# Wide Angle lens for my 6D



## kalich (Jul 24, 2013)

Hello,

I am a newbie to this forum. I would like to have your suggestions for my next lens to use for my Canon 6D. I already have a 24-105L IS, 50mm 1.4, and a 100mm 2.8 Macro lens. I am looking for a wide angle lens for my 1 week next trip to Utah ( Bryce/Zion National Park and of course to the Grand Cayon ). My budget is ~ $1000. I can sell my current lens to get more $$$ for the big wide lens. Please let me know.
Thank you


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2013)

If you need wider than 24mm, then you're looking at the 17-40mm f/4L or the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The 17-40L fits your budget, and stopped down to f/8-11 it's a decent lens. You could also rent the 16-35L II for the trip, but for landscape use the 17-40L will do fine.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 24, 2013)

What he said.

Also there's Canon and Sigma 14/2.8 primes. Canon is unfortunately expensive, so the 17-40 is probably your best bet I'd say.


----------



## ascholer (Jul 24, 2013)

It's more the budget option than the $1000 one, but I just got a Samyang 14mm for my 6D and am impressed so far. It is sharp - especially compared to the 17-40 - corners are worlds better. You do have to be willing to MF and double check with live view, but for scenics that isn't a big deal.
If you want your wide lens for action shots you can rule it right out, but if not, for just over 300 you can get it and a focus confirm chip. Then put the other $700 towards a nice tripod or something.


----------



## TommyLee (Jul 24, 2013)

IFF ...
you had a 16-35 II..
you could take the 100 macro and be done....

that would get in at ABOUT the $1000 level

I hate to say it 
but 
the 14L II, 35 sigma and the 100 macro would be lovely for travel...meet all the normal needs

that is at least $2500 put into the 14mm and 35mm lens... selling the 24-105 nets $650+
gets you down to ~ $850 short past the $1000 limit

you could just get the 35mm siggy and accept 24mm as widest...

I believe a traveler should have a very good f1.4 to f2 lens ...near the normal range.. for clubs etc....
...more important than LONG..... IMO


travel safe

TOM


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 24, 2013)

As a Utahn and a lover of UWA I know firsthand that much wider than 21mm can be overkill there. YMMV. I have used the 16-35 many times in So. Utah and found I rarely went full wide. I would have rather bought a Zeiss 18 or 21 than the 16-35 in hindsight. Now, up north (Wasatch, Uinta, GSL area) I use 16 a ton. Rent for your trip.


----------



## Stig (Jul 24, 2013)

Hi, 

same dilemma here... so far I'm thinking about:


17-40 (more universal, AF, filters, but there are wider options...)

samyang / bower ... 14mm (no filters, but wider than the canon and faster as well, cheapest by far (for some reason bower version even cheaper) and a bit for the full manual experience... call me curious)

sigma 12-24 (what a range, widest, complements the normal zooms starting at 24 and still AF... but no filters again, slowest and more expensive than the canon)

the sigma 15mm is a new thought, but not sure about how much I like the fisheyeishness, 
the 17 TSE, canon 14mm and co. are out of range... though samyang tilt shift got my attention a bit (or, again, the bower with 150usd lower list price)


since I like CPL and lately like to play with a strong ND I'm coming back to 17-40, but maybe I could try the manual 14mm first... ?


----------



## vscd (Jul 24, 2013)

I think the 17-40L from Canon is the best compromise between quality and price. You can even sell it again without great loss, or just rent it. I own the Samyang 14mm 2.8 which I really like. The lense is one hell of a sharp lense, but it has a difficult barrel distortion (Moustache), so you shouldn't shoot architecture with a lot of straight lines within.

For landscapes no one really see's those distortions and for the price it's a hell of a lense. But if you plan to do more serious stuff inside buildings etc... maybe get the 17-40 or 16-28.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 24, 2013)

Rent 14mm prime through Lensrental. It doesn't cost much at all.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

Modern third party lenses, such as those from Sigma, are beating price points and producing very competitive, even top-ranking, image quality. In addition to the 17-40mm zoom and 14mm prime from Canon, you should look into some of the wide and ultra wide angle lenses from Sigma, and maybe Tamron and Tokina as well, all of whom offer wide angle primes and wide angle and ultra wide angle zooms, some starting as short as 8mm or 10mm.

I have not been a fan of third party lenses much, but I have to say that Sigma has REALLY stepped up their game in the last few years, and their offerings are getting extremely competitive with L-series Canon lenses. In some cases, Sigma lenses perform better (usually in the wide/ultra wide range, where for some reason Canon is rather weak.) You can save some money, maybe even a bundle, on a good lens from Sigma, and get highly competitive or even superior IQ, compared to a Canon lens.


----------



## funkboy (Jul 25, 2013)

yep, 17-40L. Make sure you adjust your AFMA with it, and if it's still not up to your expectations, exchange it for another one.

