Wide Angle Travel Lens Question...

Hi All,

I'm heading off to Europe this summer. I'm excited because I'll be seeing some old friends, visiting my old stomping ground, and also because I'll get a chance to really play with my new 5D and 24-105L!

I would imagine that I'll be quite happy with the 24-105L as a general walk around, but I know that I will also be taking pictures of interiors of buildings, cathedrals, etc, for which I think I may need something wider and faster. These are what I think may be my options:

• Canon EF 16 - 35mm f/2.8L II. Very nice lens, but I really cannot afford one right now.
  
  
• Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. Good reviews, somewhat heavy, only f/4.0. Range overlaps too much with my 24-105L
  
• Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye. Slighly more expensive than 17-40L, but lighter and has larger max aperture.

Obtong wrote in post #7648745
Hi All,

I'm heading off to Europe this summer. I'm excited because I'll be seeing some old friends, visiting my old stomping ground, and also because I'll get a chance to really play with my new 5D and 24-105L!

I would imagine that I'll be quite happy with the 24-105L as a general walk around, but I know that I will also be taking pictures of interiors of buildings, cathedrals, etc, for which I think I may need something wider and faster. These are what I think may be my options:

• Canon EF 16 - 35mm f/2.8L II. Very nice lens, but I really cannot afford one right now.
  
  
• Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. Good reviews, somewhat heavy, only f/4.0. Range overlaps too much with my 24-105L
  
• Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye. Slighly more expensive than 17-40L, but lighter and has larger max aperture.

By re reading my list, I think I may have talked myself into the Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye. Would this be a good choice for my shooting needs, or would I be severely limiting myself in the future by not going for the one of the other lenses? Another option would be the much cheaper ($170-$230) Zenitar Fisheye Lens.

I'm interested in hearing what your thoughts are on this.

Thanks,
~Dom

Given you've asked for advice....not to be overly blunt, but NO....do not just bring a fisheye. You will get SOOOO tired of that look after a bit. I own both the fisheye and the 16-35, and my 16-35 probably gets about 99% of the usage between the two. Fisheye is such a distinctive look that it's wonderful when called for, but when over done it'll drive you bonkers.

Plus, you'll be seeing a lot of beautiful landscapes and buildings. You won't want to have your horizon dead center everytime in order to prevent the horizon from being distorted.


I think it all comes down to finances. If you can....get the 16-35. If you have to, get the mk I version (I have a very sharp copy that I've never felt the need to replace with the newer version). If you can't get together the cash for that lens...then get the 17-40.

If your cash is extra tight, you could even look for the older 17-35 2.8 used.

You could also look at the sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6. It's not any faster....but it's a heck of a lot wider, and you wouldn't have any overlap in focal lengths. I believe it's the widest zoom you can attach to a full frame camera. That said, I've never used one outside of a camera store.


I spent a year travelling through S/SE Asia (see websitefor my work) and have done some pretty extensive travel photgraphy aside from that....so I've certainly had experience in what I'm advising.

Either way...best of luck and have a blast!

I'd opt for either the Sigma 12-24, as mentioned above, or try and pick up one of the older 17-35mm L f2.8. The reason I say the 17-35 is due to the fact you said you can't really afford the 16-35mm right now and it would probably be more enjoyable for yourself than the 17-40mm L f4.0.

I agree with above. The 16-35 mk1 is a good lens, I also have not replaced it and use it often.

Agree with Cathpah about the fisheye.
I upgraded from a 17-40 to a 16-35 because of low-light limitations, and colour and contrast of my copy of the lens. My newer 16-35 II is just fantastic as a landscape/indoor/walka​round lens for travel on a 5D. However, you can bump up your 5D II ISO to get much better low-light images with an f/4 lens than I could on my old 400D (ISO 400 was my max useable), whereas you can use ISO 1600. This might make f/4 be quite useable (2nd opinion??) for indoors and low-light.

So perhaps think about getting the 17-40 for this trip, and if you want to upgrade to the 16-35 later, there's a very good second hand market for your 17-40. I've seen some fantastic pics taken with 17-40 lenses.

Did a trip with a fisheye only, I don't recommend it after doing it. But I did get some cool shots. I'd go with the 16-35 if you have the cash. If you don't want to part with that much cash yet, there is a 20-35 for sale in the forums

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=668584

Cathpah wrote in post #7649044
Given you've asked for advice....not to be overly blunt, but NO....do not just bring a fisheye. You will get SOOOO tired of that look after a bit. I own both the fisheye and the 16-35, and my 16-35 probably gets about 99% of the usage between the two. Fisheye is such a distinctive look that it's wonderful when called for, but when over done it'll drive you bonkers.

Plus, you'll be seeing a lot of beautiful landscapes and buildings. You won't want to have your horizon dead center everytime in order to prevent the horizon from being distorted.

I too have the 16-35 II and a 15mm Fisheye (although sigma) and I totally agree.

I acquired those upgrading to full frame just over a month ago. In fact I just went on a little road trip to Bath with those two lenses along with the 85 1.8:

http://www.thewrongun.​com/090326/

I am by no means professional but those photos give you some ideas of what you can do with those lenses.

One thing to note: The 17-40L is NOT heavy...at all. It is an amazingly light lens, and it's the lightest L lens Canon has ever made. I love mine on my 1Ds II, and I feel no need to upgrade to the 16-35. The 17-40 is very sharp, with great color and contrast, and, as I mentioned, it's lightweight! Don't worry about range overlap...it's a good thing! It means you won't be changing lenses as often, as that overlap area will allow you to keep the lens you have on in use, rather than switching every time you want to shoot something at 20 or 30mm, for example.

I have definitely been steered away from the 15mm Fish Eye (thank you!), so it looks as if the 16-35L or 17-40L are the way to go. The 16-35L, even used is too much of a monetary stretch for me at this time. I'm going to price some used 17-40L lenses, knowing that I may have to push the ISO a bit, but I'm using a 5D classic and am very impressed with the low light shots I have taken at high ISO settings. Jman13 makes a good point about the 17-40L's overlap and weight, which has helped me feel more comfortable about the 17-40L.

~Dom

I would refrain from using a "fish-eye" lens. Either of the ultra wide-angle lenses, (Canon 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8) would be ideal.

I have travelled extensively with 135 format camera, and it is only on rather rare occasion that I found 24mm was simply too tight of a frame, and 20mm would suffice on those occasions. I have travelled to Europe with NOTHING but a 24mm f/3.5 lens (a perspective control optic) and was very happy with that alone! If you have an 'artsy' bent, the UWA 16-20 range helps, but not for a more conventional 'documentary' photo. The 24-105mm will be on the slow side, but modern dSLR does so well at ISO 1600 (compared to ISO 400 film) that I think you could get away with it, choosing f/2.8 only if you felt like making the purchase.

No fisheye!!!

Consider the 16 - 35mm f/2.8L II as part of the trip expense. I would want that f2.8. You don't do this everyday - reach for the ring!