Full Frame Ultrawide Angle Suggestions?

[NFLD Stephen]

It's that time again when I am anxious for a new lens. Normally this is an easy decision, but this time around I am looking at getting an ultrawide angle lens. Currently my widest lens is the 24-105L on my 5dIII. For reference I've never actually shot with anything wider (just the equivalent angle of view from a 7d and 15-85) so I'm looking to break new personal ground here! Part of the motivation and timing for this upgrade is that we are planning another vacation in January (San Francisco, Maui, Kauai, LA and Orlando) and I thought it would be nice to have something wider than 24mm for some different perspective and wide landscape shots (keep in mind that I've never shot with an UWA so I'm just going based on other's examples).

I've been leaning towards the canon 16-35L II, mostly because I thought this was the "best" option. I also thought the 2.8 appeture would be helpful and would also hopefully enable some "starscape" and night shots which I would like to try (tried a couple with the 24-105 and quickly realized that a wider angle of view and faster glass would definately help). I'm not sure how the 16-35 performs for star shots though and whether this would be a good use for this lens.

Thinking about night star shots led me to read some reviews on the samyang/rokinon/bower 14mm 2.8. I understand this is manual focus and appeture control so that would be quite different, but I understand the IQ is quite good (except some odd distortion) and it seems to be well used for starscapes. My hesitation here is the full manual controls (focus especially) and whether it would be truly useful for anything other than starscapes. Would I really use a lens this wide for landscapes (especially since composition seems to get more difficult with wider angles)? Would I miss the versatility of the zoom? Price is definately a nice thing about this lens though... Anyone use this lens and have any input here?

And then there is the canon 17-40 L. Seems like this would be great for landscapes (and cheaper than the 16-35), but I'm not sure f-4 would be fast enough to use for any starscapes. Otherwise I like the smaller size and cost and the IQ seems to be on-par with the 16-35 once you stop down a bit. But I'm not sure whether I would miss the faster 2.8 appeture of the other two lenses.

The canon 14mm prime seems overpriced to me for my anticipated usage, so I haven't really considered that.

A bit of rambling, but I'm really just trying to think-out-loud on what decision to make here. Cost is certainly a factor, but I can manage either of the lenses (or possibly the 17-40 and samyang 14). I guess it is mainly comes down to whether I need the 2.8 appeture, which I really don't know.... Maybe I'm basing this too much on the possibility of using this for starscapes (which I would like to try, but I'm not sure it is worth spending a considerable amount of money without even really trying it out first).

Any input or suggestions to sort out my rambling decision is welcome!

Stephen

[Sean Setters]

Actually, I really like the combination 17-40mm f/4 L and Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 14mm lens option. Here's why:

For starscapes, wider is better. And when the lens is pointed at the sky (with seemingly random dots filling the frame), the distortion will be much less noticeable (unless you're doing star trails).

For landscapes, the wide f/2.8 aperture becomes much less important. Therefore, the 17-40mm L makes a lot of sense. Plus, you can use standard 77mm filters on it. Unless you already have a boat-load of 82mm filters, the 77mm filter threads can make a big difference.

That's the way I look at it. However, I'd be interested to see what others have to say. :-)

[Joel Eade]

I have the Canon 17-40mm f/4L and it works very nicely for landscapes. I have not tried any star photography but I have read that wider apertures are better and of course a 2.8 or 1.4 lens will be easier to use in low light. With the 1DX, however, I can shoot with very high ISO and use the 17-40mm in many instances. I bought it for landscapes where it performs very well compared to the 16-35mm f/2.8L for a lot less money. Here is an example of a recent image with the 17-40mm f/4L:

[M_Six]

I've been back and forth between the 16-35 and the 17-40. IQ seems mostly a wash as they are both excellent. Thing that sticks in my mind about the 17-40 is I already have the excellent 24-105 f4, so I'd be gaining only 17-23mm and no speed. Sort of makes it not worth the investment. The 16-35 will at least give me added speed for low light shots, albeit at more of a cost by a good stretch.

I also have the Roki 14mm f2.8 and I don't use it nearly enough. It's a great lens and not all that hard to focus. For daytime shots I set the aperture to f8 and either use Live View to focus or just guesstimate the hyperfocal distance and set it manually. At f8 the DoF is pretty much a few meters to infinity.


^^^Nice shot above, Joel.

[Joel Eade]

I've been back and forth between the 16-35 and the 17-40. IQ seems mostly a wash as they are both excellent. Thing that sticks in my mind about the 17-40 is I already have the excellent 24-105 f4, so I'd be gaining only 17-23mm and no speed. Sort of makes it not worth the investment. The 16-35 will at least give me added speed for low light shots, albeit at more of a cost by a good stretch.

I also have the Roki 14mm f2.8 and I don't use it nearly enough. It's a great lens and not all that hard to focus. For daytime shots I set the aperture to f8 and either use Live View to focus or just guesstimate the hyperfocal distance and set it manually. At f8 the DoF is pretty much a few meters to infinity.


^^^Nice shot above, Joel.

Thanks and I agree....if I already had the 24-105mm f4L I would go for the 16-35mm f/2.8L too

That mid-range focal length is missing in my kit until I get the resources to pony up for the 24-70mm f/2.8L

[NFLD Stephen]

Thanks for the feedback.

Mark: that is basically my line of thinking where I already have the 24-105. If I was to get the 16-35 at least I would benefit from the faster glass right up to 35mm. Like you said with the 17-40 I'd only be gaining the 17-23mm range and no appeture advantage. At least with the 16-35 I get the faster appeture up to 35mm. The only other fast glass I have is the 50 1.4 and 100 2.8 macro, so another fast option would be nice.

I also like the idea of getting the 17-40 and the roki 14, but that is a two lens solution...meaning twice the number of lenses to take, twice the weight, etc. If I went this route I'm not sure I would bother taking the 14 on vacation as I don't know how much opportunity I would have for starscapes and I would obviously still have the 17-40 for landscapes. There is also the fact that with this plan I have to buy 2 lenses and I'm not sure what the wife would have to say about that!

Does anyone know whether the 16-35 is OK for starscapes? I understand the corner resolution is not the best wide open, but does it really show up in pictures of stars? Some wide angles also have coma at the edges, anyone know if the 16-35 is OK in this regard?

Decisions, decisions...

Stephen

[Joel Eade]

Maybe you could consider renting both the 17-40 and the 16-35 then do your own starscape lens shootout

[PhotobyMayo]

Have you looked at the Tokina 16-28? I have gotten wonderful results and it is less than $700.

[peety3]

The canon 14mm prime seems overpriced to me for my anticipated usage, so I haven't really considered that.

It's overpriced, but it's got some magic to it, and IMHO the 16-35 doesn't. The 16-35 isn't a bad lens by any stretch, but there's something to the 14 that makes me "borrow" my wife's 14 and leave behind my 16-35 whenever she isn't shooting.

That said, even more expensive is the Zeiss 15. That thing has some major mojo going on inside. It's very high on my wishlist because of that.