# Wide Angle Lens Recommendations



## cayenne (May 21, 2012)

Hello all!

Well, I've been shooting tons of stills, and a little video on my 5D mark III I got late last week.

What a blast.

I got the 24-105mm kit lens.
I also got the 85mm 1.8 prime.

For now, for what I want to do (and budget) I'm good for longer focal lengths.

I want to start researching now while saving...to get a nice UWA lens...for landscapes, maybe for some video too. 

I've been starting to look at the 24mm 1.4 prime...I'd like to have that for having a wider aperture lens than my kit lens, and I do like prime glass so far, the little I've worked with it.

But I was thinking...with my kit lens, I do have 24mm covered...

So, was looking at the 16-35mm 2.8 zoom. It wouldn't be quite as good at low light as the 24mm 1.4 prime...but it would get me to much wider angles, and I think I'd like that.

I don't know much yet about the fish eyed lenses...do those all shoot the round fish-eyed distorted pictures...and are all pretty much specialty lenses just for that type picture? I might like to get something like that down the road...but for now, I want something with a more realistic perspective.

I've read about tilt shift wide angle lenses..but I've not quite figured out what the tilt shift does...although I have seen the results of one shooting very tall buildings, but I'm not sure yet how to work one...etc. I might try renting one first to see what exactly it does.

So, at least for now...I think my choices for nice wide angle, with good low light capabilities...would either be the 16-35 2.8 or the 24 1.4 for stills and video.

Can anyone comment on which of these might be better? Strengths / weaknesses of either choice? Is there an option I've missed?

Thank you in advance,

cayenne


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 21, 2012)

I'm looking to get the 24L f/1.4 as my next lens, hopefully in 6-8 months. It's not really UWA though, for that you need the 14mm or 16-35mm. If you want landscapes or buildings especially, go for a Tilt-Shift, 17mm will get you UWA, or the 24mm for just wide.

I will say, the 135L f/2 is pretty great, even though you said you have the long end taken care of.


----------



## danski0224 (May 21, 2012)

cayenne said:


> So, at least for now...I think my choices for nice wide angle, with good low light capabilities...would either be the 16-35 2.8 or the 24 1.4 for stills and video.



As far as low light goes, f1.4 will be better than f2.8. The depth of field is also much shallower at f1.4- so you really need to pay attention to focus.

From what I have read in this forum, the 5DIII seems to have some pretty impressive low light capabilities. With that in mind, the 16-35 II may be a good versatile choice.

Probably the best way to find out is to rent one of each for a few days.


----------



## cayenne (May 22, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > So, at least for now...I think my choices for nice wide angle, with good low light capabilities...would either be the 16-35 2.8 or the 24 1.4 for stills and video.
> ...



Thank you....yeah, the more I study them and think them over, the more I'm leaning towards the 16-35mm....

I've got a few months here first, to fiscally recover from the initial camera investment.....but when time gets closer, I'll try maybe a weekend to rent both lenses and give them a trial.

I've never rented a lens before (actually didn't even know that existed till on this forum), so, that will make for an interesting experiment in itself!!

C


----------



## msdarkroom (May 22, 2012)

I love this 16-35: http://amzn.to/K2VcP2


----------



## Random Orbits (May 22, 2012)

Looks like the 16-35 would suit you best. The 16-35 gives you a nice focal length range and can be used wide open. It's not as sharp as the 14, 24 or 35L nor the tilt-shift lenses (17 and 24). Unless you know that you need a specific capability, then the 16-35 should be fine.

The tilt-shift lenses are manual focus only and are larger/heavier and more expensive than the 16-35. The tilt-shifts are better (better sharpness throughout the frame) for landscapes but will usually be used with tripods or on static subjects, where AF is not as critical.


----------



## pwp (May 22, 2012)

16-35 f/2.8II is a _very _handy piece of class glass. To my way of thinking, and also trying to understand your immediate needs, you'd get a lot more relevant day to day use from the 16-35 f/2.8II than a 24 f/1.4. 

No sane person would doubt the sheer quality of the files the 24 f/1.4 is capable of delivering at just about any aperture, but flexibility is the name of the game. Carefully shot and exposed 16-35 f/2.8II files will generally cut it for most demanding client needs.

Paul Wright


----------



## Dylan777 (May 22, 2012)

You almost can't go wrong with prime, especially under low light. I don't do much landscape shooting at all, but when I do, the 16-35 II seems to be the lens I used most.

Here are some pics I took with 5D III + 16-35 II - Quail Hill, Irvine CA. 

http://s1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa384/fifo_warehouse/Quail%20Hill%20in%20Irivine%20CA/?albumview=slideshow


----------



## Axilrod (May 22, 2012)

The 16-35mm is a great lens, it's not as sharp as my 14mm but it's much more versatile. Wide open it could be better but stopped down even just a little bit makes a huge difference in sharpness. The 24mm is an awesome lens but not really ultra wide, it's kind of an awkward focal length. I'd say go for the 16-35mm, I don't know anyone that isn't happy with that lens.


