Your favorite wide angle lens?

shocolite wrote in post #18433884
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.

I had the 17-40 F4 L for over 8 years and loved it despite it's quirks. The Canon 16-35 F4 L IS keeps the wonderful colour rendition of the 17-40 but adds sharpness and loses distortion - it is just so much better in all respects, except the damage to your wallet!
Just buy one - you will love it!

I use my 16-35 f/4 IS On a 1D IV... that gets me a field of view of 21mm give or take. I don't use mine a lot but I've never been disappointed when I do.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18434095
Which would bring us to another niche market for an ultra wide, the need for ultra fast AF.

16-35 is not only an ultra wide. It is [Ultra]-widely used in weddings.

Really depends on which focus points you need, and how reliable you want the AF to be. Especially in low light, f/4 lenses are not as fast/reliable as f/2.8.

As an extreme example, take the 400/5.6 vs the 400/2.8

One thing I like about the 16-35mm f/4 is internal zoom.
But the f/2,8 mark iii moves within the barrel so its cool!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18434095
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

Agreed. I'd be perfectly happy with my 12mm Rok, Σ15, and Σ12-24 II if they were f/8 manual focus lenses. Well, almost. F/5.6 for sure. UWA is different animal. You need quick, accurate AF on a 70-200. You don't need AF at all at 12mm.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18434095
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

Another niche market for an ultra wide:

1920 x 1080

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: https://i.ytimg.com …6yD3XHE/maxresd​efault.jpg Click here to see our image rules.

16-35 f/4 IS

About me then i can say my TS-E 17mm, i used to own 16-35 2.8mk1 but sold it, it was nice lens, and i bought Tamron 15-30 that i never use it yet [got busy bad in life since 2015] so i can't judge it, but sounds from review that it is on par with Canon 16-35 f4IS so i should be happy, at least it is better than 16-35 2.8 both mk1 and mk2, and now there is mk3 but that is so overpriced and i am not into photography much to think about it.

Wish to get Canon 11-24 then i my talk about this as my favorite, but as usual, Canon just keep prices high for years, i have no interest much in many Canon gear since a while, will see which alternative lens to this Canon 11-24.

Tareq wrote in post #18434763
About me then i can say my TS-E 17mm, i used to own 16-35 2.8mk1 but sold it, it was nice lens, and i bought Tamron 15-30 that i never use it yet [got busy bad in life since 2015] so i can't judge it, but sounds from review that it is on par with Canon 16-35 f4IS so i should be happy, at least it is better than 16-35 2.8 both mk1 and mk2, and now there is mk3 but that is so overpriced and i am not into photography much to think about it.

Wish to get Canon 11-24 then i my talk about this as my favorite, but as usual, Canon just keep prices high for years, i have no interest much in many Canon gear since a while, will see which alternative lens to this Canon 11-24.

Have you considered this?

CheshireCat wrote in post #18434507
16-35 is not only an ultra wide. It is [Ultra]-widely used in weddings.

Really depends on which focus points you need, and how reliable you want the AF to be. Especially in low light, f/4 lenses are not as fast/reliable as f/2.8.

As an extreme example, take the 400/5.6 vs the 400/2.8

at 400mm if you miss focus, you know it...at 16mm if you miss focus, it probably doesn't really matter as much...i've never seen anyone complain about the AF of the 16-35f4IS...i think you're making a big deal over nothing really...but if having the f2.8 for the faster AF makes you happy, than that's all that matters...

Ah-keong wrote in post #18435537
Have you considered this?

I did, but I wasn't sure about Sigma overall, some lenses over the top and another lenses not even to look at, so i am not sure i have to trust many Sigma lenses regardless i do have lenses from them at beginning of my photography, i do have Sigma 12-24 first version too but it didn't become a great choice for me through years, maybe i should give this new one a chance one day.

I've considered this one and the 16-35 f4l.

Ah-keong wrote in post #18435537
Have you considered this?

Tareq wrote in post #18435637
I did, but I wasn't sure about Sigma overall, some lenses over the top and another lenses not even to look at, so i am not sure i have to trust many Sigma lenses regardless i do have lenses from them at beginning of my photography, i do have Sigma 12-24 first version too but it didn't become a great choice for me through years, maybe i should give this new one a chance one day.

I read a review of the Σ12-24A (TDP?). IIRC, the basic gist of the review was the new lens is a bit better in the corners/edges than version II. At 24mm the Art needs to be stopped down for best performance. If you are stopping down a $1500 f/4 lens to f/5.6-11 anyway, why not buy the $400 f/4-f/5.6 lens. I got the Sigma 12-24 II on E-Bay for about $425. I mostly shoot my UWA at f/8-f/11. No sense paying for the Art.

EDIT:
TDP's review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-f-4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

Bryan makes a case for RSA in the 12-24 Art lens. I can't imagine that matters in a lens of this focal length. I shoot my UWAs at f/8-f/11, and use HFD for max DOF. RSA, Schmar-SA. Who cares?

DreDaze wrote in post #18435565
at 400mm if you miss focus, you know it...at 16mm if you miss focus, it probably doesn't really matter as much...i've never seen anyone complain about the AF of the 16-35f4IS...i think you're making a big deal over nothing really...but if having the f2.8 for the faster AF makes you happy, than that's all that matters...

I honestly think that the assumption of better overall AF in the f/2.8 is also flawed.
The new 100-400mm has better AF than any of my 70-200mm f/2.8s had (mind you I don't have the latest)

If all else is equal yes, f/2.8 will help in low light,. but looking at modern Canon AF systems the need for f/2.8 precision is becoming more and more marginalized.

Lastly, the chosen example was a poor example IMHO for number of reasons, not the least of which the aging 1990s design 400mm f/5.6L which costs 1/12th what a modern f/2.8 costs has lightning fast Af that comes very close to being as good as the nearly 20 years newer model. That f/5.6 absolutely can track a BIF BETTER than it's contemporary f/2.8 counterpart (the pre-IS version)

Also, we were discussing f/4, not f/5.6 lenses, but that's OK it makes my point even better.

RSA?