Uwa 11-24

[Kayaker72]

But the giant bulbous lens is a big negative because it would be very difficult to use external filters.

True, but I like what Canon has done here. The 16-35 f/4 IS is "affordable" and great for most photographers. The 16-35 f/2.8 II is still in production for just a bit more, and now the 11-24 f/4 is available...or will be. The price, size/bulb, and extreme UWA is obviously aimed at a very dedicated niche. That group will likely not have an issue investing in the Wonderpana system.

While many do not use f/2.8 much for UWA, updating an f/2.8 UWA lens would complete the trifecta.

[conropl]

While many do not use f/2.8 much for UWA, updating an f/2.8 UWA lens would complete the trifecta.

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.

[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.

[HDNitehawk]

Like Brant said, it is ND filters, graduated as well. The rear filter is for the most part for me would be useless.

Looking at the MTF charts it looked like it would be a good 24mm choice, I could use it for much of my 24mm use because I usually go without a filter. But I would still need my 24mm L prime or 24-70 II for ND and Graduated filter use.

So it takes the 11-24 out of the equation for replacing that lens.

Maybe its just me, but I do not look at the 11-24mm and think should I get this or the 16-35mm.
To much separation between the two lenses to make them similar enough.
The comparison I would make is should I go with a 14mm F/2.8L, 15mm Zeiss or the 11-24.
Comparing 11mm to 16mm, the 11mm is 1.45 times as wide. It is like comparing a 24mm to a 35mm.

[Kayaker72]

This actually reminds me of the other reason why I would lean toward the EF 16-35 f/4 IS if I choose to add a UWA lens to supplement the Rokinon 14 f/2.8: it accepts 77 mm filters.

That is significant for me. Not necessarily for a polarizer, but I do not want to overlook the use of a polarizer for reducing glare/enhancing colors in waterfall shots (for example), but also I already have all the ND and grad ND filter set up for 77 mm threads.

[Sean Setters]

For the price, the Rokinon is an amazingly capable lens. Yes, it has terrible distortion. No, it doesn't accept filters. No, it doesn't have autofocus or electronic aperture.

But the distortion (and vignetting) is fixed fairly well PTLens and as long as you can deal with the other issues, this is a lens that you can really enjoy. I love mine and use it relatively often. And now that I think about it, that $400.00 lens has seen about as much use as my 85L II.

[shutterdown]

Sean, I finally came out of my trance, as I gazed at those images of yours. They are wonderful. Truly wonderful.

Was your camera mounted on a tripod?

Thanks for linking them. I think I'm ready to let them mesmerize me again!

[Sean Setters]

Was your camera mounted on a tripod?

I'm glad you liked them! To see exactly how I captured the 360-Degree panoramas, check out this info. :-)

Sean