You have thought about this a lot I see.
There's one that is so high on my wish list that I cannot even think of two others at the moment: a RF-replacement for the 16-35 f/4L. I prefer one that is compact to store and with a 77mm filter thread, to effectively combine to a 77mm-almost-f/4-trinity with the 24-105 f/4L and 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1. All 77mm allows to carry just a small set of circular screw-on filters that fit on all lenses if the added functionality of the bulky filter systems with square and rectangular filters isn't required (and makes the filter part of the kit more affordable if you don't use filters too often).
With vignetting so easily fixed in post...why is it such a deal breaker for you?
Thanks in advance!!
That's why a Sigma 14mm 1.8 is useful to me! Vignetting 2.28 at f/1.8, 1.76 at f/2.0 and 0.84 at f/2.8I shoot landscapes and enjoy nightscapes with the milky way as well. The 15-35 has close to 5 stops of vignetting in the corners...Petty extreme, but not horrible if shot at ISO 100 in the day (they would correct to noise levels of approximately iso 3200). But at night shooting at 3200 or 6400 to avoid star trails, pushing the corners pushes the noise quite high. (3200+5 stops= iso102,400) I can shoot the 16-35 at f/4, have greater depth of field, and the corners only have about 2.5 stops of vignetting. Comparing the daylight example, if I shoot the same shutter speed, I'd be at ISO 200 (f/4 vs f/2.8) but the corners would only be pushed to equivalent of ISO 1600 with corrections.
I've recently been shooting nightscapes with a tracker at lower isos (100-400) so less pushing of the corners tends to look better to my eye since I can keep them to a more reasonable value. I'm sure I could make nice photos with the RF15-35, but the value proposition wasn't there for me personally.
That's why a Sigma 14mm 1.8 is useful to me! Vignetting 2.28 at f/1.8, 1.76 at f/2.0 and 0.84 at f/2.8
Thanks, I'll have to check that out! Might be a worthy replacement for my rokinon 14/2.8. But ideally I'd love a zoom to keep my kit lighter and more "hikeable" than a bag full of special purpose primes.
By the time any of these lenses turn up you'd be better off just using the ef40 and adapter or wait for the 50 f2/f1.8 yes i know those ain't pancakes but doubt they will make anything smaller than that for a long time if ever. I'm a big fan of the 40 that's what I'd do.