# wide angle needed



## cid (Sep 5, 2014)

hi gyus, straight to my problem, recently I found I'm missing some nice UWA lens...

my requirements are:


nice build quality
focal length somewhere between 15 - 20mm (the wider the better)
AF is not necessary - but at least focus confirmation would be nice
sharp
price - the lower the better (but it doesn't mean 15mm Zeiss is not an option)
weigth - again the lower the better, it's intended for travel use


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 5, 2014)

Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L fits in with what you describe. The new canon 16-35mm F4 is also very interesting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

EF 16-35mm f/4L IS sounds like what you're looking for. The TS-E 17mm if you want the movements and will have time for tripod and setup.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 5, 2014)

16-35 f/4 IS. Zoom is useful for travel, and this one is fixes a lot of corner softness of the previous Canon zooms (16-35 f/2.8 II and 17-40). Focal length range is useful for various applications, which reduces lens changes. Matches well with 24-70 f/2.8 II.


----------



## cid (Sep 5, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L fits in with what you describe. The new canon 16-35mm F4 is also very interesting.


TS lens is very tempting option, but not sure I want it right now ... first I would like to have something easy and quick to use, simply said for travel 



neuroanatomist said:


> EF 16-35mm f/4L IS sounds like what you're looking for. The TS-E 17mm if you want the movements and will have time for tripod and setup.


Yes, right now I'm leaning towards 16-35mm, but I was interested if there are any other interesting options to consider


----------



## Djaaf (Sep 5, 2014)

If you're looking for a zoom, the 16-35 f/4 L IS is probably your best bet. 

If you're looking for something different, you may want to consider the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 Color Skoppar II. 

It's the lightest and smallest UWA on Canon as far as I know, it's not too expensive (got mine used for 300€), got a great build-quality, manual focus with focus confirm and electronic management of the aperture... Not the sharpest you can find though (probably somewhere between the 17-40 and the 16-35 f/4), but it's good enough for me. 

Djaaf.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 5, 2014)

17-40L if your budget is under 600$. @ F/8 it's just fine.

16-35 F/4L is the best option at the moment. Sharp, IS, and relatively inexpensive. The zeiss 15mm would be negligible in IQ, perhaps better micro-contrast but really pricey.

TS 17mm if your really into landscapes and got the budget for it.


----------



## cid (Sep 5, 2014)

Djaaf said:


> If you're looking for a zoom, the 16-35 f/4 L IS is probably your best bet.
> 
> If you're looking for something different, you may want to consider the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 Color Skoppar II.
> 
> ...



I have checked on Voightlander, but for me it lacks sharpness, if not it would be winner for me


----------



## cid (Sep 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> 17-40L if your budget is under 600$. @ F/8 it's just fine.
> 
> 16-35 F/4L is the best option at the moment. Sharp, IS, and relatively inexpensive. The zeiss 15mm would be negligible in IQ, perhaps better micro-contrast but really pricey.
> 
> TS 17mm if your really into landscapes and got the budget for it.


from what I have seen zeiss is top for me, but pricey, right now I'm leaning towards 16-35 f/4, 17-40 is not really interesting for me since it's old lens and new 16-35 is much better and not so much more expensive...

buuut back in my mind there is still possibility of new UWA presented in photokina :


----------



## Khalai (Sep 5, 2014)

cid said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 17-40L if your budget is under 600$. @ F/8 it's just fine.
> ...



Depends on how much you rush for it. If (and that's a big IF) such lens is announced at Photokina, it will take weeks, perhaps months to get it on the shelves. If you do not have the need for f/2.8, I'd go for the 16-35/4L IS if I were you. It complies with the requirement list you originally posted quite nicely IMHO.


----------



## cid (Sep 6, 2014)

Khalai said:


> cid said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I'm fully aware of that it won't be available immediately...


----------



## tayassu (Sep 6, 2014)

The Zeiss 18mm f3.5. I'm surprised nobody has suggested it yet. Small, light lens with Focus Confirmation, great IQ and the best build quality you can get:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-18mm-f-3.5-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655185-REG/Zeiss_1762_827_Distagon_T_18mm_f_3_5.html
Go for it!


----------



## cid (Sep 6, 2014)

tayassu said:


> The Zeiss 18mm f3.5. I'm surprised nobody has suggested it yet. Small, light lens with Focus Confirmation, great IQ and the best build quality you can get:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-18mm-f-3.5-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655185-REG/Zeiss_1762_827_Distagon_T_18mm_f_3_5.html
> Go for it!



very nice option, I'll check the review and maaaybe even in local store


----------



## nc0b (Sep 6, 2014)

I wasn't happy with any of the Canon wide angle primes or zooms a year of so ago, so I bought a mint condition Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 for $999.00. Couldn't be happier, and it fulfills all your requirements. Now that the new Canon F4 zoom is out, it would warrant serious consideration. For my needs I see no reason to change from the Zeiss to the new Canon zoom, as the images I get from the 18mm are excellent. I use it on a 6D or a 5D Classic.