Another option if you're doing a lot of hiking & want the smallest/lightest FF WA you can get your hands on, then go for the Voigtländer 20mm Color Skopar. It's not crazy wide like the 17-40L but I find 20mm is still appreciably wider than the 24mm wide end of the zooms, and of course its really tiny.

My current traveling kit consists of a 6D with the Voigt 20mm, Canon 40mm pancake, and a Canon 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2L + TC depending on the situation. All three lenses stacked together are pretty much the size of a 70-200 f/4L or so.


----------



## silvestography (Jul 25, 2013)

Get the Tokina 16-28 2.8. You already have everything past 24 covered so range is no issue. It's sharper than both the canon 17-40 and 16-35, and costs about the same as a 17-40. It won't take filters but an adapter can be purchased for around $200, so unless filters are a must, it's a no-brainer.

BTW, they're running a rebate on it now, so you can get it cheaper than normal.


----------



## kalich (Jul 25, 2013)

Thank you for all of your valuable comments/suggestions. I am looking for sharpness that the lens can get. 
I have some options on my plate now.
Tokina 16-28 2.8 
Canon 17-40L
Canon 16-36
I was also told that the 14-24mm Lens is coming this year. I really want to save my $$$ to purchase that one.


----------



## penywisexx (Jul 25, 2013)

My current lens setup current kit consists of 17-40, 24-105, and a Sigma 70-200. The 17-40 was chosen because it zooms by turning in the same direction as the Canon and SIgma lenses do (the Tamron and Tokina lenses turn the Nikon aka wrong direction) and is very lightweight for an L lens. It was very affordable. I picked up a mint one year old one on craigslist for $600 that left plenty more for filters, and still left money for a teleconverter that I wasn't expecting to be able to afford. I've only had it for a few weeks, but I probably took about 3000 photos in alaska with it and I wasn't disappointed at all, lightning fast focus though the 6D, and now that I'm back home it's been great on my 5D3 doing my normal band photography in dark venues when I've been testing it for dark focusing (I've only tried it for a few shows though so nothing definitive yet.) I'd say for the price point you can't go wrong with the range and build quality of the 17-40


----------



## kalich (Jul 25, 2013)

it seems the 17-40 and my current 24-104L overlap too much ( 24-40 mm)?? dont you think?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2013)

kalich said:


> it seems the 17-40 and my current 24-104L overlap too much ( 24-40 mm)?? dont you think?



I don't think so, no. The advantage is you get more flexibility in framing without changing lenses.


----------



## philipyeoh (Jul 25, 2013)

Hi, I have the fantastic 6D and the 24-105mm f/4L. I recently purchased the Canon 17-40mm f/4L and it's pin sharp, especially when stopped down to around f/8 or f/11. The overlap between this lens and my 24-105mm doesn't bother me one bit; in fact I tend to use the 17-40mm more because it's considerably lighter than the 24-105mm and makes a good combo when I'm out and about. Zoomed out to 40mm it makes for a decent standard lens. Still, YMMV.


----------



## kalich (Jul 25, 2013)

How is the sigma 12-24 compare to the others in terms of sharpness?


Stig said:


> Hi,
> 
> same dilemma here... so far I'm thinking about:
> 
> ...


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jul 25, 2013)

17-40 is a great lens...but think about shooting wide angle for nightshapes at f4, even with how high the iso goes on the 6D its always better to shoot at f2.8 at night...look at the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 and weigh the options of perhaps getting a used 16-35 f2.8L


----------



## tpatana (Jul 25, 2013)

I have the Sigma 14/2.8, and my comments:

Pros:
-Cheap (~$400 from ebay)
-F2.8
-Rectilinear (not fisheye)
-AF

Cons:
-Corners awful at F2.8, must close aperture down (especially FF, crop not as bad naturally)
-Quite strong "mustache" distortion

Doesn't affect me, but some would: cannot use filters (unless really special)


----------



## ions (Jul 25, 2013)

Allegedly the Tokina 16-28 is very flare prone. Like the 11-16 unfortunately. I got moon flare from that lens. The moon!!


----------



## SithTracy (Jul 25, 2013)

Rokinon 14mm F2.8... Got one for fathers day and love it. Yes, it full manual and has mustache distortion, but is correctable with PTLens and other tools. Drawback is no way to add filters. Still, I have a blast with it (5D Mark III).


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 25, 2013)

The Tokina 16-28 is super flare prone, not allegedly. Truth. I am not in the 17-40 camp. I have owned 2 copies and have not been happy with either , the 16-35 is no great wonder either. UWA zooms all have issues. Pick your battles. Now a wide prime is very different. I say find your widest focal length after a rental session with a zoom and buy a prime based upon the most used focal length. Really? No one 2nds my Zeiss motion?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 25, 2013)

I'll add a vote for the 17-40mm L. It fits your price range, and is more than wide enough. I read all about the Samyang 14mm, so I bought one. It was crap. You don't want to risk getting a defective lens just before a trip. The distortion of the 14mm Samyang is also huge. Its far too wide for your needs, so you then have to crop.

