Which wide angle for full frame.

Since I have been using my sigma 150-600 on my 7dii, My 10-20 sigma sits. I think it is time for a full frame wide angle lens. I know there are lots of possibilities, but which do I go for? I would use it primarily for landscapes. Thanks, Cole

the 17-40 is super solid. Great lens for full frame. If you want something faster and have the money the 16-35 2.8 is another great option

edit: if you wanted something even wider and had MORE money you could get the 14 2.8

I would suggest either the 16-35 f4 or the 24-70 II....
I have the 16-35 and I love it, nice and sharp... The 24-70 is supposed to be very good if you don't need ultra wide and can be used as a general walk about lens as well.

cole4570 wrote in post #17821414
Since I have been using my sigma 150-600 on my 7dii, My 10-20 sigma sits. I think it is time for a full frame wide angle lens. I know there are lots of possibilities, but which do I go for? I would use it primarily for landscapes. Thanks, Cole

Heya,

Canon 24-105L covers that already.

If you want "ultra" wide, that's another story. 17-40, 16-35, Rok 14 F2.8, etc, all give you that.

I was going to suggest the 24-70 F4L IS, great lens for landscape, but you already have the 24-105L making that redundant really.

17-40 can be inexpensively had. Under $500 commonly. The new 16-35 F4L IS is hot, very good lens, also $1k basically. Depends on your budget and needs.

Landscape, however, doesn't mean ultrawide, or even wide. There's a lot of places you want telephoto for landscape. This is up for you to figure out what you need.

Very best,

I upgraded from the 17-40 to the 16-35 f4 and I would say do not buy the 17-40 unless you are on a very limited budget, the 16-35 is a lot better...
I also have the 24-105 and am not overly impressed with it..mine gets used as a travel lens when I want acceptable quality but just want to carry one lens..

Giving some specifics about some of the lenses mentioned:

The 17-40L is an OK lens, but the corner performance is not all that great and stopping down only fixes it so much. The 16-35/2.8 and 16-35/2.8II are more of the same. The newer 16-35/4 IS would be the lens I would suggest if you decide you want an UWA zoom.

The 24-105L is a nice walkabout zoom, but I'd skip it for landscape work mainly because it has very severe distortion from 24mm to 28mm, and also rather significant vignette. The 24-70/2.8 II is a good choice, although expensive. The 24-70/4 IS might be worth a thought, but I do hear that it is better at the long end than at the wide end.

Some other lenses that work well:
Zeiss 21
24/2.8 IS
35/2 IS

Has anyone played with the Sigma 12-24 for full frame, its about the same price as the 16-35L f4.

Consider this...
24mm on FF is a very wide angle lens that sees 84 degree diagonal. Before digital, for decades 24mm was one of the widest lenses, apart from 20mm or the wider fisheyes. Then things went crazy with the 16-35mm zoom from Canon (and others).

'For landscapes'...with wider FL than 24mm, you very much accentuate what is in the FOREground, and the background is tiny with little discernable detail in comparison. In other words, you may have a pretty background but you cannot appreciate much of it because it is so tiny (in comparison with the forgeground objects).

So, a 'useful FL' is very dependent upon what the photographer want to achieve, and how miniscule the background detail can be in the photograph!

So in your opinion, say at 24 for the "wide landscape look" its more common practice to stitch a few shots together in a panorama type rather than go say 12-20 wide?

I have the Sigma 12-24 Mk. I. I think I got it for under $400 on ebay, Love it. Here's a couple of sample threads:

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

https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=298​928&page=1

cole4570 wrote in post #17830188
So in your opinion, say at 24 for the "wide landscape look" its more common practice to stitch a few shots together in a panorama type rather than go say 12-20 wide?

That's what I think too.

That's why, because of that very reason, I bought 24mm TS-E II instead of 11-24mm, to be able to stitch few pics without worrying any distortion whatsoever.

2loose wrote in post #17830288
That's what I think too.

That's why, because of that very reason, I bought 24mm TS-E II instead of 11-24mm, to be able to stitch few pics without worrying any distortion whatsoever.

It might be said that stitching of photos to a single panorama is best done with a very rectilinear image, and few 'very wide' views of the world are truly rectilinear...after all, you are taking a fundamentally spherical view and making it fit a rectilinear plane (the focal plane). Splicing multiple 28mm shots is likely better than splicing multiple 24mm shots, for that reason.

I recommended 24mm simply because what is in a distant background (mountain range, for example) is not shrunken so much relative to what is closer to the camera. Your introduction of splicing to make panorama would cause me to suggest 28mm at the widest, for the better stitching. Folks sometimes use multiple TELE shots and stitch them, for more detail, when the 'distrant mountain' is the primary object of interest, and the foreground things are simply to lend some personal aspect to the shot.

Many of my panorama pics are done at 24mm portrait position

cole4570 wrote in post #17830188
So in your opinion, say at 24 for the "wide landscape look" its more common practice to stitch a few shots together in a panorama type rather than go say 12-20 wide?

stitching aint easy.

You may have movement, and your stitch may not work. If you have foreground, you gotta worry about parallax issues.

Stitching is a careful technique, but a 12mm can capture a ton, and crop in post. If you want the most detail, then the stitch will give you that. If you want a single shot pano, a wide angle can give you that.

single shots:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zQ6j​4b

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/x2TH​gy

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vouY​V4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AeQH​wX

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uCQt​1P

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/BEkR​i9

2loose wrote in post #17830317
Many of my panorama pics are done at 24mm portrait position

...which illustrates my point, as

• 24mm along the short dimension is 53 degrees AOV
  
• 28mm along the long dimension is 65 degrees
  
• 35mm along the long dimension is 54 degrees