Uwa 11-24

[DavidEccleston]

Do people hate the rear-drop in filters? They could go that route. It's not a good match for a polarizer, but neither is 11mm on a full frame.

Kayaker, don't forget the EF-S 10-18 for the ultra-affordable/crop sensor end too. Canon has ultra-wide pretty well covered, I'd say.

[Kayaker72]

If it was f/2.8 I would be more likely to buy it. At that aperture it would be a real nice starscape lens. As it is, it would just be a wide angle. For me the 16-35 f/4 fits my wide agle needs better.

If Canon introduced a sharp f/2.8 UWA lens (16-35 III or 14-24, etc), I would be torn. As you say, it would be a real nice starscape lens. But the IS on the 16-35 f/4 is a great selling point and perfect for certain situations such as walking tours of slot canyons or light travel/hiking. I would probably still lean toward the 16-35 f/4.

Do people hate the rear-drop in filters? They could go that route. It's not a good match for a polarizer, but neither is 11mm on a full frame.

Kayaker, don't forget the EF-S 10-18 for the ultra-affordable/crop sensor end too. Canon has ultra-wide pretty well covered, I'd say.

I have no experience with rear-drop in filters. And they could go that route for solid-ND filters. As you mention, not a good match for a polarizer, but I was more thinking graduated ND filters, which is wouldn't work for either.

And EF-S opens up another door, including the 10-18 (never owned it myself, but I've seen good shots) and 10-22.