Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

Thanks everyone for your help, it means a lot to be able to get some great advise from actual users.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

You may want to take that ultra wide with you when you shoot landscapes. There are a lot of effects the ultra wide can give you the 24mm end of the zoom cannot. DOF is one of the effects you may want to look at. Personally I shoot the Canon 16-35mm f2.8L, but I've been looking at that Laowa 12mm for some expansive wide open prairie grassland/pasture shots. The ultra wide would also be great for those across bayou shots, with or without wading birds.

B

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

Good to know, thanks.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

24/2.4 IS

Primes are better than zooms anyway.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I believe the 24 is f2.8

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Typo

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Tom, take a look at Canon's wide angles at either 20mm or 24mm for about $550.00. These lenses are not "L" glass but both have commanded fairly high marks among those that rate things. Both are f/2.8. Check with the-digital-picture.com and see what he says about them. Another option is the 17-40mm f/4L at about $750.00. This is a great entry to "L" glass at a modest price. While shopping be sure to visit the refurb shop at the Canon Store, about 20% less than list . KEH is another source of experienced equipment that usually has a great selection of Canon lenses, as do Adorams and B&H. Happy hunting.

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

Thanks, i looked on Canon's site and i think I'm gonna go with either the 20 or 24. I like the 17-40, but i need the faster stop for night shots. I believe the 20 will be good for my occasional night shots and not hit me too hard on price. Then i can use my 24-105 for landscape,,,,,,,,,,,love to have the 16-35 but can't justify the money right now. I usually buy all my gear from B&H and may still get the 20 from them, they are absolutely the best to deal with as far as I'm concerned. I've been looking at KEH lately and it seems to me they have gone up on their prices somewhat.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Tom, I love UWA photography. I had/have a EFs on a crop. I wanted to go to FF and bought 6D/EF 24-105 f/4 L which I love.

This is what I found. I have a bias against the 17-40 L. I would just as soon stay home. I would prefer to go to native glass. Most of the Canon if not all of the 2.8's are out of my budget. I was now will to look beyond brand and speed. I made a shop list of potential buys.

UWA are out there on the used market from private party non-retail sources.

I ended up with a very sharp copy of the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and a 14mm 2.8 Korean. They were give-away price. I also found a lens for a friend.

You are welcome to PM me for further info.

J. R.

Millismote Loc: Massachusetts

I have the 6D and a Canon EF 24mm 2.8 is usm lens that works very as a wide angle. B&H photo sells it for $549

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

Thanks, I've been looking at that one and the 20mm 2.8. Have you done any Astro with your 24mm?

markmiller1198 Loc: Reno, NV

The Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 is the ticket on the 6d for the $. I might even be selling mine, I've switched to a Sony platform. The 16mm is amazingly wide on the fullframe and if you are close to your subject (ie a dog nose) it nearly gives a fisheye look.

duanes Loc: Madison, Wisconsin

I like to use prime lenses and I would highly recommend the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART lens.
It works great for nighttime and is a really silent choice and of course quite fast at 1.4.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

A little over your "hopeful" price, but a darned nice lens: EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM (Note that it also has IS).

Older model that's not as good but is within your price range: EF 17-40mm f4L USM.

How about a prime, well within your budget: EF 20mm f2.8 USM (I use this lens quite a bit on both FF and crop cameras. Below examples are with it on 5D MkII)




Need wider? I've considered getting the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f2.8 (also sold under about half a dozen other brand names)... it gets lots of positive reviews and is very affordable... but of course it's fully manual.

Another lens that's recently caught my eye is the Venus Laowa 15mm f4 Macro/Shift lens.... interesting idea and another reasonably affordable, fully manual (both focus and aperture).

I'd suggest you not get too hung up on an f2.8 aperture. Makes for bigger, heavier lenses, narrow range of focal lengths in zooms, and often aren't as sharp as slower lenses. f2.8 is pretty rarely a necessity with an ultrawide lens, too, especially when using a very high ISO capable camera. Ultrawides are hand -holdable at much slower shutter speeds, you'll probably find yourself stopping down for more depth of field most of the time, and there's little opportunity to blur backgrounds with an ultrawide unless you're working very, very close. A photojournalist or astrophotographer might want f2.8. But most of the rest of us can probably get by fine with f4 or even f5.6.

EDIT: Okay, I just noticed some of your follow ups where you wrote that you want to use the lens for night shots... That being the case, then yes, f2.8 might be nice.... primarily because it makes for a brighter viewfinder.

One other thing to keep watch about... Also, do you want to be able to use filters on the lens? Some ultrawides have a protruding front element that makes it impossible to use standard filters. There may or may not be adapters that allow oversize rectangular filters be used.

Tom Kelley Loc: Roanoke, Virginia

Thanks for the beautiful shots. I think i was at the Lighthouse a few years ago, is it the one in Maine? The only reason i would want 2.8 is for Astro and I'm just wondering now, since you mentioned the high ISO rating on my 6D, if my 24-105 STM would be bright enough @ 3.5. Maybe i need to try it first and see before i jump. This is my first Full Frame and I'm still getting used to it.