hi All:

I enjoy shooting landscapes with medium and long exposures when the occasion arises, but more often than not I find myself shooting personal family events, my kids, etc. I just bought a 6D. With my current non-EF-S lenses I am adequately covered from 40-200mm (40 Pancake, 50 1.4, 70-200 F4L IS). So naturally I am in the market for a wide/ultra-wide lens.

I have experience with wide on a crop with an 18-35 Sigma Art, but not ultra-wide. I am looking for some advice on where to focus (no pun intended) my purchasing energies for the under-40 FL, i.e. 17-40 L, 16-35 F4L IS, the 16-35 2.8s, 24mm or 35mm.

I want to stick with Canon and right now am leaning toward the 17-40 due to the price (especially after purchasing the 6D without having sold my crop camera and lenses), longer focal range and because I already have a 77mm Haida 10 Stop ND filter (though this also works with the 16-35 F4L IS).

My hesitation with the 17-40 lies in the possibility of getting the new 16-35F4 for $$400-500 more, the improved sharpness of that lens, the extra width at 16 and, for both of those lenses, how often I will actually use the ultra-wide end of the range. I am also tempted by the sharpness of the 24 and 35 primes, especially if I find myself not utilizing the ultra-wide FL's enough.

Any suggestions as to these or other lenses to get the most out of my new full frame?

Thanks.

Josh

You can't go wrong with the 16-35mm f/4L, it is the best thing going right now for a wide angle lens (short of the 3X more costly 11-24). I heavily favor primes for most of my work, but this is one focal length range and application where I prefer the zoom, and the 16-35mm f/4 has image quality better than many of Canon's non-L primes in its FL range. There also aren't great prime options available between 16mm and 24mm, except for an older and IMO overpriced 20mm f/2.8 that doesn't compare to the IQ of any of newer the ultra-wide L zooms.

Depends on your budget as well. You also need to decide whether you favor primes or zooms.

Zooms: yes, you cannot go wrong with the 16-35, but for the money - it is hard to go wrong with the Sigma 12-24mm. Some samples here:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1411777

Primes: another possibility is the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 14mm f/2.8, if you are OK with manual focus. Then, there's the AF Sigma 20mm f/1.8, Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art, and the upcoming Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art.

I will say, I use my 100mm more for outdoor landscape than I do my 24mm.
The compression helps drastically; depending on the composition and working distances of course.

I desire a 16-35 f4 IS very much, but I often find even 24mm to be too wide, resulting in tiny mountains off in the distance.
Here is a photo where 24mm (or more) is advantageous as a FOV, taken in Florence Italy.

However, with a longer FL (100mm) and tighter FOV; of the same photo, that second bridge further away would not appear tiny.
Sometimes compressing a landscape can be a benefit. Unfortunately I only had my 24mm with me that evening.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/B8bH​VC

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/wYtn​KN

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nkd9​wU

Shooting wide does take getting use to. I also prefer telephoto to bring the far near. That being said, I have the 16-35 f4 IS and absolutely love it. Excellent lens. You cannot go wrong with it.

HI
I have EF-S 10 -22 mm lens a TS-E 24mm mk I and a TSE 17 mm lens.
I also own a T3i and a 5DII

If I was going for wide angle on landscape the EF-s lens would be my last pick and my TSE lenses would be my first choice depending on focal length.
Regardless if I use a cropped body or not I prefer the TSE lenses over the efs 10-22mm lens.

I do not have any experience with the lenses you are considering .

absplastic wrote in post #17771651
I heavily favor primes for most of my work, but this is one focal length range and application where I prefer the zoom, and the 16-35mm f/4 has image quality better than many of Canon's non-L primes in its FL range. There also aren't great prime options available between 16mm and 24mm, except for an older and IMO overpriced 20mm f/2.8 that doesn't compare to the IQ of any of newer the ultra-wide L zooms.

This is interesting. I enjoy primes and the faster apertures as well, so it's good to know that a zoom has good application at that range. From what I understand, mm to mm is much greater at the wider focal lengths, so a zoom makes some sense. That and I am usually stopped down anyway (other than when I try my hand at astro).

Thanks for rec on the 16-35 (it's one of the reasons I'm holding out for a better sale price on my Sigma 18-35).

Arutemu wrote in post #17771700
Primes: another possibility is the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 14mm f/2.8, if you are OK with manual focus. Then, there's the AF Sigma 20mm f/1.8, Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art, and the upcoming Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art.

I looked at Rokinon/Samyang, as I don't mind manual, but prefer a lens that can be used with a screw-on filter. While I love my Sigma Art, focusing inconsistency is keeping me away from non-Canon lenses for now.

Thanks for the interesting perspective! It gives me something to think about. On your last photo, I agree that 100mm may have yielded a better result, maybe bringing the flowers into more prominence in the foreground. Also, I definitely did not see the castle at first glance (and barely upon second)! As I've never shot ultra-wide, your comments are pretty revealing. The concern I have with the ultra-wide is it may end up being more of a specialty/gimmicky lens for me and maybe my money would be better served elsewhere, or at least I would get more bang with the greater range in the 17-40.

After many days of reading opinions and reviews I decided to wait until I could afford the 16-35mm. While I've never owned or used the 17-40mm I am glad I waited. A really fun lens and an alternative is the Sigma 15mm EX DG fisheye lens, which I really like. You can find this used for about $400.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17771738
Shooting wide does take getting use to. I also prefer telephoto to bring the far near. That being said, I have the 16-35 f4 IS and absolutely love it. Excellent lens. You cannot go wrong with it.

Thanks for the ringing endorsement for the 16-35, but no thanks for making my decision more difficult!

farmer1957 wrote in post #17772024
HI
TSE lenses would be my first choice depending on focal length.

The TSE lenses look awesome, and they are priced accordingly, unfortunately.

LOL... You're welcome.

I upgraded from the 17-40 because I happened to have some money in my pocket at the time. The 17-40 is a fine lens though, and for less than $500 you really cannot go wrong with it either.

Good to know the wait was worth it. I'd still like to hear from someone having FF experience with both. I did read a review on POTN of the 16-35 which was a bit underwhelming in terms of the differences between the 17-40 and 16-35 - though the review was roundly criticized by others as being unfair.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17772071
less than $500 you really cannot go wrong with it either.

That price is really attractive for an L. Question: do you really notice and find useful the difference at 16mm vs. 17mm?