Looking for wide angel on full frame - which?

I am looking for a wide angel lense for my Canon 6D.

At the moment I am use the Sigma 35mm 1.4 lense only. But sometimes - especially on holiday or group photos - I need mehr wide angel on my camera. I am not sure which lense is the best compromise for landscape, people and other photos.

My favorites are the following lenses:

# Canon 24mm 2.8 IS
# Sigma 24mm 1.4
# Canon 17-40mm 4.0 L
# Canon 16-35mm 4.0 L IS

For me it is important, that the lense is sharp at low aperture for landscape, that there is a low distortion (maybe when I take group shots of peope) and it is a good combination with my Sigma 35mm 1.4 lense.

Which lense should I buy? What is your recommandation?

Many thanks, Björn

Bjoernyy wrote in post #18250075
I am looking for a wide angel lense for my Canon 6D.

At the moment I am use the Sigma 35mm 1.4 lense only. But sometimes - especially on holiday or group photos - I need mehr wide angel on my camera. I am not sure which lense is the best compromise for landscape, people and other photos.

My favorites are the following lenses:

# Canon 24mm 2.8 IS (Vignettes a lot wide open)
# Sigma 24mm 1.4 (I'd own this, if I could afford it)
# Canon 17-40mm 4.0 L (No corner resolution at 17mm, until f/8-11)
# Canon 16-35mm 4.0 L IS (much better IQ than 17-40 at the wide end, has IS)

For me it is important, that the lense is sharp at low aperture for landscape, that there is a low distortion (maybe when I take group shots of peope) and it is a good combination with my Sigma 35mm 1.4 lense.

Which lense should I buy? What is your recommandation?

Many thanks, Björn

You get to decide what works for you. For what you are shooting, I'd say the 16-35mm f/4L is the best choice. I use the 17-40, and am quite happy with it.

I made some internal comments (red) in the quote.

Is this wide enough ?

http://comps.canstockp​hoto.com …tock-photo_csp4134594.jpg

I'd say the 16-35 f/4 IS also. It's just a notch behind the 16-35 2.8 III, regarded as the lens to beat at this time but at double the cost.

either the 16-35 f2.8III or 24-70 f2.8 II ( or a good copy of the older 24-70 f2.8L)
because while the 16-35 f4 IS is a great lens for landscape I find f4 not enough for isolating the subject when shooting portraits

Thank you guys!

I think I need the more wide angel, so that the Canon 24/2.8 and Sigma 24/1.4 is no option.

In the end, the question is: Canon 17-40mm 4.0 L or Canon 16-35mm 4.0 L IS.

The Canon 16-35mm 4.0 L IS is the beste tele wide angel in this category. But I don't want to spend so much money for an wide angel lense. So I think, I would go with the Canon 17-40mm 4.0 L.

Bjoernyy wrote in post #18251511
Thank you guys!

I think I need the more wide angel, so that the Canon 24/2.8 and Sigma 24/1.4 is no option.

In the end, the question is: Canon 17-40mm 4.0 L or Canon 16-35mm 4.0 L IS.

The Canon 16-35mm 4.0 L IS is the beste tele wide angel in this category. But I don't want to spend so much money for an wide angel lense. So I think, I would go with the Canon 17-40mm 4.0 L.

You mentioned 'distortion'...look at the distortion tests here

-3.6% for the 17-40 at 17mm http://www.photozone.d​e …7-canon_1740_4_5d?start=​1
-3.26% for the 16-35 II at 16mm http://www.photozone.d​e …-canon_1635_28_5d?start​=1
-3.4% for the 16-35 at 16mm http://www.photozone.d​e …77-canon_1635_4is?start=1

compared to the 1.6% of the Sigma 12-24mm at 17mm http://www.photozone.d​e …igma1224f4556ii​ff?start=1

I looked at wide angle lenses for my 6D for a very long time and ended up with the Tokina 16-28. Distortion is essentially non-existent from 20-28mm and it is reasonably sharp in the corners at 2.8, stop down to f/4 and corners get sharp fast.

It is a much better lens than the 17-40 in every way ... Except that putting a filter on it is a pain in the neck.

Plus, it is not expensive like many of the other options.

If having no distortion is important, you should seriously consider this lens.

As for distortion measurements by photozone.de for the Tokina 16-28mm
http://www.photozone.d​e …tokina162828eos​ff?start=1

-2.43% at 16mm
-1.27% at 20mm

it is better than the Sigma at same FL

I always liked my 17-40mm.

- It was plenty sharp stopped down, where I tended to use it.
- It is smaller and lighter than the newer IS 16-25mm.
- Many of my shots ended up at 40mm, which I miss a lot more than going wider to 16mm will ever compensate for.
- 77mm filter, part of the Canon design for utility. (many pro L lenses, one filter size)
- IMHO at the current used prices, it's a bit of a bargain.

That said, there are a lot of reasons that the 16-35mm is much better optically,. and all of them add up to part of the reason why the 17-40mm became as devalued as it is now.

Wilt wrote in post #18251612
As for distortion measurements by photozone.de for the Tokina 16-28mm
http://www.photozone.d​e …tokina162828eos​ff?start=1

-2.43% at 16mm
-1.27% at 20mm

it is better than the Sigma at same FL

Yup. And significantly better than the other three zooms you listed above at 16. I suspect at virtually every focal length.

I have too much house cleaning and beer drinking to do to pull the specs, but I remember that the tokina @ 20-28mm was at the time best in class (for zooms) from a strictly distortion point of view.

I use the lens for building interiors mostly. Being able to get some out of focus areas with 16mm @ 2.8 has made for some good shots.

For my purposes, distortion under 20mm is pretty much irrelevant, honestly, if I'm going that wide, I often wished it had more distortion and might add it in post. lol

A thought that crossed my mind is that going from 35mm to 16mm is a jump and two-thirds! I just noticed that the OP said, "But sometimes - especially on holiday or group photos - I need mehr wide angel on my camera."

Perhaps the OP is not aware of the fact that you can induce perspective distortion on something even as 'not-wide' as 24mm! It is for that reason that when I used to cover weddings, my widest FL that I would use with any group of people somewhat nearby the camera was 28mm! I would only pull out 24mm if I was doing a scene-establishing shot where the locale was the primary subject, and any people were incidental and somewhat smaller in the scene. The fat lady close to the lens standing next to the skinny guy farther from the lens is not a pretty sight (to her).

Agreed.

If 35 is as wide as one has been shooting, 24 is going to be a BIG difference. 16 or 17 will be massive.

IMO, below 24 for people is dangerous territory unless the people are tiny in the frame.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18251681
IMO, below 24 for people is dangerous territory unless the people are tiny in the frame.

It is not that dramatic. It depends more on people not being close to the borders of the frame, and avoid tilting the camera.
I often use 21mm at events.

The issue is less one of 'distortion' and one more of relative subject size vs. distance. If you have a somewhat 'full figured' lady closer to the lens, and a skinny guy standing on the far size of her and farther from the lens, her size is exaggerated in the photo. Exaggerates the size of her hips or bare forearm or whatever, relative to the person behind her. Not unlike the relative sizes of my hands in the two shots...