Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 end

Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

On 21Mpx and 24Mpx, my EF 16–35mm f/4 IS is sharp, but not as sharp as my TS-E 24mm f/3.5 II.

Sep 14, 2024 at 10:55 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

mdvaden wrote:
It was the 16-35mm f/4

The Tamron's I mentioned were 35mm, a couple of the sharpest out there.

After posting, had a thought that possibly the 16-35mm I owned wasn't the cream of the crop, since I never used another 16-35mm f/4 to compare it too.

I was manually focusing live view most of the time.

Moving forward, I need to remind myself that I'm probably not going to use this for prints as much as getting nice shots people may prints smaller sizes themselves or just share on phones or tablets.

If you're seriously just using this for people photos, 24mm on your 24-70 is already going to cause problems if you aren't careful. I may have been at 16mm , 25-26mm ff equivalent, the time I got eggheaded people.

So I wouldn't necessarily recommend any 16-35 or <24, myself. It's possible, wides can really make people look funky though.

Sep 15, 2024 at 01:03 AM

IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

I'm surprised the 17-40 still comes up in any discussions not absolutely centered on the low end when there's the (almost perfect) 16-35/4 IS. Even now, after switching to Nikon Z and almost deciding in my mind to cull half of my lens lineup, I can't bring myself to putting it on sale, because I'm fairly sure I won't find anything as good in the Nikon(-compatible) lineup.

Of course, other than it, there's all manner of UWA lenses, including Sigma 12-24 and 14-24 that might be a better fit for a 24-70 focal length-wise, but I'm pretty sure even the (EF-mount) 14-24 isn't quite as good as the Canon 16-35/4.

Sep 15, 2024 at 05:54 AM

mdvaden
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

AmbientMike wrote:
If you're seriously just using this for people photos, 24mm on your 24-70 is already going to cause problems if you aren't careful. I may have been at 16mm , 25-26mm ff equivalent, the time I got eggheaded people.

So I wouldn't necessarily recommend any 16-35 or <24, myself. It's possible, wides can really make people look funky though.

As mentioned in previous reply, I used 16mm at a wedding dance with couples in the center. No issues. Also had the couple outdoor with a huge maple in the center 1/3 of the frame, no problem. I shoot a lot with 24mm, but it won't handle many situations where I want more context, etc..

This link shows one place where I probably used a 16-35 when I still owned one

http://www.vadenphotography.com/img/weddings/wedding14.jpg

That near Prairie Creek redwood park at a local tourist attraction.

The feedback in this thread sure stretches my OP framework.

Sep 15, 2024 at 03:21 PM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

melcat wrote:
Back in the 1960s, lenses weren’t generally multicoated. That was initially Zeiss technology, and Pentax had a licence for it,

One little correction here, modern multi-coating (more than 2 coatings) was actually invented by Pentax and released as Super-Multi-Coating (SMC) in 1971. Zeiss licensed it from Pentax as their T* coating, they were partnered at this time and sharing some technology.

Sep 16, 2024 at 08:08 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

mdvaden wrote:
As mentioned in previous reply, I used 16mm at a wedding dance with couples in the center. No issues. Also had the couple outdoor with a huge maple in the center 1/3 of the frame, no problem. I shoot a lot with 24mm, but it won't handle many situations where I want more context, etc..

This link shows one place where I probably used a 16-35 when I still owned one

http://www.vadenphotography.com/img/weddings/wedding14.jpg

That near Prairie Creek redwood park at a local tourist attraction.

The feedback in this thread sure stretches my OP framework.

I'd probably be more concerned about if my flash batteries charged, for an event as mentioned, than 17-40 vs 16-35/4, etc. And I'd generally prefer the 24-70 for event photography

That is a nice photo of the couple in the car, but honestly as far as any framework in the op it mostly sounded like you didn't know much about people photography, since wides tend to cause issues and it's debatable if you even want sharpness for people, But I still suggested several options, more budget and some lightweight as requested in the op, did you look in to any of them?

Sep 16, 2024 at 11:00 AM

mdvaden
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

AmbientMike wrote:
That is a nice photo of the couple in the car, but honestly as far as any framework in the op it mostly sounded like you didn't know much about people photography, since wides tend to cause issues and it's debatable if you even want sharpness for people, But I still suggested several options, more budget and some lightweight as requested in the op, did you look in to any of them?

So far I've looked at everything you and others mentioned two or more times. So far, what has me most interested are the following, including one that I do not believe anybody replied about (Tamron)

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS

Canon RF 16mm 2.8

Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC

Laowa 12mm or 15mm

I suspect the Tamron may be the best for under $600 used, but it's about the same weight as my Canon RF 85mm 1.2 which is around 1100 gr ... If I had over $800 to spend, I'd probably get Canon's RF 14-30mm f4 L.

