# Which one should I get?!



## ericson (Jan 4, 2014)

Hello!
Long time reader first time poster!
anyway... So i'm in the market for a new wide angle/ ultrawide lens.
I shoot a lot of landscapes and astrophotography etc. with my 5d3
I currently have a 15mm fisheye (canon version) and it's great but kind of useless sometimes? also have a Tokina 20-35 which works surprisingly well despite being a lower end third party lens... but nevertheless i'm in the market for a new lens. I was thinking a 24mm 1.4 II or 16 35mm 2.8? and maybe possibly selling the fisheye if it would render useless with either of these new lens. let me know what you guys think. budget is a bit of an issue but not much..
thanks!
-ericson


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 4, 2014)

ericson said:


> Hello!
> Long time reader first time poster!
> anyway... So i'm in the market for a new wide angle/ ultrawide lens.
> I shoot a lot of landscapes and astrophotography etc. with my 5d3
> ...



16-35 II is a good lens, but not a "WOW" lens. Try canon 14mm f2.8


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2014)

No rectilinear lens can 'replace' a fisheye, unless you always de-fish the images (in which case, you probably shouldn't have been using a fisheye lens).

The real question is how wide do you need? The 15mm fisheye actually gives a slightly wider FoV than the 14mm f/2.8L II. So if the fisheye gives you the FoV you need/want, the 14/2.8L II is likely your best bet. 

The 16-35L II is a good lens, not stellar but a very useful ultrawide. It's a bit sharper than the 17-40L, but the 16-35's main advantage is the extra stop of light, and with a UWA you can often get the DoF you need if you're not right on top of your subject. 

If you want the absolute best IQ in a wide or ultrawide, and/or if you shoot architecture/buildings, consider the TS-E 17L or TS-E 24L II. The TS lenses are also great for landscapes, giving you a deep DoF without the need to stop down so far that diffraction softens your image.


----------



## gigabellone (Jan 4, 2014)

If you want to try the 14mm focal length and don't mind manual focusing and mechanical aperture, the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 could be a good choice. It is sharp and with negligible optical abberrations, except a hefty distortion. It also costs a fifth of the money needed for the Canon counterpart.


----------



## slclick (Jan 4, 2014)

Zeiss makes excellent wide angle primes for Canon EF mount. 15, 18 & 21 to name a few. Check out reviews ....http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Lens-Reviews.aspx


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 4, 2014)

For astro, I'd start with the Samyangs. They have a lot less coma than their Canon counterparts.

For landscapes, I love using the TS-Es (17 or 24). Although I use the TS-Es more for buildings (exteriors and interiors), the additional DOFs are useful for landscapes too.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 5, 2014)

I have the 8-15 fisheye and absolutely love it. That being said, it is a lens best used with moderation so although it is always in my bag it is rarely the first lens I turn to.

If you want a 'wow' lens look into the TS-E 24 II. This _is_ a lens I often turn to first.


----------



## tron (Jan 5, 2014)

Beware of the coma. So stay way from 24 1.4L II and 16-35.

Better solution: Canon 14mm 2.8 L II (it has some but less that theabove mentioned Canon lenses), Zeiss 21mm 2.8 (not much coma plus the hard stop at infinity is a plus). I do have these 2 lenses.

Many mention the Samyang 14mm 2.8 as a good solution. Tests show it has almost no coma so you may consider it as a candidate too.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jan 5, 2014)

I have a 16-35 2.8L II and love it. However, I'd LOVE to own a 14mm 2.8L II!


----------



## tron (Jan 5, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> I have a 16-35 2.8L II and love it.


You love it but the OP mentioned astrophotography! Do you use it for astrophotography and you like the edges?


----------



## nc0b (Jan 5, 2014)

I had Canon non-L 20 and 24mm f/2.8 which were disappointing on FF. Also briefly the old 20-35mm L, which was even worse. So I went for the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5. It has a hard stop at infinity which you need for astro, and much better in the corners than the ones I got rid of. If vignetting is an issue for astro, or anything for that matter, stop down to f/8. The Zeiss have full EXIF data, & focus confirmation though with some hysteresis. I usually zone focus with the 18mm. Have never used the Zeiss 15 or 21mm, as both were more money than I wanted to spend. Got my 18mm used for $999.


----------



## arize84 (Jan 5, 2014)

Dollar for Dollar, nothing beats the Tokina 16-28 2.8. It's super sharp and has phenomenal distortion control. As far as I can tell it is every bit as sharp as the Canon equivalent. See first picture below, it was shot at 16mm with no distortion adjustments made in LR.





