I'm ready to move to something substantially better than my Canon 16-35 f/2.8 for wide angle interior work. I'm interested in something wider than 20mm, but I don't need to go as wide as Canon's own 14mm II (which I can't afford anyway). My cameras are Canon full frame.
I've worked with the Sigma 12-24 but eventually sold it. Lots of reasons. No need to go into detail.
Looking over the possibilities, there doesn't appear to be many that will provide the noticeable improvement I'm looking for without breaking the bank. In fact, I'm kind of stymied.
I don't need a zoom. A prime at 15mm or 18mm would probably do fine as I already own a 20mm prime. I don't have any problem working with manual focus/stop down mode with an adapter (and already do with some nice M42s and AI-S Nikons).
Zeiss' new 18mm is tempting, but I don't know of anyone using it, nor do I have any sense of how the older f/4 performs. Any suggestions?
Wait for the Zeiss ZE mount announcement on September 15 and see if they
offer a ZE 18/3.5 but don't expect it to be affordable. It will go for around $1400.
I would actually think that Canon might try to make a 14-24mm zoom to compete with
the Nikon. Wait for Photokina and evaluate your options. Hopefully Mark's G adapter
will be shipping in quantity soon. If it does, the Nikon 14-24G would be your logical
choice, I think.
If you're using the Mark I 16-35L, you'll find that the Mark II is a very useful upgrade . . .
If you have that already, the only way to go is the 14-24G, new CZ18, old CZ21 or the Leica 15mm (which is monstrously expensive and needs a mirror mod).
trumpet_guy wrote:
Wait for the Zeiss ZE mount announcement on September 15 and see if they
offer a ZE 18/3.5 but don't expect it to be affordable. It will go for around $1400.
I would actually think that Canon might try to make a 14-24mm zoom to compete with
the Nikon. Wait for Photokina and evaluate your options. Hopefully Mark's G adapter
will be shipping in quantity soon. If it does, the Nikon 14-24G would be your logical
choice, I think.
These are all good ideas, and I will definitely be waiting for Photokina as well as attending a big show in NYC this October. As far as the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 goes, $1,400 isn't that far off from what I can get for my 16-35 if I decide to sell it.
Interestingly, I recently did a review of my 16-35 files. More than 80% of them were shot at, near ... or longer than ... 18mm!
Fact is, shooting large rooms at extreme wide angles isn't really the best or most flattering way to present an interior. I generally reserve super-wide for extremely small rooms where capturing the entire room is mandatory ... like a magazine series I recently completed on "designer" kid's rooms. Other than assignments like that, working at 16mm is a rare occurence.
I hear you . . . for interiors, there seems to be a 'magic' focal length to which a WA zoom always seems to drift: the majority of my interiors get shot at 17-21mm, with 'cameos' at 28mm and cramped spaces as wide as possible . . .
...interesting point. I imagine we all have our own 'magic' focal length we like to visualise and draw in. Mine is 28mm and on the better paid jobs this is my starting point and then wider as necessary depending on the space, or longer for details.
On the lower paid jobs, where most often the brief means showing room size over interior design detail, there the wide zoom and its 18-21 focal lengths are most used.
But anyway, to get back to the O.P., the mkII really is a marked improvement over the original canon 16-35, any alternative wide angle zooms should be compared to that, not the mkI, (allthough personally I am moving towards primes with the wide zoom for the extra wide and quick and dirty work!)
marcwilson wrote:
...interesting point. I imagine we all have our own 'magic' focal length we like to visualise and draw in. Mine is 28mm and on the better paid jobs this is my starting point and then wider as necessary depending on the space, or longer for details. On the lower paid jobs, where most often the brief means showing room size over interior design detail, there the wide zoom and its 18-21 focal lengths are most used.
If the rooms are large enough (and they usually are; I work mostly on big estates around 20,000 square feet or more), I'll try to start at 35mm and go wider from there, as necessary. I do all of my hand held detail shots at 100mm (Canon 100mm f/2.8) but will sometimes add the 1.4 extender. I also shoot detail with the 70-200 f/2.8.
All of my jobs, by the way, seem to be low-paying .... :-)
