# Choose your Weapon: Ultra Wide Zooms for Canon



## andrewflo (Sep 16, 2014)

With all the recent announcements and rumors for ultra wide zoom options for Canon, which lens are your grabbing for from your real or imaginary gear bag?


----------



## lintoni (Sep 16, 2014)

Well, for zoom I use the 17-40, supplemented by a Samyang 14mm prime...


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 16, 2014)

lintoni said:


> Well, for zoom I use the 17-40, supplemented by a Samyang 14mm prime...



Whoops forgot to add the 17-40


----------



## abcde12345 (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm definitely going to look out for Tamron's 15-30mm and the "rumoured" Canon's 11-24mm.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 17, 2014)

If Canon 11-24mm is true, it should be the best choice for me. Now I am happy with Samyang 14mm.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 17, 2014)

If I have a need for an UWA tomorrow, I would go for 16-35 f4 IS.


----------



## Click (Sep 17, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> If I have a need for an UWA tomorrow, I would go for 16-35 f4 IS.



Same here.


----------



## Baltac (Sep 17, 2014)

I like the Canon EF-S 10-22 and the Tokina 10-17 fish eye


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 17, 2014)

Can't really vote on this one. The one I have and use a lot is my only EF-S, the 10-22. I only regret that it's one lens I never will be able to carry over to a - imagined, and longed for - FF camera. If they release it with EF mount and make it slightly faster, I will be all over it like flies on a turd.


----------



## phoenix7 (Sep 17, 2014)

I was going to go get a Canon 10-18mm next week but now I'm waiting. I had talked myself
into making do with the horrid aperture range for 300bucks, especially when I'd mostly be
using it for landscapes. But when I saw the rumor for the 15-30mm from Tamron I decided
to wait. If it's under a grand and as good optically as their new 24-70mm I'll grab one and
that will give me more versitility with the faster aperture and image stabilitzation. I've found
that 20-24mm (FF equivalent) is about the focal length I like the most for wide angle and so
the 15mm for aps-c would be right on the money.

What are people's speculations for price? Will it be more or less than Tamrons 24-70mm f/2.8 VC?


----------



## candc (Sep 17, 2014)

I like the range 16-35 f/4 on ff. it's plenty sharp, has good color and contrast, "is" and it takes normal filters. You can even use 2 filters like a nd2 and a polarizer without vignetting. Its weather sealed, not too heavy and a reasonable price. For aps-c I really like the sigma 8-16, its super wide and just about as good as the 16-35 on ff but it doesn't have is, or take filters.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 17, 2014)

I use the Nikon 14-24f/2.8 on the 5DMK III with a Novoflex adaptor, requires Manual Focus, but it's Landscape so works fine.

Works better on the D3x.

I also use the Canon 8-15f/4, mostly @ 15, find it's a pretty good Lens at 15, certainly better than the older 15f/2.8 Prime.

The Canon 16-35f/2.8 I've almost given up on, all the Canon Primes in this Range work much better, 14f/2.8, 24f/1.4, 35f/1.4, and the Zeiss primes in this range work better than the Canon primes, as long as your Ok with Manual Focus.


----------



## candc (Sep 17, 2014)

phoenix7 said:


> I was going to go get a Canon 10-18mm next week but now I'm waiting. I had talked myself
> into making do with the horrid aperture range for 300bucks, especially when I'd mostly be
> using it for landscapes. But when I saw the rumor for the 15-30mm from Tamron I decided
> to wait. If it's under a grand and as good optically as their new 24-70mm I'll grab one and
> ...



The new 10-18 looks really good. Wide aperture isn't important to me for a landscape lens because you want to shoot it around f/8 or f/11 on aps-c so that's where the is comes in handy so you can shoot handheld and keep your iso down to earth. It takes filters too!


----------



## candc (Sep 17, 2014)

eml58 said:


> I use the Nikon 14-24f/2.8 on the 5DMK III with a Novoflex adaptor, requires Manual Focus, but it's Landscape so works fine.
> 
> Works better on the D3x.
> 
> ...



