# Which Wide Angle lense for 6D?



## sprintingenis (Jun 4, 2015)

Hello,

I am moving from APS-C to fullframe. Therefore I need a new wide angle lense. In general I do architecture and landscape photofraphy. For this field I mostly use f/8, but in the summer I wanna try some astro shots and go again on helicopter sessions at twilight, cause it was so much fun! For this I need definitly bigger aperatures. 

In my list till now are:

Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 
Canon 16-35 f/4
Sigma 20 f/1.8

at F8 they are all very very sharp though. The Tokina with filter solution is around the same price as the Canon. The Sigma though used is only half price compared to the others, but I dont know if the prime focal length would limit me much :/


Which of one these do you think would satisfy my fields the most?

thank you for every help!


----------



## bholliman (Jun 4, 2015)

I have no experience with the Tokina and Sigma lenses, but the Canon 16-35 IS is a brilliant lens. Very sharp, nice form factor, uses common 77mm filters with distortion and CA well controlled.


----------



## sprintingenis (Jun 4, 2015)

bholliman said:


> I have no experience with the Tokina and Sigma lenses, but the Canon 16-35 IS is a brilliant lens. Very sharp, nice form factor, uses common 77mm filters with distortion and CA well controlled.



I have read that from many other people who own that lense too. But isnt the f/4 too slow for astro and twilight heli sessions? Or do you think I should get a seperate lense for this field?


----------



## Coldhands (Jun 4, 2015)

Canon 16-35mm is exceptional. For the low-light shots, you may consider adding the Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 which seems to be well-liked by those who've used it.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 4, 2015)

The Sigma 20mm F1.8 has very bad sharpness when more open than F4.

Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 would be a great option if you do not need to use filter.

Canon 16-35mm F4 IS seems to me the most versatile of the three


----------



## sprintingenis (Jun 4, 2015)

Coldhands said:


> Canon 16-35mm is exceptional. For the low-light shots, you may consider adding the Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 which seems to be well-liked by those who've used it.



About this solution I was thinking too, but the manual focus would be a huge problem by helicopter or not? For astro I anyway would focus manual.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 4, 2015)

Tamron 15-30. Reviews say it handles coma well and it's f/2.8. If you need to use filters, then the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS and then couple it with a Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for astro.


----------



## gobucks (Jun 5, 2015)

I just chose the 16-35 F4 a few days ago, absolutely love it. Both the Tokina and new Tamron get very good reviews (particularly the Tamron), but I eventually wasn't willing to lug them around. Generally when I need a lens that wide, I'm gonna be traveling and will have to carry it all day. My kit with the 16-35 IS, 50mm STM, and 100mm F2 covers just about everything and it weighs about as much as the Tamron by itself, and not too much more than the Tokina. I'm also kinda OCD about keeping my lenses clean, so attempting not to smudge or chip the big bulbous front elements of the Tokina or Tamron wasn't something i want to deal with.

The lens is probably the sharpest I own, the only one that can compete is maybe the 35mm F2 IS. It's also my slowest, which has taken a little getting used to (the T-stop is T/4.5, a bit dim with an EG-S screen), but for stationary subjects, you can shoot like .5 seconds handheld, and buildings aren't moving. 

Oh yeah, and now the canon is only $999 after rebate.


----------



## e17paul (Jun 5, 2015)

You have a Sigma prime in your shortlist. There is also the Canon 24/2.8 IS to consider. It is an excellent lens with IS for tripod free interior or nighttime architectural shots, but I don't know if it wide enough. 

Compared to the 16-35/4L it would give you some budget left over to put towards the Sigma, which lacks IS, is wider and a stop faster. With the increased size of full frame lenses compared to crop, it may be worth weighing up the benefit of two primes compared to one zoom. Whilst happy with my 24 IS chosen over the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L, I did feel some buyers remorse upon launch of the 16-35/4L.

I would be choosing between the do it all Canon lens at f/4 and the set of two faster primes. You may find that the higher unusable ISO settings of full frame compared to crop, and the benefit of IS for some of your photography tip you towards the slower more versatile zoom option.


----------



## YellowJersey (Jun 5, 2015)

In terms of wide angle lenses that are actually affordable but also deliver awesome image quality, I'd say there are two primary contenders. 

Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS and the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC. (disclosure: I haven't used either of these lenses, but I'm currently torn between which one to get and have done quite a bit of research on both) 

It seems like both have pretty similar image quality. Each one's strength is the other one's weakness. 

Tamron
Strength: It's a 2.8 lens. 
Weakness: Filters are tricky with that big bulbous front element. They're not impossible, but filter solutions will probably be a bit cumbersome and not as convenient. 

Canon
Strength: Filters are a snap whether you're using screw ons like UVs and circ pols or using Lee or Cokin filters. 
Weakness: It's an f/4, but this is not really a weakness if you don't need a 2.8 lens. 

I'd say the only reason to go with Canon is if you really need a quick, easy, and convenient filter system. Even if you don't need a 2.8 lens, I'd still probably advocate the Tamron as it doesn't cost much more, seems on par (or even better in some regards) in terms of IQ, and having that 2.8 aperture could be handy. Other than filters, you don't sacrifice anything by going with the Tamron. 