I'd also vote for renting a Zeiss 21mm, or if you are really convinced you want ultra wide, rent the Zeiss 15mm. Just watch out, you will find yourself obsessed with owning one.


----------



## Mr Bean (Jul 25, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd also vote for renting a Zeiss 21mm, or if you are really convinced you want ultra wide, rent the Zeiss 15mm. Just watch out, you will find yourself obsessed with owning one.


+1
I rented a Zeiss 21 a few times, fell in luv with it and ended up buying the 15 
Killed the credit card, for a few months, but what the heck.

I'd rent, if your not sure. The 21 is a beaut lens for what you want to do. Sharp and great contrast.


----------



## Stig (Jul 25, 2013)

kalich said:


> How is the sigma 12-24 compare to the others in terms of sharpness?
> 
> 
> Stig said:
> ...



apparently not too bad for the range... 
there is some (not too bad either) distortion, but hey, its a 12mm FF, AF zoom...

just be aware (e.g. buying used) that there is an older version (from what I read not that good) and a (rather improved) version II

some more technical stuff and samples here 
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/676-sigma1224f4556iiff
http://www.camerastuffreview.com/sigma-lens-review/sigma-12-24mm-ii-review
http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/2011/11/review-sigma-12-24mm-mark-ii/
http://www.lenstip.com/326.11-Lens_review-Sigma_12-24_mm_f_4.5-5.6_II_DG_HSM_Summary.html
http://www.jirisebek.com/other/sigma-12-24.html (compared to 17-40)


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jul 25, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> The Tokina 16-28 is super flare prone, not allegedly. Truth. I am not in the 17-40 camp. I have owned 2 copies and have not been happy with either , the 16-35 is no great wonder either. UWA zooms all have issues. Pick your battles. Now a wide prime is very different. I say find your widest focal length after a rental session with a zoom and buy a prime based upon the most used focal length. Really? No one 2nds my Zeiss motion?



I have shot with the 16-28 now for two years and I love it...**** the flare haters that talk **** on this lens..Any Idiot with an above average IQ can compensate for any type of flair in the field, that is unless your IQ is somewhat below average...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2013)

mycanonphotos said:


> I have shot with the 16-28 now for two years and I love it...**** the flare haters that talk **** on this lens..Any Idiot with an above average IQ can compensate for any type of *flair* in the field, that is unless your IQ is somewhat below average...



I guess I'm dum, then. So dum that I cant even spell dum (although I _can_ spell flare properly for the intended context, and not use it interchangeably with its homophone). :

See, the thing is, while it's easy to 'compensate for flare' by changing your composition, what if I _want_ the light source in my image? What if that light source is what gives the image it's unique flair (as in, stylishness and originality), but I want the flair without the flare? How can I compensate? Please, educate and enlighten us with your erudite exposition...

BTW, for those who are interested, here's a flare comparison of the Canon 17-40L vs the Tokina 16-28.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jul 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > I have shot with the 16-28 now for two years and I love it...**** the flare haters that talk **** on this lens..Any Idiot with an above average IQ can compensate for any type of *flair* in the field, that is unless your IQ is somewhat below average...
> ...



Gee I must be dum...you should be a teacher... I also guess by your extreme terms of endearment you didn’t bother to realize how I was using flair in my context..... I use the flair as a style in my shooting when it suits best...I don’t have any issues at all with how it "flares"..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2013)

mycanonphotos said:


> Gee I must be dum...you should be a teacher... I also guess by your extreme terms of endearment you didn’t bother to realize how I was using flair in my context..... I use the flair as a style in my shooting when it suits best...I don’t have any issues at all with how it "flares"..



Sorry, my apologies. I didn't understand your use of the word flair in context.



mycanonphotos said:


> Any Idiot with an above average IQ can *compensate for any type of flair* in the field, that is unless your IQ is somewhat below average...



So, you are smart enough to compensate for any type of flair in your photos.

*flair* \ˈfler\ _noun_ : stylishness and originality

*com·pen·sate* \ˈkäm-pən-ˌsāt\ _intransitive verb_ : to offset an error, defect, or undesired effect

So, you're saying that flair, meaning a distinctive elegance or style in your shooting, is an error, defect, or undesired effect, but you're smart enough to be able to offset that flair by making your photos lack style and interest. Now I understand what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 25, 2013)

mycanonphotos said:


> Gee I must be dum...you should be a teacher... I also guess by your extreme terms of endearment you didn’t bother to realize how I was using flair in my context..... I use the flair as a style in my shooting when it suits best...I don’t have any issues at all with how it "flares"..


