The lens is at its shortest when zoomed to 22mm. If you have ever used one of the ubiquitous EFS 18-55 lenses you know it’s understandable when size is one factor in the design.Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?
Many UWA zooms do not extend – they have an inner barrel that moves in and out during zooming, but all of that movement is behind the filter threads. However, the RF 15-35/2.8 does have a traditional extending barrel.Although the photo looks real, I find it strange that the zoom ring shows a focal length of between 20 & 24mm yet there appears to be no extension of the lens? Probably just a digital composite photo?
Categorizing and prioritizing every quality of what makes a good lens a good lens, if that one characteristic isn't at the very bottom of that list, it's damn near close to it.
I can't take any pictures because the light lowered, but damn if this lens doesn't fit in my pocket!!!! What a great lens!!!
For Landscapers there are several criteria. Firstly, size and weight are important factors. No one wants a long walk / hike with a bunch of heavy lenses. Brightness, less so as usually these lenses are heavily stopped down for extended depth of field. Landscaper's (generally) couldn't give a hoot at the lens' wide open sharpness. Then there's flare resistance, Ability to natively wield a pair of filters with out mechanical vignette. Strong light leak prevention for long exposures and nice looking sun stars (best so far is the ef 16-35IIL). Low CA and geometric distortion...too corrected and it'll look like an architectural lens, too little and everything looks like it has strong barrel distortion.You can take as many landscapes as you want from a tripod. That's what i meant. Probably 90 percent of people want a lens like this for landscapes from a tripod. One stop of light won't make a difference.
But for them a 2.8 aperture is a hindrance because of the lens weight.
You are, of course, correct. I was referring to the DG DN and not the HSM, which weighs about 1.15kg. The DG DN lens seems like a good option for RF if/when Sigma decides to produce it for the RF mount.You seem to confuse it with the DG DN lens, which doesn't exist for the EF mount.
Do you actually pick the focal length you want and then compose your image? Personally, I select the composition and perspective I want, and if the lens on the camera cannot deliver that then I change lenses. I don’t care about the focal length that ends up written to the EXIF.Quickly choosing 15/16mm could be difficult to eyeball. But I have a feeling 14mm might be too wide for outdoor shots.
I may end up adding two white dots for 15 and 16mm if those FL get used more often than 14mm.
probably because my only experience at 14mm is the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, also when looking at the ef 11-24, it has a large front lens. At what point (mm wise) is a large front end required?