Is there a fairly small/light UWA solution for full-frame? Probably doesn't have to be a large aperture.
Thanks.
Thanks.
FF UWA?
- Thread starter Cory
- Start date
There is also the tamron 17-35 f2.8, you have to buy it used. It is about a 1 lbs and canon 16-35 f4 is 1.3 lbs. The canon is better all around lens what the tamron has going for it is the price it is around $300, I have seen them go for $150-350.
the smallest one I can think of is the Voigtlander 20mm 3.5
the smallest one I can think of is the Voigtlander 20mm 3.5
Upvote
0
If you don't need IS then I would recommend the 17-40L. It's lighter and smaller than the 16-35 f/4L IS and pairs nicely on a 6D. You can get away with using a small travel tripod with this set up. The downside however is that it's not as sharp as the 16-35 but a decent copy is still very good in the center and mid-frame, especially at the wide end. It closely matches the 24-105L (MkI) in terms of IQ (I can't tell the two apart in overlapping FL).
Opinions on the 17-40 are a bit polarized but my personal experience with it was quite positive. It was my fave lens for a while and I've got some great shots with it in the past. The price has come down a bit on it and it can be had for a bargain used.
Opinions on the 17-40 are a bit polarized but my personal experience with it was quite positive. It was my fave lens for a while and I've got some great shots with it in the past. The price has come down a bit on it and it can be had for a bargain used.
Upvote
0
+1 on the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
Light, sealed, IS, rock solid USM AF, and part of the new generation of very sharp UWA zooms we had been waiting forever for. I also can personally vouch that the filter threads are impressively close to the front element if you are a 4x6 front filterer, which helps fight vignetting on the 16mm end.
I would pay the extra money over the 17-40L even if you don't need IS. It's simply a stellar lens and worth a few more ounces in your bag over the 17-40.
That said, the 17-40 used to be a pretty good seller as the 'affordable' FF landscaper's lens, and I'd imagine you could score one of those for a song from resale/refurb outlets. If you are only shooting f/8-f/11 landscapes on a tripod, it's a decent call if you are cost-constrained.
(I still would get the 16-35 f/4L IS, though.
)
- A
Light, sealed, IS, rock solid USM AF, and part of the new generation of very sharp UWA zooms we had been waiting forever for. I also can personally vouch that the filter threads are impressively close to the front element if you are a 4x6 front filterer, which helps fight vignetting on the 16mm end.
I would pay the extra money over the 17-40L even if you don't need IS. It's simply a stellar lens and worth a few more ounces in your bag over the 17-40.
That said, the 17-40 used to be a pretty good seller as the 'affordable' FF landscaper's lens, and I'd imagine you could score one of those for a song from resale/refurb outlets. If you are only shooting f/8-f/11 landscapes on a tripod, it's a decent call if you are cost-constrained.
(I still would get the 16-35 f/4L IS, though.
)- A
Upvote
0
Thanks much everyone. My issue with the 16-35 is that my almost-all-the-time lens is the Canon 35 2.0 IS and, in the name of minimalism, resist overlap of focal lengths.
Would a great solution be to put the 14 2.8 II on my wish list or possibly even rent that for the upcoming Italy trip?
Would a great solution be to put the 14 2.8 II on my wish list or possibly even rent that for the upcoming Italy trip?
Upvote
0
How small do you want to go?
The Voigtländer 20mm f/3.5 is basically a pancake lens. It's manual focus but for the purposes I use it for that is not an issue. I just took a trip out to California and this lens and my Sigma 35mm were the only 2 lens I brought and both served me well. While manual focus it does have electronic aperture control and does report EXIF data. Test chart reviewers will say it's soft in the corners, but there is something about the draw, rendering I really like about this lens. Oh and the all metal build quality and the focus ring is perfection.
But don't take my word for it. I read Dustin's review and it felt like I could have wrote it myself as he basically says everything I feel about the lens.
https://dustinabbott.net/2016/04/voigtlander-color-skopar-20mm-f3-5-sl-ii-review/
Otherwise I echo others, the 16-35 f/4L IS is the defacto standard today. And the 17-40L is no slouch either and be had for pretty darn cheap. Always seems to be one on CL where I live.
The Voigtländer 20mm f/3.5 is basically a pancake lens. It's manual focus but for the purposes I use it for that is not an issue. I just took a trip out to California and this lens and my Sigma 35mm were the only 2 lens I brought and both served me well. While manual focus it does have electronic aperture control and does report EXIF data. Test chart reviewers will say it's soft in the corners, but there is something about the draw, rendering I really like about this lens. Oh and the all metal build quality and the focus ring is perfection.
But don't take my word for it. I read Dustin's review and it felt like I could have wrote it myself as he basically says everything I feel about the lens.
https://dustinabbott.net/2016/04/voigtlander-color-skopar-20mm-f3-5-sl-ii-review/
Otherwise I echo others, the 16-35 f/4L IS is the defacto standard today. And the 17-40L is no slouch either and be had for pretty darn cheap. Always seems to be one on CL where I live.
Upvote
0
Depends on what you want to do with it. If you want *a* lens that is small and wide and FF, sure, go get the Voigtlander. But it's not exactly a shoot from the hip walkaround lens unless you enjoy f/8 range focusing.
