# Which wide-angle lens to hire?



## SophieCarrPhotography (Feb 16, 2014)

I'm off to Iceland next month for an annual photography trip. I currently have a Canon 5Diii and 24-70mm f2.8 I lens which I use for most of my landscape photography (I'll also take a 70-200mm zoom). 
This year I'd really like to take something wider with me, and am hoping for at least one clear night to do some star or aurora photography (have been the last couple of years and haven't had much luck with clear skies at all, so hoping for third time lucky - and I do have 10 days). I like to do long exposure shots and have a variety of 77mm screw-in filters. So here's my dilemma - do I hire the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 or the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (neither of which I can use my filters on) or the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 (which I can use all my filters on)?? I think the 24-70mm covers most of my daytime needs, but would love to try the extra width (I used to use a 10-22mm on a 60D and liked the wide angle of that). I've read quite a few reviews of the 16-35 vs the 17-40 and in good light and wide depths of field it would appear that there's not a great deal of difference, but at night there is. If I take the 16-35 then I can't use my filters (I could get a step-up ring but then there would presumably be a fair amount of vignetting given the filter being 5mm smaller), but with the 14mm obviously I'd not be able to use any filters, but I think it would be the best one for night skies... 
Anyone got any recommendations or faced the same dilemma? I've been mulling over this choice for weeks!


----------



## Hannes (Feb 16, 2014)

you could always just buy the rokinon/samyang/bower 14mm lens for a reasonable sum and use that. For stars the lack of AF won't really be a problem anyway, no filters though.


----------



## procentje20 (Feb 16, 2014)

To add a choice: the first gen 16-35mm f2.8 has a 77mm filter thread.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Feb 16, 2014)

If you can live with f/4 rather than f/2.8 then the 17-40 should serve you well; no sense giving up your filters if you plan on taking longer shots anyway.

Jim


----------



## Surfwooder (Feb 17, 2014)

At night you will not need any filters. A CP would cost you about 2 stops, in the late evening that could be a deal breaker. Just use your lens bare. If the sky washes out just fix it Post.


----------



## yorgasor (Feb 17, 2014)

The Rokinon 14mm is inexpensive and has done me proud in many a night photo. I will make one other suggestion though, the Zeiss 21mm. I picked it up a couple weeks ago and it is now my favorite lens. It takes an 82mm filter, so it matches what you use for your 24-70mm lens. It's not nearly so wide as the 14mm Rokinon, but it's much more useful for landscape photos. It does a fantastic job day or night, and it's easy to focus. It has a hard stop at infinity, and I just roll it back a smidgen and it's perfect every time.

I've only had it a short time, but some of my favorite photos ever taken were done with this lens already:




Moonlit Bridge by yorgasor, on Flickr




Utah Valley Car Lights by yorgasor, on Flickr

When I go out hiking now, I pretty much just use my 70-200mm lens and the Zeiss 21mm. I used to carry my rokinon 14mm and my old nikon 24mm ais, but the Zeiss has all but retired those two.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 17, 2014)

Considering what you have, I would suggest the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 or the EF 17mm TS-E. They are both exeptional lenses. I am no fan of the 16-35 II. I actually sold it because I always go for one of the two above when I want wide angle. I solve the filter issue by hand holding Lee filters. Not easy for long exposures though. For the Zeiss I have a circular polarizer coming, which is horribly expensive.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 17, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> The Rokinon 14mm is inexpensive and has done me proud in many a night photo. I will make one other suggestion though, the Zeiss 21mm. I picked it up a couple weeks ago and it is now my favorite lens. It takes an 82mm filter, so it matches what you use for your 24-70mm lens. It's not nearly so wide as the 14mm Rokinon, but it's much more useful for landscape photos. It does a fantastic job day or night, and it's easy to focus. It has a hard stop at infinity, and I just roll it back a smidgen and it's perfect every time.
> 
> When I go out hiking now, I pretty much just use my 70-200mm lens and the Zeiss 21mm. I used to carry my rokinon 14mm and my old nikon 24mm ais, but the Zeiss has all but retired those two.



Two beautiful shots yorgasor. What body are you using and may I ask what settings you used for both? Thanks.


----------



## yorgasor (Feb 17, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> yorgasor said:
> 
> 
> > The Rokinon 14mm is inexpensive and has done me proud in many a night photo. I will make one other suggestion though, the Zeiss 21mm. I picked it up a couple weeks ago and it is now my favorite lens. It takes an 82mm filter, so it matches what you use for your 24-70mm lens. It's not nearly so wide as the 14mm Rokinon, but it's much more useful for landscape photos. It does a fantastic job day or night, and it's easy to focus. It has a hard stop at infinity, and I just roll it back a smidgen and it's perfect every time.
> ...



If you click through the image, flickr has the exif info for the photos. That being said, the second image doesn't have any useful exif info. I use a 5D3, and the 2nd image is a stacking of 2 different photos, both are 30 seconds. One car came around the bend just as the first 30 second image completed. I quickly shot again to get a continuation of the light trail. I stacked the two images together using the free Star Trails software, then I patched the gaps of the light trail using photoshop.

The top image was shot in Moab, UT as the moon was setting. I discovered moon-set is a beautiful time to take photos, but the effects are mostly lost unless you have a proper 'dark sky' location. Where I live, the light pollution overpowers the effect.