 
Just because you like flare, doesn't mean you should call others dum(b) . Most photographers don't like the loss of a good image due to extreme flare, but it can legitimately be used to draw attention to a subject. Post some images demonstrating your use of flare.

The lens is well known for its flare, which can prevent taking a good image. If you are on the side of a canyon, and the sun is in the corner of your image, what is your workaround? It might just be better to use a lens that controls flare, rather than trying to move Grand Canyon.


----------



## HJL (Jul 25, 2013)

Bryce/ Zion Canyon -great!!! Was there last year and wish I already had the 

Canon 17-40 mm lens

I use this lens with the Canon 6d and I'm very happy!


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 25, 2013)

So I was kicked off the forum for sharing an Induro extended warranty announcement but this 'person' can come out and PRETTY MUCH call me an idiot and stay here? Wow.


----------



## Caleb5995000 (Jul 25, 2013)

[/quote]

... but I want the flair without the flare? 

[/quote]

Haha... excellent!!


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Jul 25, 2013)

Anyone for. Chill pill???


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jul 25, 2013)

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Flare is not always a bad thing it just depends on what look yr going for...so many people talk bad about flare it just depends on how its used to add flair in your photographs... wow! I did it again...Love it..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2013)

mycanonphotos said:


> Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Flare is not always a bad thing it just depends on what look yr going for...so many people talk bad about flare it just depends on how its used to add flair in your photographs... wow! I did it again...Love it..



That would be fine. But what you said was that anyone who doesn't want flare in their picture, who is going for a different 'look', is a low grade moron. Way to be a jerk.


----------



## luciolepri (Jul 25, 2013)

kalich said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am a newbie to this forum. I would like to have your suggestions for my next lens to use for my Canon 6D. I already have a 24-105L IS, 50mm 1.4, and a 100mm 2.8 Macro lens. I am looking for a wide angle lens for my 1 week next trip to Utah ( Bryce/Zion National Park and of course to the Grand Cayon ). My budget is ~ $1000. I can sell my current lens to get more $$$ for the big wide lens. Please let me know.
> Thank you



If you're searching for a lens just for this trip, I'd definitely go for a rent, as someone else already suggested.
Canon 14/2,8 or 16-35/2,8. I like the first one much more, but obviously a zoom is more handy.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 26, 2013)

Having gone from a 10-22mm on a crop, to a 6D + 16-35, then bought a 24-70 2.8, I'm starting to realise that I use the 16-35 very little and when I do it's generally at 16mm - I've bought a Fisheye Optic for my Lensbaby this weekend, so pondering chopping the 16-35mm in for a 14mm prime. Personally had I got the 24-70mm first, I'd be going straight for the Canon 14mm 2.8 because when you want wide, you always seem to go as wide as possible.


----------



## vscd (Jul 28, 2013)

I second that... i always used the short end on ultrawide-lenses, because this is the reason I choosed the lense at those very moments . Maybe the 8-15 would be a difference, because the 15mm is really usefull and the 8mm gives a planetview. But I guess a 14mm prime makes more sense than a Zoom in this area. Just my taste.


----------



## mdmphoto (Jul 30, 2013)

RENT a, or more than "a" uwa lens for your trip. I've rented every lens since my rebel XTi kit years ago before purchasing and this has given much guidance as it allows me to get familiar with it, compare lenses, and largely avoid remorse. Just sayin'...


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 30, 2013)

I'm going to suggest something else... Tokina 17mm AF Pro f/3.5.... can get it off of ebay for fairly cheep and it is meant to be really nice, though i have never used it myself!  You could probably sell it for the same price afterwards too if you so desired! 

Good luck and have fun with whatever you buy/rent!


----------



## luciolepri (Jul 30, 2013)

adhocphotographer said:


> I'm going to suggest something else... Tokina 17mm AF Pro f/3.5.... can get it off of ebay for fairly cheep and it is meant to be really nice, though i have never used it myself!  You could probably sell it for the same price afterwards too if you so desired!
> 
> Good luck and have fun with whatever you buy/rent!



I used it on an APS-C body and borders were quite soft WO, while CA was noticeable. I guess that on a 6D this flaws could translate in a disappointing IQ.


----------



## tron (Jul 30, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> So I was kicked off the forum for sharing an Induro extended warranty announcement but this 'person' can come out and PRETTY MUCH call me an idiot and stay here? Wow.


There is this "Report to Moderator" link...


----------



## tron (Jul 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, you are smart enough to compensate for any type of flair in your photos.
> 
> *flair* \ˈfler\ _noun_ : stylishness and originality
> 
> ...


it was fortunate that by the time I read this I had already finished my coffee so the keyboard remained intact ;D


----------