I have the 15mm and like it a lot especially with the software we have nowadays like dxo that corrects the aberrations and let's you de-fish it all or partially. I was interested in getting the 8-15 but I am not really into circular shots and I didn't think it was supposed to be any better at 15 than the prime? Is it?


----------



## eml58 (Sep 17, 2014)

candc said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > I use the Nikon 14-24f/2.8 on the 5DMK III with a Novoflex adaptor, requires Manual Focus, but it's Landscape so works fine.
> ...



I use both primarily for Underwater Imaging, the newer 8-15f/4 is a much better Lens @ 15 than the older 15f/2.8 @ f/4. The usability of the 8-15 is more restricted as you get lower than say 12mm, at this point it's more about Fun than good Images, still , fun is what Photography is supposed to be about.

For Lanscape work I lean towards the Zeiss 15f/2.8 & Zeiss 21 f/2.8 where the Manual Focus isn't an issue.

The Nikon 14-24f/2.8 is better than anything that Canon currently makes in the Range, but this is a subjective viewpoint, although based on My owning both the Canon 16-35f/2.8 & the Nikon 14-24f/2.8, I've used both these lenses extensively in Underwater Imaging and Landscape, the Nikon beats the Canon in every way, unfortunately. I'de love to see Canon bring a 14-24f/2.8 to Market with the sharpness of the 17 & 24 TSE lenses or even as good as the Nikon.


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 17, 2014)

you missed 11-22 IS on EOS M which i am using ALOT due it being so tiny


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 17, 2014)

8-15mm f4 L
Tokina 11-17

Both work great for me, but did not make your list. The 11-17 is a nice lens on my 1D Mark IV, and the 8-15 does free on FF to crop.


----------



## pj1974 (Sep 17, 2014)

I love my Sigma 8-16mm and would vote for it.... but the vote / poll is only for FF.

I have used the Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 10-20mm on APS-C, but the Sigma 8-16mm is still my favourite.

On a friend's FF I have used 17-40mm, but would probably prefer the new 16-40mm f/4 because of the IS.

I've heard good reports of the EF-S 10-18mm IS and the EF-M 11-22mm IS too.

Paul


----------



## candc (Sep 17, 2014)

eml58 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



You might want to give the new 16-35 f/4 a try. I am not sure its suited for underwater photography, I think that's an an application like astrophotography where a faster lens is desireable but for general landscape shooting it's great. it doesn't go as wide as some would like but it goes to 35 and that is a plus for me. It's sharp at f/4 and doesn't need to be stopped down unless you want more dof.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 17, 2014)

10–22. Since moving to full-frame, the 16–35 L II just doesn't seem quite as sharp to me.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Sep 17, 2014)

candc said:


> You might want to give the new 16-35 f/4 a try. I am not sure its suited for underwater photography, I think that's an an application like astrophotography where a faster lens is desireable but for general landscape shooting it's great. it doesn't go as wide as some would like but it goes to 35 and that is a plus for me. It's sharp at f/4 and doesn't need to be stopped down unless you want more dof.



+1. This!

Canon's offerings in the ultrawide zoom department for full frames were so measly that I was forced to forgo the zoom and ended up with the 24mm TS-E II L. Even 24mm is not that wide, so I would be forced to do 12 shots using the shift and rotate mechanisms. The cool thing about, though, was that the process would yield roughly the same view as a 17mm lens, while producing an image that's about 49 megapixels from my 5D2.

Now, they release the f4 16-35, and it's truly jaw dropping quality. Finally, a zoom with a decent range and world class optical characteristics. And for a very fair price too. And if you don't need f2.8, which most of us don't, then this is the perfect lens. If you do need it, sadly the f2.8 version of this lens is not in the same league optically. But it will get you 2.8.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Can't really vote on this one. The one I have and use a lot is my only EF-S, the 10-22. I only regret that it's one lens I never will be able to carry over to a - imagined, and longed for - FF camera. If they release it with EF mount and make it slightly faster, I will be all over it like flies on a turd.