Sep 16, 2024 at 04:19 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

mdvaden wrote:
So far I've looked at everything you and others mentioned two or more times. So far, what has me most interested are the following, including one that I do not believe anybody replied about (Tamron)

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS

Canon RF 16mm 2.8

Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC

Laowa 12mm or 15mm

I think it could be tough to beat the 16-35/4, might be worthwhile to rent another copy and make sure you didn't just have a bad copy.

My guess is, the 15-30/2.8 Tamron might be one of the best bets to beat the 16-35/4, if you need to do that, i had mentioned it but easy to miss. There's apparently a G2 version, as well, Opticallimits tested on the 5DsR.

I don't really think it'd work for you, but the 20/2.8 Nikkor is quite highly rated, and my Sigma 17-35 last version seemed noticeably better 20mm, corners not so hot at 17mm but that might not matter to you.

Sep 16, 2024 at 04:33 PM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

mdvaden wrote:
Surprising to see $1200-ish lenses presented as options to get for a dozen uses per year. If bought used and depreciation didn't exist, they could substitute as a form of savings. Regarding the Milvus 15mm two replies above, only a used copy would come close to the ceiling of my budget. If the formula is the same as the classic Zeiss 15mm, that one could shave off a couple hundred dollars

For good lenses in a contemporary lens mount, depreciation essentially doesn't exist. Not really a good time to be buying into EF if this is a consideration for you, because yes those will most likely lose value- but if you get an RF lens and hold onto it, the price prob won't budge; might even go up as the dollar weakens over time.

Honestly the RF16 should be on your radar. It's small, it's cheap, and for most people it's more than good enough.
If you're worried about depreciation, don't consider anything EF.

Sep 16, 2024 at 05:55 PM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

ISO1600 wrote:
Honestly the RF16 should be on your radar. It's small, it's cheap, and for most people it's more than good enough.
If you're worried about depreciation, don't consider anything EF.

I agree. Unless you're pro or UWA is your jam, the 16mm f/2.8 is amazing. The RF 15-30 is also a really nice lens (but larger than I wanted for UWA).

We're practically swimming in lenses that seemed impossible only a few years ago in the EF mount. Back in the EF days, the best you could muster was the EF 20mm f/2.8. While it's a decent lens (many disagree), it's also large and kinda heavy. Now we have a 16mm lens that's much smaller and probably better.

Sep 16, 2024 at 06:22 PM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

Sep 16, 2024 at 06:22 PM

mdvaden
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

AmbientMike wrote:
My guess is, the 15-30/2.8 Tamron might be one of the best bets to beat the 16-35/4, if you need to do that, i had mentioned it but easy to miss. There's apparently a G2 version, as well, Opticallimits tested on the 5DsR.

It's tempting to pass on the Tamron. Still hoping to go smaller.

You've been around the block a couple times so I had a question in case you might know. Would a CONTAX / Zeiss 18mm Distagon f/4 have close optical similarity to a Zeiss 18mm 3.5 ZE ?

...

Sep 16, 2024 at 07:22 PM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

What are you trying to achieve, 12 times a year, that will best be done by a Zeiss Distagon but not a $299 16mm f2.8 with autofocus?

Try the RF16. It's a good lens. You can buy it used, and if you hate it, sell it for same price a month later. Or heck, buy and try with Amazon/B&H (i don't, but i know people do it).

Sep 16, 2024 at 09:40 PM

mdvaden
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

ISO1600 wrote:
What are you trying to achieve, 12 times a year, that will best be done by a Zeiss Distagon but not a $299 16mm f2.8 with autofocus?

Try the RF16. It's a good lens. You can buy it used, and if you hate it, sell it for same price a month later. Or heck, buy and try with Amazon/B&H (i don't, but i know people do it).

Apparently it's even less right now. $249 at B&H, $239 Canon USA refurbished, and less used at KEH, MPB, etc..

Given time, I could buy two ultra wide lenses, starting with a light weight compact model, then add another later, possibly saving up for one of Canon's L zooms in an RF mount.

Sep 16, 2024 at 10:14 PM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

I think the last time I bought one was $180 used here. It's hilarious to think that there's plenty of Canon R shooters who won't even give it a chance, because of what they've read.

Almost every R mount lens (i'm pretty sure every R lens that is a fresh design, not a port from EF) uses agressive in-camera optimization, to achieve things that were essentially impossible with DSLR designs. If you don't like this, then you prob should ditch Canon, because this is clearly the direction they are going. I for one welcome it, because it gives us some exciting options that are at times really cheap and unique.