The reason the choice is so difficult for me is that I need quick and easy filter systems, but I'd also like to shoot the stars more and an f/4 really isn't up to snuff. 

So, it really depends on what you require out of a lens. Since you mentioned twilight helicopter sessions (which probably wouldn't involve filters), I'd say the Tamron sounds like the best bet. It's ultimately up to you to decide what works for you, but I hope this helps. 

To see these lenses go head to head, I recommend Dutin Abbott's comparison. 
http://dustinabbott.net/2015/04/three-way-shootout-part-1-the-lenses/


----------



## sprintingenis (Jun 5, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> In terms of wide angle lenses that are actually affordable but also deliver awesome image quality, I'd say there are two primary contenders.
> 
> Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS and the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC. (disclosure: I haven't used either of these lenses, but I'm currently torn between which one to get and have done quite a bit of research on both)
> 
> ...



Thank you for the long and detailled response! 
The Tamron looks like the best option, but at the moment it totally crosses my budget, espacially by adding the filter solution to it, cause for Landscape I definitly need nd filters. 
Also it is twice the price of tokina by definitly not being double as good.

The question thst remains is, if the Tokina could compete with the Canon 16-35 f4 or if the flares and ghosting would annoy too much in the field...

Otherwise the Canon seems to be the best allround option.


----------



## YellowJersey (Jun 5, 2015)

sprintingenis said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of wide angle lenses that are actually affordable but also deliver awesome image quality, I'd say there are two primary contenders.
> ...



The only thing about the Tokina is the lack of IS. Normally, that wouldn't be an issue, but if you're in a helicopter, then the IS would probably make a difference.


----------



## sprintingenis (Jun 5, 2015)

The IS isnt really important, espacially at low light when its gets almost pure dark its better to turn it off.

I gotta try both lenses on the 6D when I buy it soon and see how they just perform on the first look.


----------



## YellowJersey (Jun 6, 2015)

sprintingenis said:


> The IS isnt really important, espacially at low light when its gets almost pure dark its better to turn it off.
> 
> I gotta try both lenses on the 6D when I buy it soon and see how they just perform on the first look.



You know, now that I think about it, IS is designed to compensate for human movements. So flying around in a helicopter probably couldn't be something the IS could help with. And if you're doing astro, then you'd be on a tripod anyway. So the IS wouldn't be that helpful in those two situations.


----------



## sprintingenis (Jun 6, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> sprintingenis said:
> 
> 
> > The IS isnt really important, espacially at low light when its gets almost pure dark its better to turn it off.
> ...



The IS is for me anyway not important at all. I take almost every shot I want to be as sharp as possible with a tripod. Handheld I only would so some side shots. 

If the Tokina wouldnt had the flare problem and filter costs, it would be such a perfect lense...


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 7, 2015)

Canon 16-35mm f4L IS is exceptional for landscape and architecture BUT, for astro-photography you may consider adding the Samyang/Rokinon 14m f/2.8 or 24mm f/1.4 which seems to be well-liked by those who've used it because they present very low coma. 
LensRentals runned a test of the above and included the new Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 and it is the best options for all three photography genres.


----------



## Bernard (Jun 7, 2015)

sprintingenis said:


> The IS is for me anyway not important at all. I take almost every shot I want to be as sharp as possible with a tripod. Handheld I only would so some side shots.



1 f:stop does not make a significant difference for an ultra-wide, especially if you mostly use it on a tripod. I don't see why you are even debating this. Out of your 3 choices, the Canon is a great lens: solid, durable, sharp, not too heavy. The others are just "OK for the money."


----------



## gobucks (Jun 7, 2015)

Bernard said:


> 1 f:stop does not make a significant difference for an ultra-wide, especially if you mostly use it on a tripod. I don't see why you are even debating this. Out of your 3 choices, the Canon is a great lens: solid, durable, sharp, not too heavy. The others are just "OK for the money."



"ok for the money" is probably a little unfair to the Tamron. The lens quality seems pretty exceptional, and for someone who regularly lugs a ton of gear to a pro shoot, it might be the best choice (much like the also exceptional 70-200 2.8 VC).

But 1100g+ is an enormous lens. I already hate to carry my Tamron 24-70 VC around when i'm traveling, and thats 'only' 800ish. The Canon shaves off nearly half the weight (enough that I can carry a few primes for longer coverage), and can take less exotic filters. It's also currently $200 less than the Tammy, which is nearly enough to also buy the Samyang 14mm, so for the limited circumstances in which you need the extra wide coverage, 2.8 aperture, or reduced weight, you can bring that instead.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 10, 2015)

You should consider a second hand 17-40 F4 L.
It's also a very good lens with a flexible range.
It would probably hold it's value until there is 16-35 L with IS.


----------



## gobucks (Jun 12, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> You should consider a second hand 17-40 F4 L.
> It's also a very good lens with a flexible range.
> It would probably hold it's value until there is 16-35 L with IS.



Erm, I assume you mean until there is a 16-35 F2.8L IS? Cuz there is already a 16-35 F4L IS, and the 17-40 is still pretty much the same price.


----------

