POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?

[Hjalmarg1]

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)

I have the 16-35mm f4L IS and the 15mm f2.8 fisheye and I am covered with them up to 180 degrees. I rarelyt shoot wider than 16mm in FF.

 

[sdsr]

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.

I realize that 1mm makes a significant difference at the wide end, but you can probably get a fairly good idea by renting a Sigma 12-24 (or their 8-16 for APS-C). Or you could take a look at lots of photos taken at 12mm with the 12-24 here (most seem to be taken with FF cameras; or do a similar search for the Sigma 8-12 @ 8mm) - some users there seem to "get" it:

https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=232&camera=none&perpage=100&focal_min=12&focal_max=12&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

 

[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.

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.

You know, I think you'd mentioned the Tables when I started off with the TS-E and then I completely forgot about it and was making my life difficult....
Thanks a bunch!

 

[privatebydesign]

You know, I think you'd mentioned the Tables when I started off with the TS-E and then I completely forgot about it and was making my life difficult....
Thanks a bunch!

No problem, it is easy to forget stuff like this.

Here is the one I use from Keith Cooper, a member here, over at his site Northlight Images http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html

One thing they could do to greatly improve the functionality of the TS lenses is gear the tilt to a much finer degree, I rarely want 8º but would love much finer control between 0º and 4º's.

 

[pedro]

I have the 16-35 F/2.8 USM II

An 11-24 F/4.0 would be a nice lens, but Canon are asking way too much for a hobbyist like me. But, maybe sometime down the road a third party manufacturer like Sigma or Tamron comes up with a similar product, I mean a 12-24 update from Sigma with a permanent aperture like F/4.0 would be great. Or as Tamron just announced the 15-30 F/2.8, who knows what they have in their sleeve next...;-)

 

[StudentOfLight]

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

 

[StudentOfLight]

You know, I think you'd mentioned the Tables when I started off with the TS-E and then I completely forgot about it and was making my life difficult....
Thanks a bunch!

No problem, it is easy to forget stuff like this.

Here is the one I use from Keith Cooper, a member here, over at his site Northlight Images http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html

One thing they could do to greatly improve the functionality of the TS lenses is gear the tilt to a much finer degree, I rarely want 8º but would love much finer control between 0º and 4º's.

+1, I'd also like the ability to view four areas or two areas (comparison) in live view. Would definitely speed up the setup when using tilt.

 

[gregorywood]

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)

I have the 16-35mm f4L IS and the 15mm f2.8 fisheye and I am covered with them up to 180 degrees. I rarelyt shoot wider than 16mm in FF.

I have the 17-40mm f/4L and the 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye as well and am quite happy with the combination. I may upgrade from the 15mm to the 8-16mm f/4L at some point, but for now, I'm okay.

 

[JPAZ]

I've got the Rokinon 14 f/2.8 and the EF 17-40. Been thinking about the 16-35 f/4 and selling the 17-40. But, the lightweight of the 17-40 and the change in $ to get the newer lens has kept me from jumping. I don't use the UWA that often and with post-processing, the final image is usually fine.

 

[DRR]

Between the two I would choose the first option, the 16-35 and the 8-15.

Reason being... the 16-35 is already a very good, useful walkaround wide. I can have that as a single lens and get a very good variety of shots in most situations. I would miss 24-35mm range much more than I would miss 11-16mm. Plus, you have the fisheye for more creative applications also.

The 11-24 seems like a much more specialized tool. A unique lens for sure, but does not really suit my shooting style.

 

[iaind]

Already have 8-15 fisheye with 16-35 f4 on order awaiting delivery. so option 1 it is

 

[Lee Jay]

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

Sure there is - defish the fisheye.

I'd choose what I did choose - the Sigma 15mm fisheye. It's f/2.8, relatively inexpensive, and optically excellent.

 

[dcm]

It really depends on where you are coming from.

Ultrawide has its uses and I prefer to capture images rather than stitch or defish them. I already have the 8-15 and 17-40. I haven't felt compelled to replace the 17-40 with either 16-35 for the incremental improvement.

The 11-24 gives me some new capabilities to consider, but I won't really know if I like the extra width until I use. If the quality is as good as other recent lens releases I'm more likely to get the 11-24 as a complement to the 8-15. Not sure if I will hold on to the 17-40 since it overlaps 2 zooms.

Primes are also a part of the equation for this range. I considered the 14mm options, but am leaning towards the 17 TSE. It sits nicely in the middle of the 11-24 range and offers additional capabilities when I am ready to go down that path.

I think the 8-15, 11-24, and 17 TSE combination would cover all of my needs for the foreseeable future.

 

[privatebydesign]

It really depends on where you are coming from.

Ultrawide has its uses and I prefer to capture images rather than stitch or defish them. I already have the 8-15 and 17-40. I haven't felt compelled to replace the 17-40 with either 16-35 for the incremental improvement.

The 11-24 gives me some new capabilities to consider, but I won't really know if I like the extra width until I use. If the quality is as good as other recent lens releases I'm more likely to get the 11-24 as a complement to the 8-15. Not sure if I will hold on to the 17-40 since it overlaps 2 zooms.

Primes are also a part of the equation for this range. I considered the 14mm options, but am leaning towards the 17 TSE. It sits nicely in the middle of the 11-24 range and offers additional capabilities when I am ready to go down that path.

I think the 8-15, 11-24, and 17 TSE combination would cover all of my needs for the foreseeable future.

Who told you that? The 16-35 f4 IS is a substantial leap in IQ over the 17-40 unless you only shoot at apertures that all lenses are equally bad.