I was in the same situation when I moved to FF. However, I realized 24mm is a lot wider than 17mm on an APS-C (I had the 17-55). 
When I need to go wider, the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and TS-E 17mm both offer more unique options. I might still get a UWA zoom but I will wait well into 2015 before I do, and it will possibly be a 16-35 refurb'd.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 17, 2014)

I have the 17-40/4L, but I'm lusting for the 16-35/4L IS.

Yes, I'm a geek and I have GAS. ;D


----------



## phoenix7 (Sep 17, 2014)

candc said:


> The new 10-18 looks really good. Wide aperture isn't important to me for a landscape lens because you want to shoot it around f/8 or f/11 on aps-c so that's where the is comes in handy so you can shoot handheld and keep your iso down to earth. It takes filters too!



Exactly. Yes, forgot about filters, that was also a plus. But I'd like a little more
versatility. I also keep thinking about the Samyang 14mm prime but I'd prefer
AF if possible. But again for landscapes and astro manual isn't negative.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > Can't really vote on this one. The one I have and use a lot is my only EF-S, the 10-22. I only regret that it's one lens I never will be able to carry over to a - imagined, and longed for - FF camera. If they release it with EF mount and make it slightly faster, I will be all over it like flies on a turd.
> ...



*nods* The huge image circle and overall lens quality of TS-lenses certainly makes the TS-E 17/4L interesting for a FF.
The whacky UWA set would be a combo of that TS-E, and the even fishier 8-15/4L. Perhaps one would need a more real UW prime or zoom, when tired of the - possibly - surreal outcome of the first two.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 17, 2014)

My current UWA lens is the Samyang/Rokinon 14 f/2.8. Great lens. But, I am considering adding either the EF 16-35 f/4 IS or the TS-E 17 mm or just holding steady....


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

docsmith said:


> My current UWA lens is the Samyang/Rokinon 14 f/2.8. Great lens. But, I am considering adding either the EF 16-35 f/4 IS or the TS-E 17 mm or just holding steady....



Do both! Do both!
Holding steady? Do you mean your wallet or the lens???


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 18, 2014)

abcde12345 said:


> I'm definitely going to look out for Tamron's 15-30mm and the "rumoured" Canon's 11-24mm.



+1, I have the new 16-35 f4L IS and can't be happier. But, new Tammy and rumoured Canon 11-24mm seems to be promissing.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Sep 20, 2014)

I'm considering getting a Tokina 12-28 Pro Dx when I get the 7D Mark II and keep my Sigma 17-70mm on my Canon 50D.


----------



## MxM (Sep 20, 2014)

Samyang 14mm 2.8?
Sigma 14mm 2.8?
Zeiss 15mm 2.8?


----------



## lintoni (Sep 20, 2014)

MxM said:


> Samyang 14mm 2.8?
> Sigma 14mm 2.8?
> Zeiss 15mm 2.8?
> *Spectacles?*


Ultra wide *zooms*


----------



## MxM (Sep 20, 2014)

lintoni said:


> MxM said:
> 
> 
> > Samyang 14mm 2.8?
> ...



My mistake


----------



## drift juice (Sep 21, 2014)

+1 for the 16-35 f4. Picked one up when I went full frame. Really interested in the 15-30 hope it'll be a great astro lens


----------



## iaind (Sep 29, 2014)

Still using my trusty 17-35 f2.8L


----------



## NancyP (Sep 29, 2014)

For your G.A.S. consideration, Hartblei is making a TS adapter and sawing off the integral hood of the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 for a zoom superwide TS lens. Apparently the 14-24 has quite a large usable image circle. A mere $5,000.00 USD, when you can get your hands on one - this was a Photokina announcement, and the prototypes are out there, current production capacity probably all pre-ordered out. 

Right now, I don't have a FF UWA zoom. I have a three lens set, rather heavy to take all three along, but worthwhile if I do astro or night photography: Samyang 14mm f/2.8, Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4. I have to say that the new 16-35 f/4L IS looks very interesting at the end of a day hauling around my trio of wides.


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 30, 2014)

Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS because of IS and better sharpness than 17-40mm f/4.
But for it price the 17-40mm is quite attractive too


----------