I'm using the 10-18mm on R7 in an Aquatech housing to get some awesome stuff while freediving on reefs here in Okinawa. To get equivalent shots using full frame, I could use the 16mm on an R6 (the lowest price R body supported by Aquatech housings), but realistically would be looking at R6 II (or R5), 15-30, 16, or one of the L zooms. Much more expensive than the path I have taken.

Sep 17, 2024 at 01:52 AM

melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

ISO1600 wrote:
Almost every R mount lens (i'm pretty sure every R lens that is a fresh design, not a port from EF) uses agressive in-camera optimization, to achieve things that were essentially impossible with DSLR designs.

You’re wrong about that. The RF 100–500mm f/4.5–7.1 L IS is a new design with the rear element much farther back than the EF 100–400 Mk II and not using fluorite, and has only a small amount of pincushion distortion and not much vignetting. (I own it, I tested those things, and my tests agree with online reviews.) Lenses I don’t own that also don’t need much in-camera correction include the RF 135mm f/1.8 L IS and the RF 85mm f/1.2 L.

Do you notice a pattern here? Those lenses are fiendishly expensive.

Also too expensive for the OP is the RF 15–35mm f/2.8 IS, which doesn’t have much distortion but does vignette a lot. Probably the rear element is too far back to fit on a DSLR, but its vignette of 4 stops would be usable in a DSLR viewfinder.

It’s true that Canon have made their less expensive lenses even cheaper (and perhaps lighter) by relying on in-camera corrections. At this point they’re just about the only major lens maker trying to sell lenses without weathersealing or hoods. If you need to buy new lenses in this price range, and don’t like those design decisions, Canon is indeed the wrong system.

For many of us, it’s moot because we own a fleet of EF lenses that can be adapted.

Sep 17, 2024 at 03:19 AM

IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

AmbientMike wrote:
my Sigma 17-35 last version seemed noticeably better 20mm, corners not so hot at 17mm but that might not matter to you.

Interestingly enough I almost ended up with that Sigma back when choosing the first "proper" wideangle after switching to Canon, in 2008. It looked good enough back then, especially because it had HSM focusing (by then I've had enough of screw-driven AF or the "coffee grinder" motors on cheapest lenses). But there were really no tests around, not even from Photozone who has reviewed all the Sigma wideangles of the time... except this one.

I still opted for a Tokina 12-24 instead because it was wider (duh) and the switch to 1D was nowhere in sight anyway (it happened in 2009 for me, but by then, the Tokina was gone and I was rocking a Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 L instead, which I still remember fondly - though most likely, I wouldn't have been so enamoured with it on FF now, as it sucked pretty bad even on APS-C at 17mm per the Photozone tests).

Sep 17, 2024 at 04:22 AM

moondigger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

I’m surprised this discussion is still going. Not because it isn’t worth discussing, but because it seems like a general consensus was reached a while back, and trying out either of the recommended options would be easy and inexpensive.

Unless I’m missing something, the most recommended options are the RF 16 f/2.8 (if you go with a prime) and the EF 16-35 f/4L IS (if you want a zoom). As I mentioned much earlier in the thread, I have both and find them both to perform well. There’s also a general agreement among those of us who have used the 16-35 that your old copy must have been underperforming for some reason.

Again, FWIW, I find that I hardly ever use the 16/2.8 because the flexibility of the zoom almost always wins out when I’m shooting. But it may play out differently for you. You may want to get both of them and see which fits into your workflow best. Given their low cost, this may be your best strategy.

Sep 17, 2024 at 07:09 AM

IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

I guess it's going because other people may also start looking for answers to the same question, and their preferences might be different. There's no single unequivocal answer (okay, "16-35/4L IS" is as close to that as humanly possible

), either.

For me, the best UWA for Canon and any compatible mounts? 16-35/4 L IS!
The best lens I've ever had? 16-35/4 L IS!
The best thing in the world since sliced bread? 16-35/4 L IS!
16-35/4 L IS? 16-35/4 L IS!

P.S. I've seen people use the 16/2.8, including two pros (one from TASS and one from Reuters) who use it on their R3 cameras. Though neither holds the lens in high esteem - it seems that for them, it's a "toss in the bag just in case" lens. The OpticalLimits review also gave it one of their lowest scores ever (3/10), noting that, in a nutshell, it's okay on 30MP at f/5.6, but don't you ever dare turn off the corrections. A very different kind of lens vs. the 16-35/4, for sure.

Edited on Sep 17, 2024 at 08:12 AM · View previous versions

Sep 17, 2024 at 08:01 AM

moondigger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Ultra wide lens for Canon - Manual or auto? Canon or 3rd party ?

IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
There's no single unequivocal answer...

Yes, I get that... I just meant that given the OP's stated requirements, a general consensus seems to have emerged for the those two lenses. They're inexpensive and widely available...

Sep 17, 2024 at 08:11 AM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.