# POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?



## Ruined (Jan 24, 2015)

Just for fun,
ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?

OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
PROs: Offers both rectilinear and fisheye UWA depending on focal length, 16-35mm accepts filters
CONs: No rectilinear option wider than 16mm

-or-
OPTION 2: 11-24mm f/4L
PRO: _*This one goes to 11*_.  Unusually wide for a FF rectilinear lens.
CONs: Expensive for a single lens, no filters, no fisheye option available, lacks 25-35mm coverage.

Just curious about what the opinions and use case scenarios for people would be 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2015)

TS-E 11mm f/5.6L

;D


----------



## Ruined (Jan 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> TS-E 11mm f/5.6L
> 
> ;D



We are leaving the primes out of this one!! 

Another option obviously would be 16-35mm f/4 IS plus your lens of choice around $1500 but I was curious about opinions on these two specific options.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 24, 2015)

Seriously considering to trade the 50 Art for the 16-35 IS.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jan 24, 2015)

So, option 3


Ruined said:


> Just for fun,
> ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?
> 
> OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
> ...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 24, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Just for fun,
> ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?
> 
> OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
> ...



Why not include the Tamron 15-30/f2.8 VC as an option?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 24, 2015)

Really interested in seeing the 11-24 reviewed. It's hard enough framing at 14mm... it'll be interesting to see how 11mm can be used well.


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2015)

Having the 16-35 f/4L, I really have no desire for anything else, even the same glass with IS.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 24, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Just for fun,
> ...



That's what I was thinking. After seeing Matt Granger's hands on preview last fall I've been thinking that will be one heck of a good lens. And with it's debut price announced recently? I dunno, if I were in the market for an UWA FF lens, that new Tamron might check all the right boxes.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 24, 2015)

OK,
Now that we have some voting here were my thoughts behind making this post.

I see a lot of people in the 11-24 rumor thread regretting their purchase of the 16-35mm f/4L IS because the 11-24 will be the new "shiny" UWA lens. Now, I do realize that there is a purpose for everything. Some people may need 11mm rectilinear for a shot, period, depending on their use.

But for the general/landscape photographer who has ~2.5k to spend on UWA lenses I find it difficult to see how the 11-24mm would be superior to an 8-15mm Fisheye + 16-35mm f/4 IS. First of all the latter combo has a much larger focal range - an 8mm-35mm combined versus only 11-24mm. Yes, below 16mm would be fisheye instead of rectilinear and fisheye looks very distorted... But rectilinear below 16mm also looks very distorted, just in a different way.

As I see it, at least with the fisheye+rectilinear you have the option of a completely different perspective you would not have with the rectilinear 11-24 lens alone. And 16mm rectilinear is pretty darn wide on full frame. It just seems there are more creative opportunities and more options in capturing a shot with the 8-15 + 16-35 versus just the 11-24 alone. Yes, the latter might be more exciting as it is new and amazingly wide for rectilinear, but I do not think for 99.9% of people it would make more sense than the 8-15+16-35. Of course if you need 11mm rectilinear, that's what you need.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2015)

Ruined said:


> It just seems there are more creative opportunities and more options in capturing a shot with the 8-15 + 16-35 versus just the 11-24 alone. Yes, the latter might be more exciting as it is new and amazingly wide for rectilinear, but I do not think for 99.9% of people it would make more sense than the 8-15+16-35.



A fisheye lens is...well, a fisheye lens. It's a 'look'. It can have it's creative uses, but I think you're way off base to suggest that only 0.1% of people wanting to go wider than 16mm would be better served by a fisheye lens than a rectilinear lens. Yes, it's possible to defish, but the IQ hit there is much greater than correcting barrel distortion. 

Honestly, I think for most people the main advantage to a 8-15 fisheye + 16-35/4 combo over the rumored 11-24/4 is that the two-lens combo is cheaper. Secondarily, the 16-35's longer end means it can be a walkaround lens for some, but your claim that the combo covers 8-35mm is rather specious, as fisheye isn't the same as rectilinear. 