----------



## kidnaper (May 22, 2012)

I love my 16-35II. I'd say it's on my 5DIII about 75% of the time. In theory I'd rather have the 14 and 35 primes, but in practice that could make travel a bit more difficult as I already have trouble picking 2 lenses to bring when I head out for a few days. The low-light of the primes obviously wins out, but I just used the zoom over the weekend a bit after dusk and the results were just fine by me.


----------



## cayenne (May 22, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> The 16-35mm is a great lens, it's not as sharp as my 14mm but it's much more versatile. Wide open it could be better but stopped down even just a little bit makes a huge difference in sharpness. The 24mm is an awesome lens but not really ultra wide, it's kind of an awkward focal length. I'd say go for the 16-35mm, I don't know anyone that isn't happy with that lens.



Thank you all for the great information and suggestions.

I think I'll likely set my sights on the 16-35mm....and later on, I'll start adding in the primes as I get more experience and shoot more....and let's face it...save up more money.

A fun hobby, but the price of admission is pretty steep...so, a piece at a time.

I bought my camera at Crutchfield...and used their rewards points program, and found for the moth of April a code you could use to double the points.

So, I basically have about $460+ worth of credit there...and can use that towards the new lens when I get saved up to pull the trigger on it.

Again, thank you everyone!

c


----------



## robbymack (May 22, 2012)

since you say your primary interest in a wide angle is landscape, why not consider the 17-40 f4. You probably won't be using f2.8 for many, if any, landscape work and the little video you may shoot may not be worth the price difference for 1MM on the wide end and f2.8. You could then have a head start saving some dough for a fish eye, or the 17mm tilt, or the 24 1.4, or the...well I am getting carried away now...


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 22, 2012)

robbymack said:


> since you say your primary interest in a wide angle is landscape, why not consider the 17-40 f4. You probably won't be using f2.8 for many, if any, landscape work and the little video you may shoot may not be worth the price difference for 1MM on the wide end and f2.8. You could then have a head start saving some dough for a fish eye, or the 17mm tilt, or the 24 1.4, or the...well I am getting carried away now...



My pro friend did exactly that. He wanted the 24L anyways, regardless of zoom lens he was purchasing at the time. So instead of 16-35L II and 24L, he went 17-40 f/4L and 24L, for $800 cheaper. That $800 can go towards saving up for another prime lens if you want to, and the 17-40 does everything, at least in his case, that the 16-35 would have done. Besides, the 17-40 lens is an L lens too. I wasn't buying a 24 prime, so I bought the 16-35L because that suited my needs. You could have a killer zoom lens range if you had the 17-40, 24-70, and 70-200, OR the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200. When purchasing future lenses, that $800 will be come in handly.  The above is just my opinion of course, you need to determine what you NEED vs. what you WANT. I'm addicted too, don't worry! When I see a new piece of L glass come out I gotta have it, whether I NEED it or not!


----------



## robbymack (May 22, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > since you say your primary interest in a wide angle is landscape, why not consider the 17-40 f4. You probably won't be using f2.8 for many, if any, landscape work and the little video you may shoot may not be worth the price difference for 1MM on the wide end and f2.8. You could then have a head start saving some dough for a fish eye, or the 17mm tilt, or the 24 1.4, or the...well I am getting carried away now...
> ...



not to get gear envy but your sig lines does it for me!


----------



## Arkarch (May 31, 2012)

On getting a FF (5D Mark III) and looking for a replacement to my EF-S 10-22, I have become a Zeiss convert with the Zeiss 21mm. 

The 16-35 just disappointed on the edge. The TS-E 17 is likely a good Canon choice and may be on my shopping list. 14 not so much for that price. So while the Zeiss 21mm is MF, turning for focus-assist is quite fast and the shots - amazing. And I dont really miss the zoom. When I need something wider, I'll look at the Zeiss 15mm.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 1, 2012)

Arkarch said:


> On getting a FF (5D Mark III) and looking for a replacement to my EF-S 10-22, I have become a Zeiss convert with the Zeiss 21mm.
> 
> The 16-35 just disappointed on the edge. The TS-E 17 is likely a good Canon choice and may be on my shopping list. 14 not so much for that price. So while the Zeiss 21mm is MF, turning for focus-assist is quite fast and the shots - amazing. And I dont really miss the zoom. When I need something wider, I'll look at the Zeiss 15mm.



i've been looking at this lens for a while now, i really like the 21mm focal length MF was the biggest deterent
got some sample pics? is it really corner to corner sharp on FF?


----------



## DaveQ (Jun 7, 2012)

For best IQ, 24mm Prime, otherwise the 16-35, which is really an excellent lens. I use both, and love them!


----------



## cayenne (Jun 7, 2012)

DaveQ said:


> For best IQ, 24mm Prime, otherwise the 16-35, which is really an excellent lens. I use both, and love them!



Thanks for all the feedback!!

I think for my immediate needs, will start with the 16-35mm.....after that, likely going mostly all primes...like the 24mm or maybe save and get the 14mm, or one of the tilt wide angle primes.

cayenne


----------

