# Wide angle choices



## TGCorneliussen (Mar 5, 2016)

Hi guys and girls,

I have just sold my Canon 35 1.4 L - and need to get a new WA lens. I like the focal range although sometimes a wish I had gone for something a little wider but 85-90% happy with 35mm and can move my feet when required 

I am currently looking at the different options:

Canon 35 1.4 L II - sharp - expensive
Sigma 35 1.4 Art - sharp - not as expensive
Sigma 24-35 2.0 Art - sharp and covers my most used WA area. Size and weight is not an issue
Tamron 15-30 2.8 - absolutely no opinions about the lens as I have not handled it
Canon 16-35 F4 IS - no opinion either as I have not handled this lens either. 

I would be using the lens as an all purpose /walk around lens for day and night; Northern Lights / star landscapes as well as normal landscapes. I currently use a 6D but will in the next 1-2 years upgrade to 5D III or 5D III's next release depending on what it brings to the table. I have a 85 1.2 II and a 150-600 Contemporary as well as the Samyang 14 2.8 currently. 

Appreciate any feedback


----------



## candc (Mar 5, 2016)

Considering that you already have the samyang I would recommend the 16-35 f/4. it is really a good landscape and general purpose lens if you tend to the wider side.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 5, 2016)

What was wrong with the 35L that has you considering the 35L II and the 35A? How much does AF consistency with outer points and servo matter to you?

The 16-35 f/4 IS is my preferred walk-around lens. Light and filterable. It also fits best in that it covers a largest range that isn't covered by your other lenses and gives you UWA to near normal ranges. If astro is a primary objective, then the Tamron 15-30 is a good choice because it's coma is low wide open and it gives you framing options. It would also make your Samyang 14 redundant because the difference between 14 and 15 isn't that large and both are f/2.8. There isn't a best option that is categorically better than all the others, so it comes down to what your prioritize more... or you end up like many of us in the forum that have multiple lenses to handle multiple scenarios.


----------



## candc (Mar 5, 2016)

Dustin Abbott did a real nice review of the tamron here 

http://www.canonrumors.com/review-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd/

Its a real pickle jar but if the size doesn't bother you and you want one lens for Astro and landscapes then it looks good.


----------



## Zv (Mar 6, 2016)

As a 6D user myself I have to recommend the 16-35 f/4L IS as your option for walk around night and day WA zoom. It fits the bill perfectly. It's a nice size and weight and pairs beautifully with the 6D, nicely balanced. It has excellent image stabilization of course. It takes those all common 77mm filters (huge bonus for me). It focuses fast and accurate. 

I haven't used the Tamron but it looks giant and am not sure I'd wanna lug that around all day. But for Astro it would be useful. Then again you got the Sammy for that.


----------



## d4mike (Mar 6, 2016)

I have a 6D and use both the Rokinon 14mm and the Tamron 15-30 for night sky's.

The Rokinon front element doesn't have the same muti-coating the Tammy has, so dew is sometimes an issue with the Rokinon/Samyang, but they both deliver for night sky's. I kept and use both because the Rokinon is pretty inexpensive and lightweight. 

As far as weight, the Tamron is pretty heavy but also has vibration control, the biggest drawback I have so far with the Tamron for landscapes is split ND filters, but I bought a 100 x 150mm and can use that against the lens hood without worry it will touch the front element as long as I'm careful. 
There is a aftermarket filter ring that attaches to the Tamron hood and filters similar to Cokin but it's pretty expensive. 

Define the mission I guess, the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 also has vibration control and has been reviewed as a good substitute for the Canon 24-70 f2.8 vII.

All these choices drive me nuts too.


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2016)

I'm voting for the 24-35 f/2. This is MY one lens as opposed to two primes solution. YMMV. Weight and size don't bother me and I primarily use it on a tripod so... Results have been fantastic in the short period I have owned it. Check out Dustin's review here on CR for more info. You can get it with a Street Price over at CPW btw. It'll come from B&H lickety split.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 6, 2016)

Zv said:


> As a 6D user myself I have to recommend the 16-35 f/4L IS as your option for walk around night and day WA zoom. It fits the bill perfectly. It's a nice size and weight and pairs beautifully with the 6D, nicely balanced. It has excellent image stabilization of course. It takes those all common 77mm filters (huge bonus for me). It focuses fast and accurate.


+1 The 16-35 f/4L IS is a terrific lens, maybe my favorite, and I have several lenses I paid considerably more for. Its my primary landscape lens and I'm using it more and more as a walk around lens. The 16-35/4 is razor sharp, focuses fast and handles nicely on the 6D. 

