Linda S.

Hello! I am an older avid amateur. I have Canon 5dM4 camera. My lens are all Canon - nifty 50, 16-35 f/4 L, 24-105 f/4 L, 100 f/2.8 L, 180 f/3.5 L, and 70-200 f/4 L. I shoot flowers, macro, landscape and travel. Here's my dilemma.

I am getting closer to realizing my dream of going to Iceland first quarter 2020 to shoot auroras/Northern Lights. Been doing considerable research and learned that a lens f 2.8 or faster is recommended as well as a wide-angle... 16mm to 24mm. So, I originally was going to trade the 16-35 f/4 for Canon's 16-35 2.8 III. Received it yesterday and returned it today.

I found that Canon also makes a 24 f/1.4 II L lens. I was thinking given I have the 24-104 and possibly the 24 prime, do I really need the 16-35 f/4 lens? What types of photos are taken in the 16mm-20mm range? When do you find that narrow band (16mm-20mm) useful?

If the majority of your responses indicate that the 16-20mm range is used more for art-type photos, then I know I can sell it and not regret it later! I am not an art-type person...wish I were but I am not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated wisdom!

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

I like to think of myself as a landscape photographer, I find that a large percentage of my landscape photos are shot at the short end of my Tokina 11-16mm zoom (11 mm @ 1.5 crop factor gives a field of view equivalent to Full frame 16.5 mm). The very short focal lengths require a different way of thinking about compositions but once you wrap your mind around it and start to "see" ultra wide compositions, you should find it compelling. Don't let your self be fooled by the mathematical narrowness of the zoom band. The difference between 11 and 16 mm in composition is enormously more than you would imagine. My impetus for buying the lens was milky way photography but it is used during daylight hours maybe 5 times much as at nighttime.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

For myself an ultra wide zoom is very handy for shooting in tight spots, and that includes street, and 'scapes.
I use a Tokina 12-24 on a 1.6 crop body.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

With my 2 x crop M43 system and my penchant for landscape (scene) photography I use a Panny 12-32 (equivalent to a 24-64 FF field of view). This works well for me. I have very occasionally wished for a wider angle, but not often enough to justify the acquisition. My longer lens is a 35-100 (70-200 FF field of view). I have even used this for scene photographs at times - but I strive to create something different.

Quixdraw Loc: x

When on trips I always bring a wide zoom - mine are 18-35 for FX and 10-20 for DX. I use them for landscapes, interiors, and usually at least half a day of walking around town / city streets. It is always worthwhile, and I seldom fail to get memorable results. Viewpoints a nice addition to the trip record.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Hey Linda, I have (or did have) all the lenses you've mentioned. Personally, if I was forced, I'd give up the 24-105 before the 16-35 f/4L IS, one of my favorite lenses. I had and loved the 24L, but found I was using the 16-35 f/4L IS far more with the zoom flexibility, so I sold the 24L. The IS makes the zoom lens so much more versatile. The 24L is superior at 24mm to either of the zooms, and the 16-35 f/4L IS is superior at 24mm than either versions of the 24-105L at 24mm. For your specific Iceland trip, you might just rent a specific lens (or two) rather than radically changing your equipment profile.

Your questions prompted me to sort my catalog by lens and focal length. With the 16-35L mounted, I have more images at 16mm than all the others combined for the range 17mm to 20mm. A few of my 16mm favorites (and one 20mm):

Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker by Paul Sager, on Flickr


La Jolla Cove by Paul Sager, on Flickr


Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array by Paul Sager, on Flickr

Quixdraw Loc: x

Agree with Paul, I have found sorting trip / event photos by focal length to be very useful in planning what lenses to bring next time.

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

For night sky images, it's hard to beat a 14mm F2.8 lens on a full frame camera. Some of my friends have done some excellent work on Milky Way and Aurora Borealis pictures with the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon 14mm F2.8. It is manual focus, but if you prefocus in daylight, you can get excellent results. The best part is the price - you can buy a new one for under $300, used for under $200. The lens is sharp from center to corner, no coma, and almost no chromatic aberration. The bad news is that it has considerable distortion, and there is strong vignetting.

Here is a review from someone who loves to hear himself talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERYPKWGgau8

and here is a comparision between the Canon and the Rokinon - and it clearly shows the strengths and weaknesses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qJRiYRHBbE

(Spoiler Alert: the Rokinon KILLS the Canon at 10% of the price).

The distortion and vignetting can be easily remedied with a custom lens profile like the one you can download here: https://darwinsden.com/lens-profile-rokinon-samyang/

What makes this lens outstanding for night sky photography is it's stunningly good performance wide open, and freedom from coma and chromatic aberration.

