UWA (again)

I need a wide angle, or ultra wide angle lens for FF. Prime preferred, not zoom. The faster the better but cost does of course come into it. I'm currently in the process of selling all the lenses I have and thought I couldn't do without but don't use yet carry around, and I suspect I'm not alone in this, whilst keeping the absolutely necessary ones like the 100-400 and the 24-105 (v1) yet would like to have a UWA prime somewhere between 12 and 16mm for probably mostly landscape as well as the occasional group photo and night shot when the atmospheric conditions are right. Doesn't necessarily have to be Canon - but I suspect I would lean toward it.
I might just possibly be persuaded to go for a zoom but it would have to be a really good one.
IS/OS/VC not a necessity but AF is.
Suggestions please.

sigma 14mm 1.8?
https://www.sigmaphoto​.com/14mm-f18-dg-hsm-a

05Xrunner wrote in post #18350108
sigma 14mm 1.8?
https://www.sigmaphoto​.com/14mm-f18-dg-hsm-a

Thanks 05Xrunner. Yep...this one's definitely a serious contender but it's so new I can't find a price or a decent in-depth review as yet. I will be watching.

Is the EF 14 2.8 II out of your budget?

3Rotor wrote in post #18350171
Is the EF 14 2.8 II out of your budget?

No it's not, but is it worth the current high asking price? How good is it, particularly compared to the new Sigma 14mm f 1.8?

unfortunately its not released yet. I would guess it should be soon since its on BH website to notify when available. Maybe by the end of may it will be released?

I have a sigma 14m f/2.8 that I like a lot and it wasn't expensive at all. I also like the Sigma 12-24m but it's slow in comparison.

i'd consider the 16-35L III. it's a very useful range plus great for astro work. I have the 16-35L f4 + 14L II which is a pricey combo but great for what I do. I also use the wide end of my 24-70L II for astro.

oingyboingybob wrote in post #18350105
I need a wide angle, or ultra wide angle lens for FF....would like to have a UWA prime somewhere between 12 and 16mm for probably mostly landscape as well as the occasional group photo and night shot when the atmospheric conditions are right.

Beware of shooting people with any FL lens which is wider than 24mm on FF camera...inducing perspective distortion by shooting with too close of a subject distance!

'back in the day', 24mm FL was considered to be 'very wide angle'

I really like the 16-35 f/2.8 III, found it a significant step up from the f/4 IS Canon in sharpness, plus it is good for night work, which I like to have a go at when I get time and good weather - I used it for aurorae and non-tracking astro where it is particularly good at 16mm.

Another lens I like for low light is the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 - extremely sharp in the middle regions and good for non-tracking astro at f/2, although if you agonise about edge astigmatism of stars it probably needs to be f/2.8 or cropped a bit to a more 24mm scale; for freezing aurorae though there's nothing to beat f/1.4 ; f/2.8 is just about ok if they are not fast moving, f/4 is hopeless at sensible ISO. I thought the sigma 20mm was a lot better than the Sigma 24mm or Canon 24mm f/1.4 and both that and the 16-35 III lenses worked better for me on night skies than the Samyang 14mm, which I owned for long enough to compare: like them it had no coma but had more oblique sagittal astigmatism than the Canon zoom did at 16mm and was not much better for astigmatism than the Sigma was at equivalent f/2.8 (plus manual focus, woeful distortion, but definitely a great price and good value, albeit a bit of a 1 trick pony). I prefer milky way at 20mm f/2 to 14mm f/2.8 - less scale but many more stars in what you do capture if not tracking. Unsurprisingly given past experience, the autofocus on the Sigma 24mm didn't work at all well on my briefly owned copy (including the dock), but works fine on the 20mm after a bit of dialling in.

I'd love to know how the 16-35 f/2.8 III compares with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II over the same focal lengths.
chris

Wilt wrote in post #18364233
Beware of shooting people with any FL lens which is wider than 24mm on FF camera...inducing perspective distortion by shooting with too close of a subject distance!

'back in the day', 24mm FL was considered to be 'very wide angle'

Ragged Ann and Andy are identically sized. Ann's head photographs twice as large as Andy's head, although he is a mere 24" behind Ann. Imagine that Andy is like the legendary skinny Jack Sprat, and Ann was his very ample wife...HER girth would be exaggerated even more, when compared to her skinny husband. Ann would take up 4X the area of Andy!

Ann''s right hand is significantly larger than her left hand...body parts closer to lens are exaggerated more than parts farther away. Imagine Jack Sprat's wife's ample bosom exaggerated in size even more by its proximity to your UWA lens, much to her dismay. Yet only about 15" separates her two hands.

This is why UWA is a dangerous FL category to shoot any people unless you are very careful about induced perspective distortion, such as what is exhibited.

I concur with your warning, Wilt. I also encourage anyone who has an UWA to use it for portraits. It is not easy at first, but it is not only doable, in many instances I prefer it.

when we first get into photography we want more reach. after awhile we want more width. outsmarting the lens is the photographer's job. distortion can be used creatively and I encourage it. look at what jimi Hendrix did with feedback!