Wide Angled Lens To Complete My Trilogy

IanD

IanD

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,601
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening folks,

I'm looking to get my final lens to complete my trilogy of lens that i've always wanted since slowly progressing with my photography.

I'm very lucky to already own a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L mkII and a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L mkII

What I want/need now is a wide angled lens to go with them.

I've done a little googling here and there but prefer to try and get opinions from members on here, professional, hobbyists etc, who have these lens.

The one that screams at me is the Canon 16-35 F/4L - the reviews on this are very, very good. But, are there other wider options that would give me just as good results, if not better.

The only one to not bother telling me about, as you'll make me really jealous, is the Canon 11-24mm f/4 L :( Anything else, i'd love your thoughts on please

Thanks for looking
 
The 16-35 F4 is very good vfm. I ditched my 24-105 after I bought it as it was on my camera so much. I don't think there is anything comparable really, the F2.8 is heavier, more expensive and optically no better. The 11-24 is a cool lens but is 3 times the price, double the weight and can't take filters. I guess your other option is primes. 14mm is nice but again can't take a front filter.
 
Cheers Wayne, yeah, didn't consider the f/2.8L, either version, for very long at all, and as for the 11-24, I can dream!

Not really considering prime lenses as I prefer zoom, albeit only a little and it overs me right up to 24mm hopefully
 
24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 version II's in the bag already.

I know you don't want to hear it but it has to be the 11-24mm! Or something unique like a 17mm ts-e for the fun of it.

Buy one of those special lenses on a 24month 0% credit card, pay the minimum monthly amount in time by direct debut every month, balance transfer as cheap as possible in 24 months time and look after the lens.

When you come to sell it and it is still worth 75% what it cost you won't have lost much at all. With what you've paid off on the credit card (which you will have hardly missed on a monthly basis) I'd imagine what you sell it for will clear the balance.

Bear in mind the £500-£1000 that you were going to spend on a cheaper lens can sit there in your account and pay the monthly credit card minimum balance payments it's doable.

Good bit of gear addicted syndrome mathematics hey?!?!
 
The 16-35/4 produces the same/similar quality as/to the 11-24 and the latter is only phenominal because they've achieved that quality from 11m....spectacular.

Bob
 
Craig_85 said:
24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 version II's in the bag already.

I know you don't want to hear it but it has to be the 11-24mm! Or something unique like a 17mm ts-e for the fun of it.

Buy one of those special lenses on a 24month 0% credit card, pay the minimum monthly amount in time by direct debut every month, balance transfer as cheap as possible in 24 months time and look after the lens.

When you come to sell it and it is still worth 75% what it cost you won't have lost much at all. With what you've paid off on the credit card (which you will have hardly missed on a monthly basis) I'd imagine what you sell it for will clear the balance.

Bear in mind the £500-£1000 that you were going to spend on a cheaper lens can sit there in your account and pay the monthly credit card minimum balance payments it's doable.

Good bit of gear addicted syndrome mathematics hey?!?!
Click to expand...

Oh I wish Craig - you make it sound so achievable and I suppose it is really

My bugbear with that lens is the fact that it doesn't take filters. That's a huge amount of money to spend on a less that you can't get fully creative with ND filters etc etc
 
Canon Bob said:
The 16-35/4 produces the same/similar quality as/to the 11-24 and the latter is only phenominal because they've achieved that quality from 11m....spectacular.

Bob
Click to expand...

Indeed it is Bob but not likely the one I can get :(
 
go too wide in a building and this happens

aDXZr2i.jpg

taken at 12 mm ( Unedited )

the side fold inward
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
That's more to do with pointing the camera upwards instead of keeping it parallel to the walls, but converging verticals can be a problem.
Click to expand...

True and the latter was the reason for posting the photo. Just so the OP realises one problem with wide angle lenses in an enclosed space. Possibly better to take ovelapping shots and stitch them together

Oh that was taken inside San Francisco city hall with my D300 and 12-24mm Nikon DX lens
 
Last edited:
If F2.8 is not an issue then I cannot recommend the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS highly enough.

I use both the 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 and 16-35 F4 L IS, and they are very close in IQ, coupled with the 100-400 L IS Mk2 as my Landscape setup - though my 800 F5.6 L IS does get some landscape use too ;)

The 16-35 F4 L IS produces images that bare well above it's price in my opinion - you might have guessed that I love this lens! Try one out and then decide......................
 
Think i'm gonna have to try one out and see if it's wide enough John
 
Wayne Els said:
Why?
Click to expand...

OP stated "I'm very lucky to already own a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L mkII and a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L mkII"

So thats 24-200mm covered with two very good lenses and that he has a preference for zooms. The 11-24 would fit perfectly into the requirements without significantly overlapping the 24-70
 
Byker28i said:
but overlaps a lot of the 24-70 range?
Click to expand...