I suspect for most wanting wider than 16mm, an 11-24mm zoom would be better than an ultrawide fisheye.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > It just seems there are more creative opportunities and more options in capturing a shot with the 8-15 + 16-35 versus just the 11-24 alone. Yes, the latter might be more exciting as it is new and amazingly wide for rectilinear, but I do not think for 99.9% of people it would make more sense than the 8-15+16-35.
> ...



I don't think 99% of people will use 11mm effectively. 24mm is what most would commonly use for landscapes and if wider is needed 16mm makes sense. But I have seen tons of misuse of 16mm due to the distortion.

11mm may be wider than 16mm but it has even more distortion, cannot recreate the fisheye effect of a fisheye lens obviously, and honestly how many times will 11mm rect be useful to 99% of people? I understand fisheye is a specialty lens, but I feel 11mm rectilinear is even *more* of a specialty lens than fisheye that simultaneously offers less creative possibilities.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2015)

Ruined said:


> I don't think 99% of people will use 11mm effectively.



The ability to use a lens 'effectively' is *not* a prerequisite for desiring (or purchasing) that lens. Also, 'effectively' is a judgement call...and in my judgement many people also utterly fail to use a fisheye lens effectively. IMO, a (rectilinear) UWA shot often needs a close subject for a focal point...but for many, the objective is simply to 'get it all in' and if 16mm isn't wide enough, wider is better. Most people with that objective would likely not choose to 'get it all' but have it all warped with a fisheye lens. 

Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom, perhaps the combination of the 8-15 fisheye with an 11-24/4 would offer the best creative potential. 

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultrawide lens (well, actually I also have the Rokinon 14/2.8 used mainly for astro). I'd love an even wider TS lens.


----------



## Freddie (Jan 24, 2015)

The 11-24 would be a great real estate/architectural focal range. i would have to see how it performs but it would be good for that. Currently, I use 17mm TS-E but there are times I'd like to dip into the the wider ranges.


----------



## pwp (Jan 24, 2015)

EF 14mm f/2.8II
This is one classy UWA.

-pw


----------



## Machaon (Jan 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...
> 
> In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultra wide lens...



Neuro, do you use your TS-E exclusively on a tripod, or do you often find yourself shooting handheld?


----------



## Ruined (Jan 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think 99% of people will use 11mm effectively.
> ...



I think the problem is the projected cost of the 11-24 alone is so high getting another overlapping lens is probably out of the range of most.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2015)

Machaon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...
> ...



Almost always on a tripod, though I have shot handheld a few times with the TS-E 24 (using shift, not tilt).


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Machaon said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1
Can't imagine myself holding that beast of lens+body combo with one hand, in front of my face to use live view, and changing the tilt movements with the other hand.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Machaon said:
> ...



You don't need to, you can work out the tilt you want before you lift the camera to your eye, the 'J distance' is the key and tilt tables give you the values you need, the shift is easy to do through the viewfinder and focus will follow on from your tilt angle and desired plane of focus angle. It sounds much worse than it is but once you start playing with the TS-E's it becomes second nature.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 25, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Just for fun,
> ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?
> 
> OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
> ...


I have the 16-35mm f4L IS and the 15mm f2.8 fisheye and I am covered with them up to 180 degrees. I rarelyt shoot wider than 16mm in FF.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 25, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Really interested in seeing the 11-24 reviewed. It's hard enough framing at 14mm... it'll be interesting to see how 11mm can be used well.



I realize that 1mm makes a significant difference at the wide end, but you can probably get a fairly good idea by renting a Sigma 12-24 (or their 8-16 for APS-C). Or you could take a look at lots of photos taken at 12mm with the 12-24 here (most seem to be taken with FF cameras; or do a similar search for the Sigma 8-12 @ 8mm) - some users there seem to "get" it:

https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=232&camera=none&perpage=100&focal_min=12&focal_max=12&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You know, I think you'd mentioned the Tables when I started off with the TS-E and then I completely forgot about it and was making my life difficult....
Thanks a bunch!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> You know, I think you'd mentioned the Tables when I started off with the TS-E and then I completely forgot about it and was making my life difficult....
> Thanks a bunch!



