Wide Angle lens for my 6D

[kalich]

Hello,

I am a newbie to this forum. I would like to have your suggestions for my next lens to use for my Canon 6D. I already have a 24-105L IS, 50mm 1.4, and a 100mm 2.8 Macro lens. I am looking for a wide angle lens for my 1 week next trip to Utah ( Bryce/Zion National Park and of course to the Grand Cayon ). My budget is ~ $1000. I can sell my current lens to get more $$$ for the big wide lens. Please let me know.
Thank you

 

[Loswr]

If you need wider than 24mm, then you're looking at the 17-40mm f/4L or the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The 17-40L fits your budget, and stopped down to f/8-11 it's a decent lens. You could also rent the 16-35L II for the trip, but for landscape use the 17-40L will do fine.

 

[tpatana]

What he said.

Also there's Canon and Sigma 14/2.8 primes. Canon is unfortunately expensive, so the 17-40 is probably your best bet I'd say.

 

[ascholer]

It's more the budget option than the $1000 one, but I just got a Samyang 14mm for my 6D and am impressed so far. It is sharp - especially compared to the 17-40 - corners are worlds better. You do have to be willing to MF and double check with live view, but for scenics that isn't a big deal.
If you want your wide lens for action shots you can rule it right out, but if not, for just over 300 you can get it and a focus confirm chip. Then put the other $700 towards a nice tripod or something.

 

[TommyLee]

IFF ...
you had a 16-35 II..
you could take the 100 macro and be done....

that would get in at ABOUT the $1000 level

I hate to say it
but
the 14L II, 35 sigma and the 100 macro would be lovely for travel...meet all the normal needs

that is at least $2500 put into the 14mm and 35mm lens... selling the 24-105 nets $650+
gets you down to ~ $850 short past the $1000 limit

you could just get the 35mm siggy and accept 24mm as widest...

I believe a traveler should have a very good f1.4 to f2 lens ...near the normal range.. for clubs etc....
...more important than LONG..... IMO


travel safe

TOM

 

[crasher8]

As a Utahn and a lover of UWA I know firsthand that much wider than 21mm can be overkill there. YMMV. I have used the 16-35 many times in So. Utah and found I rarely went full wide. I would have rather bought a Zeiss 18 or 21 than the 16-35 in hindsight. Now, up north (Wasatch, Uinta, GSL area) I use 16 a ton. Rent for your trip.

 

[Stig]

Hi,

same dilemma here... so far I'm thinking about:


17-40 (more universal, AF, filters, but there are wider options...)

samyang / bower ... 14mm (no filters, but wider than the canon and faster as well, cheapest by far (for some reason bower version even cheaper) and a bit for the full manual experience... call me curious)

sigma 12-24 (what a range, widest, complements the normal zooms starting at 24 and still AF... but no filters again, slowest and more expensive than the canon)

the sigma 15mm is a new thought, but not sure about how much I like the fisheyeishness,
the 17 TSE, canon 14mm and co. are out of range... though samyang tilt shift got my attention a bit (or, again, the bower with 150usd lower list price)


since I like CPL and lately like to play with a strong ND I'm coming back to 17-40, but maybe I could try the manual 14mm first... ?

 

[vscd]

I think the 17-40L from Canon is the best compromise between quality and price. You can even sell it again without great loss, or just rent it. I own the Samyang 14mm 2.8 which I really like. The lense is one hell of a sharp lense, but it has a difficult barrel distortion (Moustache), so you shouldn't shoot architecture with a lot of straight lines within.

For landscapes no one really see's those distortions and for the price it's a hell of a lense. But if you plan to do more serious stuff inside buildings etc... maybe get the 17-40 or 16-28.

 

[Dylan777]

Rent 14mm prime through Lensrental. It doesn't cost much at all.

 

[jrista]

Modern third party lenses, such as those from Sigma, are beating price points and producing very competitive, even top-ranking, image quality. In addition to the 17-40mm zoom and 14mm prime from Canon, you should look into some of the wide and ultra wide angle lenses from Sigma, and maybe Tamron and Tokina as well, all of whom offer wide angle primes and wide angle and ultra wide angle zooms, some starting as short as 8mm or 10mm.

I have not been a fan of third party lenses much, but I have to say that Sigma has REALLY stepped up their game in the last few years, and their offerings are getting extremely competitive with L-series Canon lenses. In some cases, Sigma lenses perform better (usually in the wide/ultra wide range, where for some reason Canon is rather weak.) You can save some money, maybe even a bundle, on a good lens from Sigma, and get highly competitive or even superior IQ, compared to a Canon lens.

