mjgoulet

If you are going to take Milky Way photos, then the 2.8 is the way to go.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I found the Canon 16-35 4.5f to be a great lens several of my friends have the 2.8f but we never seem to use the wide lens at wide open shoots. Also ay about 16 you start to get distortion of a fisheye lens.

jayd Loc: Central Florida, East coast

I use the 6D with a 14mm Rokinon. Or the canon 24 TSE II

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You are in luck!

Get the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM.... about $1000 right now. It's sharp edge to edge, well corrected and flare resistant, has L-quality build, is reasonably compact AND has image stabilization. Sharpness and overall mage quality is better than the two earlier versions of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (original and II), better than the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM and very close to that of the $2000 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM. Most people really don't need f/2.8 on an ultrawide, which also makes for a bigger, heavier lens... and none of Canon's other full frame ultrawides have image stabilization, either.

For more info, check out Brian's detailed review at https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx



Huh? Not sure what you mean, Gene. Are you saying the EF 11-24mm isn't a full frame lens? (It definitely is.) Or are you saying it's not sharp? (Which it also most certainly is.)

Even though it's the "widest possible, short of a fisheye" like the OP requested, I omitted the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM for a one reason: It costs almost twice what the original poster wants to spend (even on sale at $2700 right now). Also it's big, heavy and its strongly convex front element makes it impossible to use with standard, screw-in filters. I omitted the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM and TS-E 17mm f/4L for the same reasons.


This is an example where an f/2.8 (or even faster) lens might be desirable. For night photography, a larger aperture lens can make for a brighter viewfinder. However, an alternative to spending the extra money for the larger aperture lens (which in some cases isn't as sharp corner to corner and usually is large and heavier), is to use Live View with Exposure Simulation with the smaller aperture. It might even be possible to tether the camera to a tablet and use it's larger screen to view the Exposure Sim image, but Live View also allows zooming in to check focus, etc.

The most affordable third party alternatives are the Tokina AT-X Pro 16-28mm f/2.8 FX ($550) and the Sigma 12-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM "Art" ($1300).... both of which are a lot bigger, heavier and use a convex front element that precludes using standard screw-in filters. The Tokina is a bargain price, but a bit prone to flare and doesn't have corner to corner image quality to match either of the current Canon 16-35mm lenses. The Sigma is significantly wider, second only to the Canon 11-24mm... if the Sigma's higher-than-hoped price isn't problem. It's also nearly twice the weight of the Canon 16-35mm f/4.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

The Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is worth a look ay under $300.00: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769532-REG/Rokinon_FE14M_C_14mm_Ultra_Wide_Angle_f_2_8.html

A few samples, including a closeup....

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Ronkanon 14 mm 2.8

jayluber Loc: Phoenix, AZ

I just picked up a used Rokinon 14 F2.8 for my 6D and use a Rokinon 16mm 2.0 on my 77D. Love them both. each at about $250 used. The 14mm had some unacceptable distortion in the upper right and I just sent it back to be replaced. They’re great if you can handle the manual aspect of the lens. Lens distortion is easily fixed in LR.
If you’d like I can send you some MW photos with both lenses. My previous post on MW photos has unedited photos and I can send my edited photos if you would like to see a sample.

jayluber Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Fix unwanted vignetting in LR with a click or two.

Selene03

Canon makes a lot of great wide angle lenses that would fit your description. I think you might be happiest with the 16-35 f4 lens with IS. It was my favorite lens on the 6D and is probably still my most used lens on my 5d mk iv. It is relatively inexpensive and is a very high quality and lightweight lens. It is really perfect with the 6D. It is also very sharp. I had to really screw up to get a bad photo from the 6d/16-35 F4 combo.

That being said, if you want the widest Canon lens that isn't a fisheye, you might want the 11-24 F4. This is another fabulous lens, but it is tricky to use when you are going wider than 16 mm. It has its purposes and is what you described--a very wide angle lens that doesn't fish even at 11 mm.

Canon also has a 14mm 2.8 lens that I use for night photography, but it vignettes a lot and you can really tell it is a wide angle. It is also more expensive that the 16-34 f4. If you are in to night photography at all, a better all purpose lens might be the 16-35 2.8 III, but it is both more expensive and heavier than the F4 version. If I had to chose again, I would still chose the 16-35 f4 lens, it really is hard to beat as a wide angle lens unless you want to shoot milky ways or something like that.

nikonkelly Loc: SE Michigan

I am a Nikon guy, but my best friend shoots a canon, and he really likes his 17-40mm no vignetting and does not have the fish eye look. if you go much wider, you will see some horizon bending occur. I am certain that the 16-35 would work, but I dont know its quality, but i would be suspect of something in the 11 to even the 15 mm range... they start to bend somewhere in that neighborhood!
Kelly

Selene03

Hi Gene51, Could you please elaborate on why the 11-24 wouldn't be a good lens on a ff camera? I have been using it on both my 5d mk iv and my 5dsr and first tried it on my 6d. It is a lens that can be tricky to use to get effective photos, but it is extremely sharp on all 3 full frame cameras. I can't imagine using it on anything other than a full-frame camera.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend it has a first choice for the op because it is kind of a niche lens, expensive, heavy, and not great for travel with its bulbous front end protruding, but it is a wonderful lens on a full frame camera and very useful for certain purposes.

photodoc16

Gene,
Why do you say that the Canon 11-24mm is not for a full frame camera. It is not an APS-C lens.
Photodoc16

Selene03

This is true, and you will definitely want the 16-35 2.8 III version.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Hello depending on skill level and what you want to do with a wide lens or a prime or wide short zoom lens I would stay with Canon lens as recommended above the Canon 16-35mm L F2.8 or the f4 L are great lens for your 6D Canon camera the Canon L glass is the best in my opinion. I shoot only Canon L lens yes I’m a little bias regarding Canon as I have been using Canon equipment for over 50yrs.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

Do you realize who actually made the Canon glass (lenses) during the 50's and 60's (hint: Nippon Kōgaku).....