----------



## dryanparker (Sep 6, 2014)

I'm in love with the Zeiss 15/2.8, but it comes at a steep price. I wanted the very best UWA lens for landscape and architecture, and its quality is undeniable.

That said, I've heard amazing things about the new 16-35/4. I'm sure it's fantastic, and far more versatile than the Zeiss 15.

Good luck!


----------



## Ruined (Sep 6, 2014)

cid said:


> hi gyus, straight to my problem, recently I found I'm missing some nice UWA lens...
> 
> my requirements are:
> 
> ...



Can you go a bit longer on the focal length, as an *EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM* would satisfy everything you asked for except it would be 4mm longer than you asked for. Ridiculously great lens for the price, sharp, low flare, great build quality and small+light for travel. There really is no lens comparable to it (combo of low price, autofocus, small size, light weight, good sharpness, excellent flare control, good build quality, IS, USM) in the 21mm and under department - perfect travel landscape lens.


----------



## cid (Sep 6, 2014)

nc0b said:


> I wasn't happy with any of the Canon wide angle primes or zooms a year of so ago, so I bought a mint condition Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 for $999.00. Couldn't be happier, and it fulfills all your requirements. Now that the new Canon F4 zoom is out, it would warrant serious consideration. For my needs I see no reason to change from the Zeiss to the new Canon zoom, as the images I get from the 18mm are excellent. I use it on a 6D or a 5D Classic.



nice to hear that, I just checked at local store web site, they have both of them, so I can compare and I still have to go there to get loose zooming ring fixed on my 24-70


----------



## cid (Sep 6, 2014)

dryanparker said:


> I'm in love with the Zeiss 15/2.8, but it comes at a steep price. I wanted the very best UWA lens for landscape and architecture, and its quality is undeniable.
> 
> That said, I've heard amazing things about the new 16-35/4. I'm sure it's fantastic, and far more versatile than the Zeiss 15.
> 
> Good luck!



yes, Zeiss 15mm is my dream UWA lens, but as said, the price is too high right now :-[


----------



## cid (Sep 6, 2014)

Ruined said:


> cid said:
> 
> 
> > hi gyus, straight to my problem, recently I found I'm missing some nice UWA lens...
> ...



it could be ideal for travel, but it's not option right now for me, I'm looking to get something wider than 24mm since I got it covered with my 24-70 and right now I feel I would rather fill the gaps in my set (UWA and fast prime) than having multiple lenses of same FL


----------



## cid (Sep 18, 2014)

Soo I had the opportunity to try both Zeiss 18mm and Canon 16-35 f/4 and they are both great

Zeiss
+build quality, the feel when focussing, compact, weight

Canon
+wider, more coverage, no extending while zooming, price

too bad I couldn't try Zeiss 15

I really loved the look and feel of Zeiss, but Canon will be probably smarter and more versatile choice


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 18, 2014)

cid said:


> I really loved the look and feel of Zeiss, but Canon will be probably smarter and more versatile choice


I don't think you can go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. Along with the 24-70 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I think these are the most amazing zooms on the market. The 16-35 f/4 IS is as sharp as the TS-E 17 and has better color and contrast and less CA. It has more distortion, and can't tilt or shift, but it's weatherproof, has AF, and oh yeah, it zooms!


----------



## Eldar (Sep 18, 2014)

I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.


----------



## cid (Sep 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I don't think you can go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. Along with the 24-70 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I think these are the most amazing zooms on the market.


don't forget 200-400  



Eldar said:


> I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.



for me, the main problem, there is no way right now how to test Zeiss 15, it could be excellent lens, but I don't like the idea of buying lens for 2,5k euro before trying it


----------



## mwh1964 (Sep 25, 2014)

16-35 f4 is definitely what you want. Canon did an excellent job on that one.


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 30, 2014)

What about EF 16-35mm f/4L?
Or EF 20mm f/2.8?
Or EF 17-40mm f/4L?


----------



## cid (Sep 30, 2014)

mwh1964 said:


> 16-35 f4 is definitely what you want. Canon did an excellent job on that one.


indeed, already checking where to buy the lens 



Helios68 said:


> What about EF 16-35mm f/4L?
> Or EF 20mm f/2.8?
> Or EF 17-40mm f/4L?



all of them were already suggested, but anyway, thank you


----------



## Eldar (Sep 30, 2014)

cid said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.
> ...