But, its maximum aperture is f/4. Your other considerations are f/1.4 to f/2.8, so if you need a wider aperture for subject isolation, look at one of the primes or others on the list. Really depends on what you intend to shoot and do with the lens.


----------



## TGCorneliussen (Mar 6, 2016)

@Random Orbits - the lens was showing its age and wear and tear but got a decent price for it when i put it out to see if anybody would want it in the condition it was. 

As for the Tamro - think i might have to rule it out as I am investing in some ND filters soon. 

Going to go down next week to the camera shop and see if I can try them all out a bit. 

@bholliman + zv- do you find the F4 limitating? I am used to 1.4 so loved using it during the night - but the 6D has pretty good ISO usabillity so combined with IS could compensate. 

@slclick - do you find the 24-35 focal length to be useful? 

Thanks for the answers so far all!


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2016)

TGCorneliussen said:


> @Random Orbits - the lens was showing its age and wear and tear but got a decent price for it when i put it out to see if anybody would want it in the condition it was.
> 
> As for the Tamro - think i might have to rule it out as I am investing in some ND filters soon.
> 
> ...



Yes just like I find a trio of 24/28/35 primes to be useful.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 6, 2016)

TGCorneliussen said:


> @bholliman + zv- do you find the F4 limitating? I am used to 1.4 so loved using it during the night - but the 6D has pretty good ISO usability so combined with IS could compensate.



I don't find f/4 limiting, but I don't often use the 16-35 f/4L IS in low light, other than on a tripod. I have the 35 f/2 IS which I tend to use for low light, handheld shooting. The 16-35 has excellent image stabilization and I can take sharp pictures at 1/4 second of still subjects. For moving subjects in low light, wider aperture or higher ISO are your only real options.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Mar 6, 2016)

Take a look at the Canon EF 17-40/4 L. 
A little old but still a solid performer.
The Canon EF 35/2 IS is superb.


----------



## Zv (Mar 7, 2016)

bholliman said:


> TGCorneliussen said:
> 
> 
> > @bholliman + zv- do you find the F4 limitating? I am used to 1.4 so loved using it during the night - but the 6D has pretty good ISO usability so combined with IS could compensate.
> ...



I don't find it limiting but that's because I don't shoot at night (as in night landscapes but I do night city shots). I've never really had a need for wide apertures in landscape, even at night, since there's way too much light pollution where I live! 

I also use a tripod for most of my landscape shots and stop down past f/8. I like lots of DOF in my shots! With the IS though I can delay the need for the tripod longer and in some cases altogether, which I couldn't with the 17-40. Makes all the difference. 

I have the Samyang 14mm for any rare low light or astro opportunities.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 7, 2016)

TGCorneliussen said:


> @Random Orbits - the lens was showing its age and wear and tear but got a decent price for it when i put it out to see if anybody would want it in the condition it was.
> 
> As for the Tamro - think i might have to rule it out as I am investing in some ND filters soon.
> 
> ...



Other things to think about. Sigma 24-35A has coma. 35L II is very well corrected for coma. A larger aperture trades DOF, and sometimes you need a larger DOF, so you end up using flash anyway. For people shots indoors, you'll use the flash more with something like the 16-35 f/4 IS but the IS is so nice for things that don't move.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 8, 2016)

I have both the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 and the Canon 16-34mm f/4 IS and shoot primarily landscapes (Tamron is for the stars). Which one I recommend boils down to one question: do you use filters? 

If you do, then I'd recommend the 16-35mm f/4 IS for landscapes and general shooting and using the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for the stars. Fortunately, the 16-35 has a 77mm front filter thread, so that helps. A fair bit of vignetting wide open, but easily corrected in post. 

If you don't, then I'd recommend the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 and sell your Samyang. Though, exposure blending is another way to avoid the use of ND filters. There is a system to use filters on the Tamron, but it's pretty bulky and cumbersome; I stick with my Lee filters for my 16-35 and it's way more convenient.


----------



## LovePhotography (Mar 8, 2016)

Unless you are one heckuva demanding photographer, the EF 16-35 f/4 is as sharp as anyone reasonably needs. Any CA (not much) easily improved in DxO auto settings. Just my $.02.


----------



## AJ (Mar 8, 2016)

slclick said:


> I'm voting for the 24-35 f/2. This is MY one lens as opposed to two primes solution. YMMV. Weight and size don't bother me and I primarily use it on a tripod so... Results have been fantastic in the short period I have owned it. Check out Dustin's review here on CR for more info. You can get it with a Street Price over at CPW btw. It'll come from B&H lickety split.


Must suitable for the OP's needs. A little wider than 35 mm, and f/2 will really help for starscapes, aurora.


----------