I have a Nikkor 14-24 F2.8 which gets used a handful of times a year. It's a very good lens, but at 14mm the Rokinon is better. For landscape I find that I usually reach for a 45mm as the shortest focal length, and often use longer, up to 200mm. If I want a wider view, I simply do a stitched panorama - handheld or tripod mounted.

The range between 16m and 20mm is often used for landscape, but few photographers can use such wide lenses creatively and effectively, due to the severe extension distortion (close stuff gets huge, stuff in the distance could just as well be on the moon it is so tiny).

Rokinon also makes a more expensive 14mm F2.4, but I have no experience with it, other than reading what others have said/written about it. Comments have been generally good.

Photocraig

Different points of view:
Much wide angle photography is really about the foreground elements. The big/small, near/far relatiohsips that these lenses bring to the composition is special.

Like with sunsets and other "sky" photos, Aurora and milky way photos are at their best when you put something interesting in front of them. A study of the magnificent masterwork landscapes will yield the simple conclusion (for me), that the spectacular distant mountains, etc. are enhanced by a complete composition which (usually) includes a foreground, middle and background.

Wide angle lenses yield such abroad view that the important elements of a large landscape are rendered as microscopic dots. That's why stitching longer focal length images deliver such great landscapes. And why the telephoto "extraction (of a small portion of the scene) makes for very interesting compositions, too.

Sometimes it helps to think of a wide or ultra wide lens as best suited for near composition elements.

Just some contrary thoughts to put into the mix. Enjoy your trip and your image making,
C

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

However you arrive at a particular field of view, WA lens or stitched, and cropped or telephoto, the results will surely be similar?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

When discussing lens suitability in relation to field of view or focal length, it might help if including the camera type - i.e. FF or 1.6 or M43.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If you don't use it LOSE IT.
I own the Nikon 16-35 F4, I pair that with my 24-120 F4, I use these two lenses for landscape shots because I like the range of the 24-120, the wide of the 16-35 and both lenses take the same filter size.
Sometimes you have to get really close to get what you want included and need that 16mm, it comes in real handy. But that's just me.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

From reading your post I came to the conclusion that you have little to no experience using extreme wide angles. Perhaps you do not understand what the lens is capable of, perhaps you do not use it often enough.

First thing first, wide angle lenses expand the foreground while the background recedes and makes it much smaller than it is. You have to keep this in mind when selecting your subject otherwise the "take it all" concept will not result in a photograph that will be eye catching.
I use a Nikon 12-24 f4 AF-S lens. When I use that lens with my full frame body I can use it at around 16-18mm without vignettes up to 24mm. I have done night photography with it in numerous occasions and also it has been used for astrophotography wide open successfully at a high ISO speed. I do not see why you necessarily need a lens with an aperture of f2.8 but if that is the case you can always rent one keeping your lens and avoiding more expenses.

Keep your lens but learn how to use it. It will give you, with proper techniques, beautiful images you will be proud of.

Selene03

Hi Linda, I am curious why you returned the 16-35 2.8 III? It is the lens I use the most for auroras and milky ways. If you had kept that lens, I would say you could get rid of the 16-35 f4, although I have kept mine, as it is one of my favorite lenses and I use it a lot in travel photography. The iq is not much different between the two lenses, though I like the light weight of the f4 version. Unfortunately, it is a little slow for astrophotography. I have had bad look with Samyang/Rokinon 14 mm lenses, though others have found them quite good. the last time I tried to get a good copy though was several years ago so they might be a lot better now. I use the Canon 14 and 24, but I would recommend processing the photos with Canon's DPP4, which does a pretty good job getting rid of the lens aberrations. I would not get rid of the 16-35 f4 unless you really don't use it right now. Another possibility for auroras is the Sigma 14 mm lens, which is excellent, fairly inexpensive, but heavy. Good luck! I would love to go to Iceland for auroras!!!

ELNikkor

Don't get trapped into thinking that your 16-35 is not capable of shooting great aurora shots because it is "only" f4, (knowing there are 2.8 lenses out there). With your MkIV, and the post processing brilliance available today, you can easily overcome whatever hindrances that extra f-stop might cause. Got a hunch you returned that 2.8 lens because it was huge, heavy, so expensive, and not so much different a
"look" as your already excellent 16-35 f4. Whereas a 24 1.4 might give you excellent aurora shots, it might be that the 16-35 will give you that extra sky that would make some shots better. Rather than the "grass is greener", "another lens is better" syndrome, it looks to me like you already have a nice set-up that you could well live with.