 

[funkboy]

yep, 17-40L. Make sure you adjust your AFMA with it, and if it's still not up to your expectations, exchange it for another one.

Another option if you're doing a lot of hiking & want the smallest/lightest FF WA you can get your hands on, then go for the Voigtländer 20mm Color Skopar. It's not crazy wide like the 17-40L but I find 20mm is still appreciably wider than the 24mm wide end of the zooms, and of course its really tiny.

My current traveling kit consists of a 6D with the Voigt 20mm, Canon 40mm pancake, and a Canon 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2L + TC depending on the situation. All three lenses stacked together are pretty much the size of a 70-200 f/4L or so.

 

[silvestography]

Get the Tokina 16-28 2.8. You already have everything past 24 covered so range is no issue. It's sharper than both the canon 17-40 and 16-35, and costs about the same as a 17-40. It won't take filters but an adapter can be purchased for around $200, so unless filters are a must, it's a no-brainer.

BTW, they're running a rebate on it now, so you can get it cheaper than normal.

 

[kalich]

Thank you for all of your valuable comments/suggestions. I am looking for sharpness that the lens can get.
I have some options on my plate now.
Tokina 16-28 2.8
Canon 17-40L
Canon 16-36
I was also told that the 14-24mm Lens is coming this year. I really want to save my $$$ to purchase that one.

 

[penywisexx]

My current lens setup current kit consists of 17-40, 24-105, and a Sigma 70-200. The 17-40 was chosen because it zooms by turning in the same direction as the Canon and SIgma lenses do (the Tamron and Tokina lenses turn the Nikon aka wrong direction) and is very lightweight for an L lens. It was very affordable. I picked up a mint one year old one on craigslist for $600 that left plenty more for filters, and still left money for a teleconverter that I wasn't expecting to be able to afford. I've only had it for a few weeks, but I probably took about 3000 photos in alaska with it and I wasn't disappointed at all, lightning fast focus though the 6D, and now that I'm back home it's been great on my 5D3 doing my normal band photography in dark venues when I've been testing it for dark focusing (I've only tried it for a few shows though so nothing definitive yet.) I'd say for the price point you can't go wrong with the range and build quality of the 17-40

 

[kalich]

it seems the 17-40 and my current 24-104L overlap too much ( 24-40 mm)?? dont you think?

 

[Loswr]

it seems the 17-40 and my current 24-104L overlap too much ( 24-40 mm)?? dont you think?

I don't think so, no. The advantage is you get more flexibility in framing without changing lenses.

 

[philipyeoh]

Hi, I have the fantastic 6D and the 24-105mm f/4L. I recently purchased the Canon 17-40mm f/4L and it's pin sharp, especially when stopped down to around f/8 or f/11. The overlap between this lens and my 24-105mm doesn't bother me one bit; in fact I tend to use the 17-40mm more because it's considerably lighter than the 24-105mm and makes a good combo when I'm out and about. Zoomed out to 40mm it makes for a decent standard lens. Still, YMMV.

 

[kalich]

How is the sigma 12-24 compare to the others in terms of sharpness?

Hi,

same dilemma here... so far I'm thinking about:


17-40 (more universal, AF, filters, but there are wider options...)

samyang / bower ... 14mm (no filters, but wider than the canon and faster as well, cheapest by far (for some reason bower version even cheaper) and a bit for the full manual experience... call me curious)

sigma 12-24 (what a range, widest, complements the normal zooms starting at 24 and still AF... but no filters again, slowest and more expensive than the canon)

the sigma 15mm is a new thought, but not sure about how much I like the fisheyeishness,
the 17 TSE, canon 14mm and co. are out of range... though samyang tilt shift got my attention a bit (or, again, the bower with 150usd lower list price)


since I like CPL and lately like to play with a strong ND I'm coming back to 17-40, but maybe I could try the manual 14mm first... ?

 

[mycanonphotos]

17-40 is a great lens...but think about shooting wide angle for nightshapes at f4, even with how high the iso goes on the 6D its always better to shoot at f2.8 at night...look at the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 and weigh the options of perhaps getting a used 16-35 f2.8L

 

[tpatana]

I have the Sigma 14/2.8, and my comments:

Pros:
-Cheap (~$400 from ebay)
-F2.8
-Rectilinear (not fisheye)
-AF

Cons:
-Corners awful at F2.8, must close aperture down (especially FF, crop not as bad naturally)
-Quite strong "mustache" distortion

Doesn't affect me, but some would: cannot use filters (unless really special)