wide angle needed

[mackguyver]

I really loved the look and feel of Zeiss, but Canon will be probably smarter and more versatile choice

I don't think you can go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. Along with the 24-70 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I think these are the most amazing zooms on the market. The 16-35 f/4 IS is as sharp as the TS-E 17 and has better color and contrast and less CA. It has more distortion, and can't tilt or shift, but it's weatherproof, has AF, and oh yeah, it zooms!

 

[Eldar]

I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.

 

[cid]

I don't think you can go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. Along with the 24-70 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I think these are the most amazing zooms on the market.

don't forget 200-400

I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.

for me, the main problem, there is no way right now how to test Zeiss 15, it could be excellent lens, but I don't like the idea of buying lens for 2,5k euro before trying it

 

[mwh1964]

16-35 f4 is definitely what you want. Canon did an excellent job on that one.

 

[Helios68]

What about EF 16-35mm f/4L?
Or EF 20mm f/2.8?
Or EF 17-40mm f/4L?

 

[cid]

16-35 f4 is definitely what you want. Canon did an excellent job on that one.

indeed, already checking where to buy the lens

What about EF 16-35mm f/4L?
Or EF 20mm f/2.8?
Or EF 17-40mm f/4L?

all of them were already suggested, but anyway, thank you

 

[Eldar]

I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.

for me, the main problem, there is no way right now how to test Zeiss 15, it could be excellent lens, but I don't like the idea of buying lens for 2,5k euro before trying it

As long as you understand it is manual focus, there is absolutely nothing you will not like about the Zeiss 15mm. Mechanically second to none, focus mechanism as smooth as it gets, flawless optical performance and visually a beauty. If you want to go this wide, I don´t believe there is anything in the vicinity of this lens.

 

[keithcooper]

one more TS-E 'vote'

great 17mm and easily stitchable if you want wider/taller.

Use mine hand held a lot, when not on paying jobs ;-)

- see these examples from when I was recently in St Davids cathedral in Wales. All shots handheld, some stitched

http://architecture-photos.co.uk/portfolio_page/st-davids-cathedral-pembrokeshire/

EF8-15 also used (another excellent lens ;-)

 

[Mr Bean]

I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.

+1. I have the 15mm and have used the 21mm. The 21mm I hired a number of times, to get a feel of it (IQ is probably slightly better than the 15mm). But, I wanted something wider at f2.8, so I skipped the 18mm and bought the 15mm. Not a lens I use much, but, when you need something in that realm, it's magic.

 

[gigabellone]

I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.

Since you both own the 16-35/4 and the Zeiss 21/2.8, can you tell us how the two lenses compare regarding IQ at comparable focal lengths and apertures?

 

[Eldar]

I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.

Since you both own the 16-35/4 and the Zeiss 21/2.8, can you tell us how the two lenses compare regarding IQ at comparable focal lengths and apertures?

I would rate the 21mm above the 16-35 f4L IS at its focal length and you have the 2.8 over 4.0 advantage. There is also something special with the Zeiss glass that makes them stand out. Color and contrast are two.

But apart from that, the IQ from the 16-35 is so good that it even seems a bit pointless to hang on to the 21mm. And when you add the weather sealing advantage of the L-lens, it is even clearer. Since I got the 16-35 I have hardly used the 21mm at all. If I had to choose only one of the two, I´d go for the 16-35.

I don´t have any good images to serve as comparisons though.

 

[gigabellone]

I would rate the 21mm above the 16-35 f4L IS at its focal length and you have the 2.8 over 4.0 advantage. There is also something special with the Zeiss glass that makes them stand out. Color and contrast are two.

But apart from that, the IQ from the 16-35 is so good that it even seems a bit pointless to hang on to the 21mm. And when you add the weather sealing advantage of the L-lens, it is even clearer. Since I got the 16-35 I have hardly used the 21mm at all. If I had to choose only one of the two, I´d go for the 16-35.

I don´t have any good images to serve as comparisons though.

Don't worry about comparison images, i trust your opinion as an informed user.

Weather sealing on the Canon is a nice plus, but not a game breaker in my typical use case scenarios. Same goes for the IS. I won't be needing the fast aperture either, since i mostly shoot long exposures. What appeals me about the Zeiss, other than the stunning image quality, is that it's built like a tank, and the fast aperture would allow me to get started in night photography: star trails are cool, but being able to take pictures of "still" stars would be great too. Not to mention that the infinty focus hard stop is really a life saver when composing shots in the dark. Now, if only it wasn't so freaking expensive... For the price of the Zeiss, i could buy the Canon and a Rokinon/Samyang prime for star fields, but i'm adding complexity, increased lens switches and weight. Or, i could get the Canon 24/1.4, use it stopped down at f/2.8 for star fields, wide open for low light/street photography, and stopped down for landscapes.... Ah, choices, choices.....

 

[cid]

So finally,
it took me some time (ok, hell lot of time), but right now I'm smiling on my shiny new 16-35 f/4

Thank you all guys for advices beyond great. From this spot I can say it will be my lens for hiking - light, versatile, wide enough.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

EF 16-35mm f/4L IS sounds like what you're looking for. The TS-E 17mm if you want the movements and will have time for tripod and setup.

Ditto. And while I concur that the TS-E 17 is a fine lens, also consider the discontinued but still available used EF 15mm FishEye. (Not instead of but in addition to the 16-35 L lens.) It's a super wide/fun lens on Full Frame. I think we are all making the bold assumption that you are shooting with a Full Frame camera based on your signature line. But I think everyone agrees that it will be hard to beat the 16-35 f/4L as the primary ultrawide lens to fill your needs.

 

[cid]

I think we are all making the bold assumption that you are shooting with a Full Frame camera based on your signature line. But I think everyone agrees that it will be hard to beat the 16-35 f/4L as the primary ultrawide lens to fill your needs.

Oh, I didn't mention it? Yes I'm shooting FF Yes 16-35 will be hard to beat, but time will show ...

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L fits in with what you describe. The new canon 16-35mm F4 is also very interesting.

TS lens is very tempting option, but not sure I want it right now ... first I would like to have something easy and quick to use, simply said for travel

EF 16-35mm f/4L IS sounds like what you're looking for. The TS-E 17mm if you want the movements and will have time for tripod and setup.

Don't look around. I tried all Canon UWA zoom lenses and this is the best. Only primes can beat the 16-35mm f/4L IS.
Yes, right now I'm leaning towards 16-35mm, but I was interested if there are any other interesting options to consider