POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?

[Ruined]

Just for fun,
ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?

OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
PROs: Offers both rectilinear and fisheye UWA depending on focal length, 16-35mm accepts filters
CONs: No rectilinear option wider than 16mm

-or-
OPTION 2: 11-24mm f/4L
PRO: This one goes to 11. Unusually wide for a FF rectilinear lens.
CONs: Expensive for a single lens, no filters, no fisheye option available, lacks 25-35mm coverage.

Just curious about what the opinions and use case scenarios for people would be 8)

 

[neuroanatomist]

TS-E 11mm f/5.6L

;D

 

[Ruined]

TS-E 11mm f/5.6L

;D

We are leaving the primes out of this one!!

Another option obviously would be 16-35mm f/4 IS plus your lens of choice around $1500 but I was curious about opinions on these two specific options.

 

[Viggo]

Seriously considering to trade the 50 Art for the 16-35 IS.

 

[scottkinfw]

So, option 3

Just for fun,
ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?

OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
PROs: Offers both rectilinear and fisheye UWA depending on focal length, 16-35mm accepts filters
CONs: No rectilinear option wider than 16mm

-or-
OPTION 2: 11-24mm f/4L
PRO: This one goes to 11. Unusually wide for a FF rectilinear lens.
CONs: Expensive for a single lens, no filters, no fisheye option available, lacks 25-35mm coverage.

Just curious about what the opinions and use case scenarios for people would be 8)

 

[sagittariansrock]

Just for fun,
ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?

OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
PROs: Offers both rectilinear and fisheye UWA depending on focal length, 16-35mm accepts filters
CONs: No rectilinear option wider than 16mm

-or-
OPTION 2: 11-24mm f/4L
PRO: This one goes to 11. Unusually wide for a FF rectilinear lens.
CONs: Expensive for a single lens, no filters, no fisheye option available, lacks 25-35mm coverage.

Just curious about what the opinions and use case scenarios for people would be 8)

Why not include the Tamron 15-30/f2.8 VC as an option?

 

[Random Orbits]

Really interested in seeing the 11-24 reviewed. It's hard enough framing at 14mm... it'll be interesting to see how 11mm can be used well.

 

[slclick]

Having the 16-35 f/4L, I really have no desire for anything else, even the same glass with IS.

 

[Luds34]

Just for fun,
ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?

OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
PROs: Offers both rectilinear and fisheye UWA depending on focal length, 16-35mm accepts filters
CONs: No rectilinear option wider than 16mm

-or-
OPTION 2: 11-24mm f/4L
PRO: This one goes to 11. Unusually wide for a FF rectilinear lens.
CONs: Expensive for a single lens, no filters, no fisheye option available, lacks 25-35mm coverage.

Just curious about what the opinions and use case scenarios for people would be 8)

Why not include the Tamron 15-30/f2.8 VC as an option?

That's what I was thinking. After seeing Matt Granger's hands on preview last fall I've been thinking that will be one heck of a good lens. And with it's debut price announced recently? I dunno, if I were in the market for an UWA FF lens, that new Tamron might check all the right boxes.

 

[Ruined]

OK,
Now that we have some voting here were my thoughts behind making this post.

I see a lot of people in the 11-24 rumor thread regretting their purchase of the 16-35mm f/4L IS because the 11-24 will be the new "shiny" UWA lens. Now, I do realize that there is a purpose for everything. Some people may need 11mm rectilinear for a shot, period, depending on their use.

But for the general/landscape photographer who has ~2.5k to spend on UWA lenses I find it difficult to see how the 11-24mm would be superior to an 8-15mm Fisheye + 16-35mm f/4 IS. First of all the latter combo has a much larger focal range - an 8mm-35mm combined versus only 11-24mm. Yes, below 16mm would be fisheye instead of rectilinear and fisheye looks very distorted... But rectilinear below 16mm also looks very distorted, just in a different way.

As I see it, at least with the fisheye+rectilinear you have the option of a completely different perspective you would not have with the rectilinear 11-24 lens alone. And 16mm rectilinear is pretty darn wide on full frame. It just seems there are more creative opportunities and more options in capturing a shot with the 8-15 + 16-35 versus just the 11-24 alone. Yes, the latter might be more exciting as it is new and amazingly wide for rectilinear, but I do not think for 99.9% of people it would make more sense than the 8-15+16-35. Of course if you need 11mm rectilinear, that's what you need.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It just seems there are more creative opportunities and more options in capturing a shot with the 8-15 + 16-35 versus just the 11-24 alone. Yes, the latter might be more exciting as it is new and amazingly wide for rectilinear, but I do not think for 99.9% of people it would make more sense than the 8-15+16-35.

A fisheye lens is...well, a fisheye lens. It's a 'look'. It can have it's creative uses, but I think you're way off base to suggest that only 0.1% of people wanting to go wider than 16mm would be better served by a fisheye lens than a rectilinear lens. Yes, it's possible to defish, but the IQ hit there is much greater than correcting barrel distortion.

Honestly, I think for most people the main advantage to a 8-15 fisheye + 16-35/4 combo over the rumored 11-24/4 is that the two-lens combo is cheaper. Secondarily, the 16-35's longer end means it can be a walkaround lens for some, but your claim that the combo covers 8-35mm is rather specious, as fisheye isn't the same as rectilinear.