I've found that AF is a really nice thing -- even for a lens you might think is a dedicated landscape tool.
That said, I'm not sure what your needs are.
- A
I've found that AF is a really nice thing -- even for a lens you might think is a dedicated landscape tool.
That said, I'm not sure what your needs are.
- A
Upvote
0
Thanks. Sweeping indoor shots and proper UWA landscapes. Maybe I should hold out for either the Canon 14mm or something that might come out one day. No emergency, really, and I might just travel with the 35 and call it a day.ahsanford said:
Upvote
0
So. various options:
Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS - great lens and you'll be very familiar with it if you have the 35. But not that wide
Canon 20mm f/2.8 - bit old. No, very old. But still some people like it.
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 - Great and inexpensive. super sharp! but manual focus only.
Laowa 12mm f/2.8 - Outstanding lens. also manual focus only.
If I had to choose (and a zoom was out of the question) I would certainly buy the Samyang 14mm first. This is one manual focus lens I've never regretted buying.
Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS - great lens and you'll be very familiar with it if you have the 35. But not that wide
Canon 20mm f/2.8 - bit old. No, very old. But still some people like it.
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 - Great and inexpensive. super sharp! but manual focus only.
Laowa 12mm f/2.8 - Outstanding lens. also manual focus only.
If I had to choose (and a zoom was out of the question) I would certainly buy the Samyang 14mm first. This is one manual focus lens I've never regretted buying.
Upvote
0
Cory said:
16-35. There is a large difference in AOV between the 14 and the 35 -- too much. The 16-35 is much more useful, and the use cases would be different even if your focal lengths over lapped. The 35 f/2 IS has better low light/narrower DOF than the 16-35 f/4 IS, and the 16-35 f/4 IS is good at 35mm (better at 16) so do don't need to have as many lens changes.
The 14mm f/2.8 II is light and compact, and it is still expensive new. I got mine used and sold it a year ago but I liked that lens a lot. The 11-24 made the 14 f/2.8 II obsolete for many people. If you are considering primes, you can look into the 24 f/2.8 IS. It isn't that expensive, especially though the refurb store on sale, and it is small and light. However, if you are looking wider, the 16-35 f/4 IS is a very good choice.
Upvote
0
Cory said:
Proper UWA landscapes generally require filtering. You can front filter the 14L but you'll need quite the erector set and large filters to do it. Strongly recommend a lens with filter threads if you can get one.
Indoor shots -- interiors, not of moving people and such -- dramatically benefit from IS. Lets you keep the ISO down to earth when a flash isn't allowed.
So I'm still sticking to my 16-35 f/4L IS recommendation (overlap notwithstanding), but the 24 f/2.8 IS might do. ('Sweeping' to me says in the 14-20mm range, though.)
- A
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
On that note, I live in a 24-35mm sort of space when I travel, and on my upcoming Scandinavian trip (largely doing walkabout in major cities -- it's not a landscape trip) I will likely only pack the 35 f/2 IS and the 16-35 f/4L IS. The former for walkabouts, street, unscripted time out in town, night shots, etc. while the latter is for the great vistas and great interiors we'll come across in our more touristy moves.
I think the two lenses are for different use cases, so I find that combo actually quite versatile to travel with.
- A
Upvote
0
Cory said:
https://www.adorama.com/vt2035eos.html
https://www.keh.com/shop/voigtlander-20mm-f-3-5-color-skopar-sl-ii-aspherical-manual-focus-lens-for-canon-ef-mount-52.html?m=Grouped&prod_id=1041796&aid=1041796&rmatt=tsid:1014300|cid:676289759|agid:35136648859|tid
la-268507909321|crid:149066874911|nw:g|rnd:2080419768878891|dvc:c|adp:1o1&gclid=CNnI0M__7dMCFc1gfgodJYcECA
Upvote
0
I've pretty much stopped taking an UWA zoom traveling and instead rely on hand held stitching using the 35 f2 IS. Now software is so good I find for general travel wide angles, interiors, vistas and landscapes, the stitching gives better results with less hassle.
Here is a comparison from a recent trip to Guatemala:-
1: 9 shot hand held stitch from 35 f2 IS.
2: Single capture from 11-24 f4.
3: 100% crop from 1.
4: 100% crop from 2.
Here is a comparison from a recent trip to Guatemala:-
1: 9 shot hand held stitch from 35 f2 IS.
2: Single capture from 11-24 f4.
3: 100% crop from 1.
4: 100% crop from 2.
Attachments
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Yeah, but in fairness once we hit the UWA f/4 territory we're not talking subject isolation here. No one buys a 16-35 to exclusively shoot at 35mm and f/4 to frame head shots. Far better tools.
And how many photographers really shoot that style??? I find some of the joy of taking a good wide angle shot is taking the time to plan it out, compose it, etc. And frankly for those few and far between (but literal) "shoot from the hip" type street photogs who are being stealthy, that's exactly what they do. They go to manual focus, set to f/8, hyperfocal distance, and just fire off shot after shot hoping "something sticks".
Upvote
0
Similar threads