28mm 




www.iconfoto.net


----------



## ericson (Jan 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> No rectilinear lens can 'replace' a fisheye, unless you always de-fish the images (in which case, you probably shouldn't have been using a fisheye lens).
> 
> The real question is how wide do you need? The 15mm fisheye actually gives a slightly wider FoV than the 14mm f/2.8L II. So if the fisheye gives you the FoV you need/want, the 14/2.8L II is likely your best bet.
> 
> ...



The way I use a fisheye now is more of a non-essential. It's to have it there when i need it. But i feel that I lug it around as a paper weight more often then not. that's why I ruled out the 14mm. It's just a tad bit too wide for everyday practical use as well as astrophotography and landscapes, given the large price tag. 

Does anyone have any experience with the canon 24mm? I really like a fast lens and don't mind that it's fixed focal length. When shooting stars pretty much anything at night more light is always a plus.

as for the Zeiss and the Samyang and maybe Tilt/Shift lenses, I have no experience with Manual focus for more practice uses and everyday stuff.. Is it easy to pick up?


----------



## Alexiumz (Jan 6, 2014)

ericson said:


> Does anyone have any experience with the canon 24mm? I really like a fast lens and don't mind that it's fixed focal length. When shooting stars pretty much anything at night more light is always a plus.



It's a stellar lens, no question… except in one area - coma. It's a very poor performer and if shooting wide open, is unsuitable for astrophotography. You'd need to stop down to 2.8 or more to negate or reduce it enough to get usable images with it. And at those apertures you have a wider market of lenses to choose from.



tron said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 16-35 2.8L II and love it.
> ...


I use it for astrophotography and yes, it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners, both in terms of sharpness and coma. Such a useful lens otherwise though! I need to get a Samyang 14mm as an alternative lens to shoot stars with.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 6, 2014)

Alexiumz said:


> I use it for astrophotography and yes, it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners, both in terms of sharpness and coma. Such a useful lens otherwise though! I need to get a Samyang 14mm as an alternative lens to shoot stars with.


If you think that the 16-35 is weak in the corners, it dosen't compare to the 14mm Samyang I bought. Pure Junk!! My 15mm FE blows it away and so does my 16-35. I see a lot of people saying to get the Samyang, but they don't post images.

Here is one! The left side is horribly distorted. You do get a wider view with the FE.








Exact Same View from the same spot with the Canon 15mm FE


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 6, 2014)

ericson said:



> The way I use a fisheye now is more of a non-essential. It's to have it there when i need it. But i feel that I lug it around as a paper weight more often then not. that's why I ruled out the 14mm. It's just a tad bit too wide for everyday practical use as well as astrophotography and landscapes, given the large price tag.
> 
> Does anyone have any experience with the canon 24mm? I really like a fast lens and don't mind that it's fixed focal length. When shooting stars pretty much anything at night more light is always a plus.
> 
> as for the Zeiss and the Samyang and maybe Tilt/Shift lenses, I have no experience with Manual focus for more practice uses and everyday stuff.. Is it easy to pick up?



The 24L II is a fine lens, good for just about everything except for astrophotography due to the coma. To avoid the coma, people stop it down to f/2.8 to f/4. You don't want to use it wide open for astro. The 24-70 II is said to have less coma than the 24L II at f/2.8.

If you use a tripod/LV for much of your landscape work, manual focus and tilt/shift will not be hard to pick up. If you don't use the movements, the TS-Es are about the best EF lenses at their focal lengths. However the movements give you so much more capability to correct perspective and tilting the focal plane.


----------



## tron (Jan 6, 2014)

FYI:

Canon to Samyang comparison (especially for coma)

http://www.extremeinstability.com/lens14mm.html

and Canon 24mm 1.4L II coma review:

http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html


----------



## NancyP (Jan 9, 2014)

Samyang has bargain lenses that have been coma-minimal to date. Look at the lenstip reviews of 14mm 24mm 35mm - a true bargain set for astrophotographers. I gather that the Nifty Fifty Canon 50mm f/1.8 II is fine and coma free when stopped down to f/4 - you can't get much cheaper than that. On my 6D I use the 14mm f/2.8 at f/4 for maximal astrophotographic sharpness, but it will be ok at f/2.8 in my experience. I like manual focus lenses. The Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 are superb, and if you have unlimited money, go for the TS-E to get the tilt for your daylight landscapes. I happened across a used Zeiss 21 at my local store, bought it, use it at f/2.8, coma free. Coma is reasonable on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, best results at f/2.8, fine results f/2 in my experience. I am experimenting with inherited and my own old legacy manual-everything lenses for 50ish and 100ish focal lengths. These 40 year old fast normal lenses have coma wide open - aspherical elements were rare back then. I get great sharpness and ok coma at f/2.8, no coma at f/4 with the old Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS. It is also a fun special effects lens for the marked aberrations at f/1.2.


----------