No problem, it is easy to forget stuff like this.

Here is the one I use from Keith Cooper, a member here, over at his site Northlight Images http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html

One thing they could do to greatly improve the functionality of the TS lenses is gear the tilt to a much finer degree, I rarely want 8º but would love much finer control between 0º and 4º's.


----------



## pedro (Jan 25, 2015)

I have the 16-35 F/2.8 USM II

An 11-24 F/4.0 would be a nice lens, but Canon are asking way too much for a hobbyist like me. But, maybe sometime down the road a third party manufacturer like Sigma or Tamron comes up with a similar product, I mean a 12-24 update from Sigma with a permanent aperture like F/4.0 would be great. Or as Tamron just announced the 15-30 F/2.8, who knows what they have in their sleeve next...;-)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Machaon said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


+1


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I think you'd mentioned the Tables when I started off with the TS-E and then I completely forgot about it and was making my life difficult....
> ...


+1, I'd also like the ability to view four areas or two areas (comparison) in live view. Would definitely speed up the setup when using tilt.


----------



## gregorywood (Jan 25, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Just for fun,
> ...



I have the 17-40mm f/4L and the 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye as well and am quite happy with the combination. I may upgrade from the 15mm to the 8-16mm f/4L at some point, but for now, I'm okay.


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 25, 2015)

I've got the Rokinon 14 f/2.8 and the EF 17-40. Been thinking about the 16-35 f/4 and selling the 17-40. But, the lightweight of the 17-40 and the change in $ to get the newer lens has kept me from jumping. I don't use the UWA that often and with post-processing, the final image is usually fine.


----------



## DRR (Jan 26, 2015)

Between the two I would choose the first option, the 16-35 and the 8-15.

Reason being... the 16-35 is already a very good, useful walkaround wide. I can have that as a single lens and get a very good variety of shots in most situations. I would miss 24-35mm range much more than I would miss 11-16mm. Plus, you have the fisheye for more creative applications also.

The 11-24 seems like a much more specialized tool. A unique lens for sure, but does not really suit my shooting style.


----------



## iaind (Jan 28, 2015)

Already have 8-15 fisheye with 16-35 f4 on order awaiting delivery. so option 1 it is


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 28, 2015)

Ruined said:


> OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
> PROs: Offers both rectilinear and fisheye UWA depending on focal length, 16-35mm accepts filters
> CONs: No rectilinear option wider than 16mm



Sure there is - defish the fisheye.

I'd choose what I did choose - the Sigma 15mm fisheye. It's f/2.8, relatively inexpensive, and optically excellent.


----------



## dcm (Jan 28, 2015)

It really depends on where you are coming from. 

Ultrawide has its uses and I prefer to capture images rather than stitch or defish them. I already have the 8-15 and 17-40. I haven't felt compelled to replace the 17-40 with either 16-35 for the incremental improvement. 

The 11-24 gives me some new capabilities to consider, but I won't really know if I like the extra width until I use. If the quality is as good as other recent lens releases I'm more likely to get the 11-24 as a complement to the 8-15. Not sure if I will hold on to the 17-40 since it overlaps 2 zooms.

Primes are also a part of the equation for this range. I considered the 14mm options, but am leaning towards the 17 TSE. It sits nicely in the middle of the 11-24 range and offers additional capabilities when I am ready to go down that path. 

I think the 8-15, 11-24, and 17 TSE combination would cover all of my needs for the foreseeable future.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 28, 2015)

dcm said:


> It really depends on where you are coming from.
> 
> Ultrawide has its uses and I prefer to capture images rather than stitch or defish them. I already have the 8-15 and 17-40. I haven't felt compelled to replace the 17-40 with either 16-35 for the incremental improvement.
> 
> ...



Who told you that? The 16-35 f4 IS is a substantial leap in IQ over the 17-40 unless you only shoot at apertures that all lenses are equally bad.


----------