As long as you understand it is manual focus, there is absolutely nothing you will not like about the Zeiss 15mm. Mechanically second to none, focus mechanism as smooth as it gets, flawless optical performance and visually a beauty. If you want to go this wide, I don´t believe there is anything in the vicinity of this lens.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 30, 2014)

one more TS-E 'vote'

great 17mm and easily stitchable if you want wider/taller.

Use mine hand held a lot, when not on paying jobs ;-)

- see these examples from when I was recently in St Davids cathedral in Wales. All shots handheld, some stitched

http://architecture-photos.co.uk/portfolio_page/st-davids-cathedral-pembrokeshire/







EF8-15 also used (another excellent lens ;-)


----------



## Mr Bean (Sep 30, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.


+1. I have the 15mm and have used the 21mm. The 21mm I hired a number of times, to get a feel of it (IQ is probably slightly better than the 15mm). But, I wanted something wider at f2.8, so I skipped the 18mm and bought the 15mm. Not a lens I use much, but, when you need something in that realm, it's magic.


----------



## gigabellone (Oct 3, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.



Since you both own the 16-35/4 and the Zeiss 21/2.8, can you tell us how the two lenses compare regarding IQ at comparable focal lengths and apertures?


----------



## Eldar (Oct 3, 2014)

gigabellone said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.
> ...


I would rate the 21mm above the 16-35 f4L IS at its focal length and you have the 2.8 over 4.0 advantage. There is also something special with the Zeiss glass that makes them stand out. Color and contrast are two. 

But apart from that, the IQ from the 16-35 is so good that it even seems a bit pointless to hang on to the 21mm. And when you add the weather sealing advantage of the L-lens, it is even clearer. Since I got the 16-35 I have hardly used the 21mm at all. If I had to choose only one of the two, I´d go for the 16-35.

I don´t have any good images to serve as comparisons though.


----------



## gigabellone (Oct 3, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I would rate the 21mm above the 16-35 f4L IS at its focal length and you have the 2.8 over 4.0 advantage. There is also something special with the Zeiss glass that makes them stand out. Color and contrast are two.
> 
> But apart from that, the IQ from the 16-35 is so good that it even seems a bit pointless to hang on to the 21mm. And when you add the weather sealing advantage of the L-lens, it is even clearer. Since I got the 16-35 I have hardly used the 21mm at all. If I had to choose only one of the two, I´d go for the 16-35.
> 
> I don´t have any good images to serve as comparisons though.



Don't worry about comparison images, i trust your opinion as an informed user. 

Weather sealing on the Canon is a nice plus, but not a game breaker in my typical use case scenarios. Same goes for the IS. I won't be needing the fast aperture either, since i mostly shoot long exposures. What appeals me about the Zeiss, other than the stunning image quality, is that it's built like a tank, and the fast aperture would allow me to get started in night photography: star trails are cool, but being able to take pictures of "still" stars would be great too. Not to mention that the infinty focus hard stop is really a life saver when composing shots in the dark. Now, if only it wasn't so freaking expensive... For the price of the Zeiss, i could buy the Canon and a Rokinon/Samyang prime for star fields, but i'm adding complexity, increased lens switches and weight. Or, i could get the Canon 24/1.4, use it stopped down at f/2.8 for star fields, wide open for low light/street photography, and stopped down for landscapes.... Ah, choices, choices.....


----------



## cid (Jan 12, 2015)

So finally,
it took me some time (ok, hell lot of time), but right now I'm smiling on my shiny new 16-35 f/4

Thank you all guys for advices beyond great. From this spot I can say it will be my lens for hiking - light, versatile, wide enough.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> EF 16-35mm f/4L IS sounds like what you're looking for. The TS-E 17mm if you want the movements and will have time for tripod and setup.



Ditto. And while I concur that the TS-E 17 is a fine lens, also consider the discontinued but still available used EF 15mm FishEye. (Not instead of but in addition to the 16-35 L lens.) It's a super wide/fun lens on Full Frame. I think we are all making the bold assumption that you are shooting with a Full Frame camera based on your signature line. But I think everyone agrees that it will be hard to beat the 16-35 f/4L as the primary ultrawide lens to fill your needs.


----------



## cid (Jan 13, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I think we are all making the bold assumption that you are shooting with a Full Frame camera based on your signature line. But I think everyone agrees that it will be hard to beat the 16-35 f/4L as the primary ultrawide lens to fill your needs.



Oh, I didn't mention it? Yes I'm shooting FF  Yes 16-35 will be hard to beat, but time will show ...


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 13, 2015)

cid said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L fits in with what you describe. The new canon 16-35mm F4 is also very interesting.
> ...


----------