Byker28i said:
OP stated "I'm very lucky to already own a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L mkII and a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L mkII"

So thats 24-200mm covered with two very good lenses and that he has a preference for zooms. The 11-24 would fit perfectly into the requirements without significantly overlapping the 24-70
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this, if you see my first post higher up the 11-24 was my recommendation.

@IanD i know it doesn't take front filters but I believe you can put rear mount gels inside as nd filters.
 
Thanks again all - your advice is very much appreciated

@Craig_85 - will you stop it!!! You're gonna get me in debt ;) I am tempted but I may get the 16-35 for now and it will hold decent value if I then choose to go down the route you are leading me. I am dissapointed that the 11-24 hasn't got the ability to take filters as i'd only need a step-up filter maybe, hey ho - can't have it all eh
 
Lee makes an SW 150 adapter ring to fit the 11-24, but you get vignette at 11-12mm
I haven't one of these lenses but I have some 180mm square glass and film filters (polarisers and graduated) that can be held onto my samyang 14mm with elastic bands if required.
 
Get the 16-35 F4, it's brilliant. Like you, I've got the 24-70 2.8 MK II and have the 70-200 2.8 (MK I) and find that a great combination of lens - the modest overlap betweej the 16-35 and 24-70 helps to reduce need to swapping lenses unnecessarily. Assuming you have filters (reading betwenn the lines from one of your posts above) they will fit as the 70-200 also has a 77mm front element. I've got Lee filters and with the wide angle 77mm adaptor there is no vignetting @ 16mm.

Get it bought and get out there :)
 
LostInSpace said:
Get the 16-35 F4, it's brilliant. Like you, I've got the 24-70 2.8 MK II and have the 70-200 2.8 (MK I) and find that a great combination of lens - the modest overlap betweej the 16-35 and 24-70 helps to reduce need to swapping lenses unnecessarily. Assuming you have filters (reading betwenn the lines from one of your posts above) they will fit as the 70-200 also has a 77mm front element. I've got Lee filters and with the wide angle 77mm adaptor there is no vignetting @ 16mm.

Get it bought and get out there :)
Click to expand...

I'm on it ;) Cheers
 
Craig_85 said:
Let's play a game and guess what it is!

Porsche 968 but I'm not certain...
Click to expand...

Could be as they had 5 spoke wheels like that, but the lights were more flush with the bodywork? Or it's because of the tiny pic
 
Canon Bob said:
You can actually get glass ND's for Canon rear mount filtered lenses nowadays...... aurora-aperture
Click to expand...

Have you tried this Bob? Quite a few advantages and obvious practical disadvantages, but those alternative giant slot-in systems are hardly convenient either. I wonder if it seals reliably?

Craig_85 said:
Let's play a game and guess what it is!

Porsche 968 but I'm not certain...
Click to expand...

Good shout :)
 
realspeed said:
True and the latter was the reason for posting the photo. Just so the OP realises one problem with wide angle lenses in an enclosed space. Possibly better to take ovelapping shots and stitch them together

Oh that was taken inside San Francisco city hall with my D300 and 12-24mm Nikon DX lens
Click to expand...

I think wide angle lenses are possibly amongst the most difficult to use well. Get it right and you can get a look that may be very striking but it's easy to get a result that looks a little too striking for all the wrong reasons and maybe a little too funky :D It's worth noting too that good wide angle lenses may be very well designed and corrected and give less distortion than your average kit lens :D

I do think that wide angle lenses need a lot of thought and care to use well.
 
HoppyUK said:
Have you tried this Bob? .....
Click to expand...

I have a set of 4 ND's in various strengths and have installed the adapters on my lenses but have yet to use them in anger.....it was funded via a Kickstarter campaign and the filters arrived last month. Initial tests show negligable colourcast on white illuminated at 5600k but it's possible things might be different at other tempertures.
 
I went for the 16-35 f4 is very good. And I don’t mind the overlap with 24-70. Also got the 17mm TSE and that is a lot of fun for architecture and certain landscapes. 11-24 would be very nice to have!
 
Canon Bob said:
I have a set of 4 ND's in various strengths and have installed the adapters on my lenses but have yet to use them in anger.....it was funded via a Kickstarter campaign and the filters arrived last month. Initial tests show negligable colourcast on white illuminated at 5600k but it's possible things might be different at other tempertures.
Click to expand...

They really need to be tested in sunlight to check for infrared pollution, ie real world, though flash is also rich in IR (possibly too rich, sometimes extending deep into IR).

I played about with rear mounting a bit, using rings of that magnetic plastic stuff, that should give a good light-tight seal, but there's no room for anything much around there. It was doable, but not really worth the hassle with my 17-40. An 11-24 is a different matter though, could be good :)
 
Last edited:
You all speak about Zooms but didnt the OP say wide angle, not necessary a zoom, I have the IRIX 15mm f2.4 it has a 95mm front glass and you can buy screw on filters (if thats your thing) for them and they also do their own filters, oh and they can take rear gel filters also.
Their price are reasonable and they do say, very little distortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top