I suspect for most wanting wider than 16mm, an 11-24mm zoom would be better than an ultrawide fisheye.

 

[Ruined]

It just seems there are more creative opportunities and more options in capturing a shot with the 8-15 + 16-35 versus just the 11-24 alone. Yes, the latter might be more exciting as it is new and amazingly wide for rectilinear, but I do not think for 99.9% of people it would make more sense than the 8-15+16-35.

A fisheye lens is...well, a fisheye lens. It's a 'look'. It can have it's creative uses, but I think you're way off base to suggest that only 0.1% of people wanting to go wider than 16mm would be better served by a fisheye lens than a rectilinear lens. Yes, it's possible to defish, but the IQ hit there is much greater than correcting barrel distortion.

Honestly, I think for most people the main advantage to a 8-15 fisheye + 16-35/4 combo over the rumored 11-24/4 is that the two-lens combo is cheaper. Secondarily, the 16-35's longer end means it can be a walkaround lens for some, but your claim that the combo covers 8-35mm is rather specious, as fisheye isn't the same as rectilinear.

I suspect for most wanting wider than 16mm, an 11-24mm zoom would be better than an ultrawide fisheye.

I don't think 99% of people will use 11mm effectively. 24mm is what most would commonly use for landscapes and if wider is needed 16mm makes sense. But I have seen tons of misuse of 16mm due to the distortion.

11mm may be wider than 16mm but it has even more distortion, cannot recreate the fisheye effect of a fisheye lens obviously, and honestly how many times will 11mm rect be useful to 99% of people? I understand fisheye is a specialty lens, but I feel 11mm rectilinear is even *more* of a specialty lens than fisheye that simultaneously offers less creative possibilities.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't think 99% of people will use 11mm effectively.

The ability to use a lens 'effectively' is not a prerequisite for desiring (or purchasing) that lens. Also, 'effectively' is a judgement call...and in my judgement many people also utterly fail to use a fisheye lens effectively. IMO, a (rectilinear) UWA shot often needs a close subject for a focal point...but for many, the objective is simply to 'get it all in' and if 16mm isn't wide enough, wider is better. Most people with that objective would likely not choose to 'get it all' but have it all warped with a fisheye lens.

Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom, perhaps the combination of the 8-15 fisheye with an 11-24/4 would offer the best creative potential.

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultrawide lens (well, actually I also have the Rokinon 14/2.8 used mainly for astro). I'd love an even wider TS lens.

 

[Freddie]

The 11-24 would be a great real estate/architectural focal range. i would have to see how it performs but it would be good for that. Currently, I use 17mm TS-E but there are times I'd like to dip into the the wider ranges.

 

[pwp]

EF 14mm f/2.8II
This is one classy UWA.

-pw

 

[Machaon]

Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultra wide lens...

Neuro, do you use your TS-E exclusively on a tripod, or do you often find yourself shooting handheld?

 

[Ruined]

I don't think 99% of people will use 11mm effectively.

The ability to use a lens 'effectively' is not a prerequisite for desiring (or purchasing) that lens. Also, 'effectively' is a judgement call...and in my judgement many people also utterly fail to use a fisheye lens effectively. IMO, a (rectilinear) UWA shot often needs a close subject for a focal point...but for many, the objective is simply to 'get it all in' and if 16mm isn't wide enough, wider is better. Most people with that objective would likely not choose to 'get it all' but have it all warped with a fisheye lens.

Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom, perhaps the combination of the 8-15 fisheye with an 11-24/4 would offer the best creative potential.

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultrawide lens (well, actually I also have the Rokinon 14/2.8 used mainly for astro). I'd love an even wider TS lens.

I think the problem is the projected cost of the 11-24 alone is so high getting another overlapping lens is probably out of the range of most.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultra wide lens...

Neuro, do you use your TS-E exclusively on a tripod, or do you often find yourself shooting handheld?

Almost always on a tripod, though I have shot handheld a few times with the TS-E 24 (using shift, not tilt).

 

[sagittariansrock]

Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultra wide lens...

Neuro, do you use your TS-E exclusively on a tripod, or do you often find yourself shooting handheld?

Almost always on a tripod, though I have shot handheld a few times with the TS-E 24 (using shift, not tilt).

+1
Can't imagine myself holding that beast of lens+body combo with one hand, in front of my face to use live view, and changing the tilt movements with the other hand.

 

[privatebydesign]

Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultra wide lens...

Neuro, do you use your TS-E exclusively on a tripod, or do you often find yourself shooting handheld?

Almost always on a tripod, though I have shot handheld a few times with the TS-E 24 (using shift, not tilt).

+1
Can't imagine myself holding that beast of lens+body combo with one hand, in front of my face to use live view, and changing the tilt movements with the other hand.

You don't need to, you can work out the tilt you want before you lift the camera to your eye, the 'J distance' is the key and tilt tables give you the values you need, the shift is easy to do through the viewfinder and focus will follow on from your tilt angle and desired plane of focus angle. It sounds much worse than it is but once you start playing with the TS-E's it becomes second nature.