Do I need a 16-35 (or wider)

I am a family, senior, and wedding photographer. Up until now, I have never found the need to go any wider than my 24-70. However, my wife and I recently bought an RV, and we plan on doing some camping and hiking in our spare time. While I am not a landscape photographer, I would like to get some nice shots while we are hiking. Could I "get by" with my 24-70, or should I consider going a little (or a lot) wider? If I did get an UWA lens, I figure I could also get some specialty shots at weddings.

Thoughts?

Personally I love UWA - getting close to the foreground at 16-18mm. However, I shot film for years with nothing wider than 28mm, so sure, 24mm is 'wide'.

UWA shots take practice and IMO good ones are generally not easy. Any slight change in camera position gets magnified when you are so close to the foreground and I personally always try to use a tripod to set up the shot.

But if you don't particularly like that close-to-the-foreground style, I would not get an UWA just to 'fit it all in'. Better to concentrate on a specific aspect of the landscape with a longer lens - longer in this context being 24mm-ish and above.

In shooting weddings on multiple formats, I have found that unless one is careful in shooting with 84 degree angle of view (24mm on FF), it is too easy to introduced perspective exaggeration of body parts, making them loom larger in the photo relative to others in the shot...a not-flattering look when it is a full bodied woman standing closest to your lens a few feet away. It brings the story about Jack Sprat and his wife to life, when the ample bodied lady is close to the lens and the skinny guy is standing a few feet farther back!
I reserve 24mm on FF for the scene-establishing shots in which the people are not close by and merely lend scale and a few recognizable faces to the scene. For APS-C, I find that 17-55mm allows me to zoom to the wide end without worrying about induced perpective distortion

16mm is great for making a distant horizon detail SHRINK in size in the image relative to objects in the close foreground, so hopefully you have something of interest (a person) standing in the foreground, else you risk dull and boring shots that have none of the 'spectacular' background that your brain is obsessed with. There is a definite art to using a superwide lens WELL.

20mm is my widest FF lens FL, and I do not often use it.

I assume the wedding specialty shots with an UWA would not be with people in them. The ones I have seen are usually of the decorations, taken with a wide aperture and close in to the subject, but so you get a sense of place since the background is not completely blurred.

You didn't specify if you're shooting FF or crop, but I'll give my opinion anyways.

If you shoot an APS-C camera, then the answer is "yes" you probably could benefit from a wider lens than a 24-70. It depends on your shooting style of course, but for me 24mm on a crop is limiting in several circumstances, especially in the tight quarters of dressing rooms and such at weddings. I'm not a wide shooter in general, but sometimes it's just needed on a crop. If you shoot FF, then you could probably make it without an ultra wide lens, but they're still nice to have, like you said, for some interesting perspective shots.

Your two basketball wide-angle shots in your gallery suggest to me that you could handle an UWA nicely for landscapes - I definitely don't think it would be a waste for you.

I went to both limits... in past I was a telefreak and I had the Sigma 50-500!
Found it great to have to much tele, but sold it eventually as I didn't shoot any birds or other far objects.

Then I started abandoned locations/landscape and went from a 24-70 and tested a Sigma 14 2.8, Tokina 16-28, all Canon 16-35's, 17-40...
Eventually it's more than worth it to buy a wide lens, spectacular perspectives for architecture, church, landscapes,...

Recently I sold my 14 2.8 as I found it too wide.
So 16-17mm is more than wide enough, if you don't want to spend too much money and have AF, you can buy a Tokina 17 3.5 ATX-Pro for example.
I have this sharp prime also and it costs only €350 secondhand <> €600 or more for the 16-35, 17-40's... which are overpriced!
So if you doubt I recommend a not too expensive one.

QUOTE=ejenner;18310296​]Your two basketball wide-angle shots in your gallery suggest to me that you could handle an UWA nicely for landscapes - I definitely don't think it would be a waste for you.[/QUOTE]
Ejenner's comments above are a bit of encouragement for you. I'd take his recommendation with thanks.
The Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS is one of the best. The price is even nicer.

My 2 cents is that you should definitely have something wider than 24 in your inventory. Don't get me wrong -- I use my 24-70 quite a bit when I am doing landscape work but I also have a fisheye, 11-24, 14 and 16-35 to use if the need arises. And that need arises very often. Totally different perspective and allows a lot more creative interpretation. And if you are willing to crop then those landscapes can take on a pano type look without multiple shots.

Now my wife says that I do not really understand what the word "need" really means -- but I very much think you NEED something wider than 24.

Lyndön wrote in post #18310273
You didn't specify if you're shooting FF or crop, but I'll give my opinion anyways.

If you shoot an APS-C camera, then the answer is "yes" you probably could benefit from a wider lens than a 24-70. It depends on your shooting style of course, but for me 24mm on a crop is limiting in several circumstances, especially in the tight quarters of dressing rooms and such at weddings. I'm not a wide shooter in general, but sometimes it's just needed on a crop. If you shoot FF, then you could probably make it without an ultra wide lens, but they're still nice to have, like you said, for some interesting perspective shots.

^
yup...24mm is NOT 'wide angle' when it is on an APS-C camera, the label does not pertain in that setting it is a 'wide normal'; 24mm is 'very wide' in the context of FF, and it is 'short tele' on 4/3 format. Which context is your use, OP???

Do you need a fisheye? No but it can certainly be nice at times, same with ultra wides

My 11-16 is handy for landscapes and interior shots where I can't get back far enough from the subject. It's not so good for group shots - unless everyone is in a perfect line perpendicular to the camera, distortion ruins the shot.

If you stick with a 24mm, a person can alway flip to portrait orientation and stitch a panoramic together, but that isn't alway what a landscape needs.

Wilt wrote in post #18310445
^
yup...24mm is NOT 'wide angle' when it is on an APS-C camera, the label does not pertain in that setting it is a 'wide normal'; 24mm is 'very wide' in the context of FF, and it is 'short tele' on 4/3 format. Which context is your use, OP???

A simple click on the OPs gear list link shows a 1Dx2 and a 5D4. We can end the format wars at least in this thread.

FEChariot wrote in post #18310490
A simple click on the OPs gear list link shows a 1Dx2 and a 5D4. We can end the format wars at least in this thread.

Agreed...however, most responders (including me) don't want to turn a response into a research project, however minor the extra effort might be. Wilt offered advice that was useful to APS-C that might be following the thread as well.

I think the OP should consider adding the Canon 16-35 F/4 IS. It opened a whole new world for me but there is a bit of a learning curve and I think it would complement his existing equipment nicely.

Tim, as far as wedding shots are concerned, go back and figure out how many times you felt you needed to go wider than 24mm and were constrained by the fact that your wouldn't. I think you can figure out whether or not you need a UWA for weddings. I suspect the answer would be no.

As far as hikes and landscapes are concerned, absolutely you need something wider than 24mm. I recommend considering, in order of budget impact from highest to lowest.... a) Canon 16-35 F4, b) Canon 17-40 F4 and c) Rokinon 14/2.8. The first is a truly spectacular UWA. The second is an older model but one of the great bargains and can be found used all over the place. The third is a manual focus lens but cheap and very good .