Choice of wide-angle lens: I am traveling to Italy next month and getting my gear in order. I am looking for a wide angle lens for landscapes to complement an EF 24-70 II USM, an EF...

dennyo Loc: Aliso Viejo CA

I am traveling to Italy next month and getting my gear in order. I am looking for a wide angle lens for landscapes to complement an EF 24-70 II USM, an EF 70-200 2.8L IS II USM, an EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS II USM. What are your recommendations? I'm also undecided as to taking the 100-400. Your thoughts.
Many thanks, Denny

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

APS-C or FF camera? Taking and carrying the 100-400mm would depend on the type of photography you personally do.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Full-frame - 16-35 f/4L IS
Crop - EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

You can go with more expensive models, but they're not 2x or 3x better, they just cost that much more ... I'd only take the 16-35 and the 24-70 and would leave the longer, larger & heavier lenses behind. If only one, I'd happily take just the 24-70.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

dennyo wrote:

I am traveling to Italy next month and getting my gear in order. I am looking for a wide angle lens for landscapes to complement an EF 24-70 II USM, an EF 70-200 2.8L IS II USM, an EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS II USM. What are your recommendations? I'm also undecided as to taking the 100-400. Your thoughts.
Many thanks, Denny

If you learn how to stitch a pano, you already have what you need. I own full frame cameras, and lenses that cover from 14mm to 600 - all of which I have used for landscape. My go to focal length for most landscapes is 40-60mm, and my absolutely least used focal length is 14mm. But in those rare situations, mostly in close quarters, where you really need it there is no substitute. That only happens about a dozen times a year (that is I use it to take about a dozen or so images a year).

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

CHG_CANON wrote:

Full-frame - 16-35 f/4L IS
Crop - EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

You can go with more expensive models, but they're not 2x or 3x better, they just cost that much more ... I'd only take the 16-35 and the 24-70 and would leave the longer, larger & heavier lenses behind. If only one, I'd happily take just the 24-70.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Gene51 wrote:

If you learn how to stitch a pano, you already have what you need. I own full frame cameras, and lenses that cover from 14mm to 600 - all of which I have used for landscape. My go to focal length for most landscapes is 40-60mm, and my absolutely least used focal length is 14mm. But in those rare situations, mostly in close quarters, where you really need it there is no substitute. That only happens about a dozen times a year (that is I use it to take about a dozen or so images a year).

All extremely valid and well expressed points, but doesn't it depend a little upon the circumstance, the amount of time available, and other situations? I ended up taking a bunch of snaps from a moving vehicle yesterday, not an ideal situation, but was very glad I had my 10-22 lens (for an APS-C body) available. The results were less than ideal, but some still made me happy, at least enough to want to go there again with a lot more time and equipment.

Same applies to our next visit with our friends. I want to plan a day to myself with cameras and gear in Calaveras Big Trees State Park, not a joint trip.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

CHG_CANON wrote:

Full-frame - 16-35 f/4L IS
Crop - EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

You can go with more expensive models, but they're not 2x or 3x better, they just cost that much more ... I'd only take the 16-35 and the 24-70 and would leave the longer, larger & heavier lenses behind. If only one, I'd happily take just the 24-70.

...got 'em both. Both excellent.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

16-35 f4L IS ($999) or less expensive 17-40 f4L ($749). Since the new 16-35 f2.8L mk III is out (at $1,999), the 16-35 f2.8l MKI II is a relative bargain at a reduced price of $1,299. According to DXOmark lens ratings, the sharpness, distortion and CA of all but the 16-35 mk III are almost identical, with the mk III having substantially lower CA (but at a price). https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Gene51 wrote:

If you learn how to stitch a pano, you already have what you need. I own full frame cameras, and lenses that cover from 14mm to 600 - all of which I have used for landscape. My go to focal length for most landscapes is 40-60mm, and my absolutely least used focal length is 14mm. But in those rare situations, mostly in close quarters, where you really need it there is no substitute. That only happens about a dozen times a year (that is I use it to take about a dozen or so images a year).

...and to Gene51's point....here is one of those situations. Balcony reveal shot. Not getting that without a 16mm on FF camera in this case :-)

Btw .... the 10mm and 16mm (crop and FF respectively) make for nice slow sweeping video for real estate and landscape scenes....

(Download)

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

dennyo wrote:

I am traveling to Italy next month and getting my gear in order. I am looking for a wide angle lens for landscapes to complement an EF 24-70 II USM, an EF 70-200 2.8L IS II USM, an EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS II USM. What are your recommendations? I'm also undecided as to taking the 100-400. Your thoughts.
Many thanks, Denny

With what you have the 24-70 II would do just fine on a FF. I have that and the 24-105 and I prefer the 24-105 for travel for more versatility.

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

If you are really looking for wide, the EF 14mm 2.8L is a great, fun lens. I love it! Especially if there are some nice white clouds in the sky.

BrentHarder Loc: Southern California

crazydaddio wrote:

...and to Gene51's point....here is one of those situations. Balcony reveal shot. Not getting that without a 16mm on FF camera in this case :-)

Btw .... the 10mm and 16mm (crop and FF respectively) make for nice slow sweeping video for real estate and landscape scenes....

crazydaddio, what a fun photo! There are all kinds of stories this photo could tell. I have a couple going on in my head right now! Thanks for the creative shot!

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

BrentHarder wrote:

crazydaddio, what a fun photo! There are all kinds of stories this photo could tell. I have a couple going on in my head right now! Thanks for the creative shot!

Thanks Brent.
It was TIGHT. If you saw a pic of where I was standing, you wouldnt believe that photo was possible. The magic of ultrawides ...

Waiting for some observant pixel peeper to comment on the lengthened triangles in the upper corners. An artifact of straightening the photo in post. This was shot at full16mm which creates some nasty distortion at the edges. The distortuon is lessened but still there and the triangular artifacts cant be cropped without cropping the B&G to some extent.
....to the OP, shooting with an ultrwaide is tricky business especially with people vs landscape.

In this case, would rather an imperfect photo than no photo ;-) ....and yes the B&G LOVED it...and the 10 other photos that followed from 3 cameras and a popout 2nd shooter who captured the tears and hugs and laughter..

cthahn

24mm is wide angle. What do you mean by wide angle? 8mm, 12mm, 18mm, 24mm.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

dennyo wrote:

I am traveling to Italy next month and getting my gear in order. I am looking for a wide angle lens for landscapes to complement an EF 24-70 II USM, an EF 70-200 2.8L IS II USM, an EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS II USM. What are your recommendations? I'm also undecided as to taking the 100-400. Your thoughts.
Many thanks, Denny

Some "best" choices.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Wide-Angle-Lens.aspx