----------



## yorgasor (Feb 17, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > yorgasor said:
> ...



Dang, I lied. It was two 25 second photos, ISO 320 & f/6.3. I guess there was still too much light for a proper 30 second photo. I used Lightroom 5 for the initial touchups, exported to jpg, then stacked with Star Trails, and finalized with Photoshop.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 17, 2014)

If you're hiring it mostly for night-time wide angle work, than the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm is your choice. It's a go-to for astrophotography work.

The only other real considerations would be the Zeiss lenses (15mm and 21mm) but they have the same issue as the 16-35 and 14mm with your filters being too small. And the Canon 24mm f/1.4 would give you 2 extra stops and your filters would work...but, you'd likely want to be using it at f/2 or more to avoid coma and losing sharpness.

I think the 14mm from Rokinon is your best bet. Most bang for your buck and a great astro lens. Zeiss 21mm would be the next best option, just because of how strong a landscape lens it is


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 17, 2014)

Agree with yorgasor that most of the Canon lenses are not well suited for astrophotography. Most of the f/2.8 lenses (14, 16-35) have significant coma (the 24-70 II is an exception). Stopping down reduces/eliminates coma, but then you lose the advantage of the larger aperture.

I know you said that you were planning on renting a UWA. Unfortunately the UWA primes are much better than the zooms, so it comes down to which one. If you had the funds to upgrade your 24-70 to version II, then I'd suggest looking at the Rokinon 14, Zeiss 15 or TS-E 17 (you lose a stop here, but its movements make it more versatile creatively). That would give you a very good 24mm and UWA option. If you don't have the funds, then yorgasor has a good recommendation to rent the Zeiss 21. The 21-24mm focal lengths are easier to compose well and will be used more often than a 14-17mm prime.


----------



## yorgasor (Feb 17, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> The Rokinon 14mm is inexpensive and has done me proud in many a night photo. I will make one other suggestion though, the Zeiss 21mm. I picked it up a couple weeks ago and it is now my favorite lens. It takes an 82mm filter, so it matches what you use for your 24-70mm lens. ...



Oops, I need to work on my reading comprehension skills. I missed that you had the 24-70mm I lens. The II version uses the same 82mm filter size as the Zeiss 21mm. I picked up a refurb version on ebay for $1300, so it was a lot cheaper than I would expect for a high quality Zeiss lens. If you decide to buy instead of rent, I think you'll get plenty of bang for your buck with this lens.


----------



## SophieCarrPhotography (Feb 17, 2014)

Hmmmm, so much to still think about!
Thanks for all the advice/recommendations.
So far I've found that I could rent the Zeiss 21mm but not the 15mm (haven't found anywhere in the UK yet anyway) and I'd have to buy the Samyang/Rokinon for about £320. I did just look at some of my photos from Iceland taken last year and most of them are at around 30-45mm so now I'm thinking maybe I should just leave the 24-70mm at home and hire a 17-40mm as my all-purpose landscape one! Would save a bit of weight... Probably won't get any stars or aurora if my luck is anything to go by anyway! Such a shame there's not a 14-24mm equivalent of the Nikon one.


----------



## candc (Feb 18, 2014)

How about the 15mm fisheye? It's a lot of fun to use and will give you great results. Nowadays you have the option to de-fish as much as you want using software like dxo


----------



## TexasBadger (Feb 18, 2014)

+1 on the Zeiss 21mm.


----------



## cearense (Feb 19, 2014)

I owned a Tokina 12-24 f/4 on APS-C sensor and I was happy with that, but after I moved to fullframe I owned a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 and Im about to sell my 17-40 to buy that Rokinon again, here I got some pics from Chicago with it:




IMG_3701.jpg por marcelobrce, no Flickr




IMG_3710.jpg por marcelobrce, no Flickr




IMG_4069.jpg por marcelobrce, no Flickr




IMG_4079.jpg por marcelobrce, no Flickr




IMG_4260.jpg por marcelobrce, no Flickr


----------



## SophieCarrPhotography (Feb 19, 2014)

I think I'm going to go with the Zeiss 21mm (renting rather than buying). 

Now I just have to worry about filters (during the day), because given that it's such a good lens (have read a LOT about it!) I think I'll want to use it all the time! Don't think I can rent filters though! One thought it to use a step-down ring from 82mm to 77mm which will obviously result in visible filters at the corners (excessive vignetting, I suppose), but then just crop the corners out. Anyone else done this? Will save a few £'00 in forking out on new filters...


----------



## tron (Feb 19, 2014)

SophieCarrPhotography said:


> Hmmmm, so much to still think about!
> Thanks for all the advice/recommendations.
> So far I've found that I could rent the Zeiss 21mm but not the 15mm (haven't found anywhere in the UK yet anyway) and I'd have to buy the Samyang/Rokinon for about £320. I did just look at some of my photos from Iceland taken last year and most of them are at around 30-45mm so now I'm thinking maybe I should just leave the 24-70mm at home and hire a 17-40mm as my all-purpose landscape one! Would save a bit of weight... *Probably won't get any stars or aurora if my luck is anything to go by anyway! *Such a shame there's not a 14-24mm equivalent of the Nikon one.


Murphy's Law: If you bring just your 17-40 f/4L slow, coma inducing lens you will have plenty of stars and aurora ;D


----------

