Your favorite wide angle lens?

That about sums it up. LOL

I'd add that the needing f/2.8 in an ultra wide is a bit of a niche demand.

Most ultra wide applications will be stopped down from f/4, let alone f/2.8.

Yes of course there are times/people that require or desire a fast aperture @ 16mm, but I would estimate that at a very small fraction of the times 16mm is being used to take a photo.

My wide FL is 21mm.
For Canon, it is the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8. Though I may change idea when I'll try the 16-35/2.8 III.

However, I mostly shoot Loxia 21/2.8 on A7R2, as it is at least as good and an amazingly more compact and light combo.

Rookie question..don't laugh. The widest lens I own is the Sigma 35mm 1.4 art. I believe that's for room shots etc. The 16-35mm can you use that for family/group photos or is it strictly for big open fields etc? Thanks.

James Crockett wrote in post #18433227
Rookie question..don't laugh. The widest lens I own is the Sigma 35mm 1.4 art. I believe that's for room shots etc. The 16-35mm can you use that for family/group photos or is it strictly for big open fields etc? Thanks.

You can use whatever lens you feel is needed for the shot! Doesn't have to be relegated for only landscape shooting

Just watch out for people near the edge of the frame as they may get a bit distorted haha.

I don't have an ultra wide any longer for my 5D4. Used to have the 17-40L but was never impressed by it.

The 16-35 F4 IS reviews very highly as does the 16-35 F2.8 III. My widest lens for my 5D4 is the 24-70 F2.8 II and it does the job for me. Otherwise I do have the Sony FE 16-35 F4 for my Sony system which is another amazing lens.

Thanks!

Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8.

This thing is photon scalpel.

And, yes, that "Zeiss effect" microcontrast rich texture is real

James how do you like the sigma 35mm 1.4 do you use it often at under f2? I was debating on getting the 35mm or the 24-35 f2. I will be using it on a full frame.

Hait0622, it's my first sigma I've bought I really like mine. No way I was going to pay 16 1800+ for the canon 35L ii so I went with sigma because I see alot of people use them. I'm impressed with it. I haven't shot with mine a whole lot but image quality is really good. Hope all is well.

James Crockett wrote in post #18433052
I see alot of posts on the 16-35 f4.. and not the 16-35mm 2.8 any particular reason? Thanks! Take care.

if your subject seldom move (nature, landscapes, architecture, etc), then the f/4 is better. The IS may help if tripod is not with you.

if your subject is on the move (action, sports, street, astronomy) then the f/2,8 would be good to freeze movement via lower ISO or faster shutter speed with 1 stop of light more at f/2,8.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18433152
I'd add that the needing f/2.8 in an ultra wide is a bit of a niche demand.
Most ultra wide applications will be stopped down from f/4, let alone f/2.8.

Yes, but people seem to ignore that a f/2.8 lens focuses much better than a f/4 lens, regardless of the actual aperture used for the shot.

This is the one lens that I've been wanting to try for years now, but I don't shoot wide angle enough to warrant owning it.

I've been using the 17-40L both on FF and crop - will probably upgrade to the 16-35 F4 at some point - a great focal length for both formats.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18433823
Yes, but people seem to ignore that a f/2.8 lens focuses much better than a f/4 lens, regardless of the actual aperture used for the shot.

Which would bring us to another niche market for an ultra wide, the need for ultra fast AF.

And I'd add, I cant recall the last time I had an f/4 lens that appeared to AF slower as compared to an f/2.8. The 100-400mm MkII for example (f/5.6) has faster AF than almost any lens I own, including those that go down to f/1.4

On a Full Frame Canon camera I feel that the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS is VERY hard to beat! Yes there are better lenses within it's focal range but they are either very much more expensive or you will have to buy several primes to equal/exceed it's performance (even more expensive).

Suffice to say I am delighted with mine!