I'm interested in getting an ultrawide lens that doesn't cost a bomb. Any recommendations?

One of my requirements is that I'd like to be able to use at least one filter. Some of the ultrawides have threads, but they're designed to take a single, ultrathin UV protection filter.

As an example, I have a Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF, which has a 52mm thread. Using a step up and a 58mm polarizer crops the edges pretty well.

In the 20mm range, the Nikon f/2.8s take 62mm filters, and I've read that they can take a couple of 77mm filters. The Canon f/2.8 takes 72mm filters, but I'm not sure about vignetting. The Canon lens is older and has the dreaded 5-blade iris.

Though I want this for photos and video, I don't need the auto functions. Ultrawides are generally for landscape, architecture and up-close perspectives. I can take my time to set up these shots manually.

For special shoots, I'll rent. At that point the 16-35mm is attractive, but the L II version takes 82mm filters, and I've read that it vignettes with most any filter at 16mm. Sure, I could buy 82mm filters and step up rings, but that drives up my costs vs. 72 or 77mm filters. Maybe a mattebox and square filters are the way to go, but that seems cumbersome for stills.

This would be easier if the local rental shop rented filters. They don't.

Any first hand experiences with these lenses out there?

I'm interested in getting an ultrawide lens that doesn't cost a bomb. Any recommendations?

Any first hand experiences with these lenses out there?

I use the 17-40mmL. Historically this has not been a great Canon lens but for some reason the 5DII likes it and I've used it quite a bit for stills with very good results, and some for video where it does well. It uses the normal L series 77mm filters. At f/4 it won't give the really small depth of field of a faster lens but I'm not looking for that in an ultrawide. It's quite a bit less expensive than the 16-35L. Any ultrawide will have some vignetting.

I have used the f4 17-40 L lens for a few video shots. It works very well and it is very wide w/o much distortion.

Link below have quite a few shots with that lens, inside the engine and in the roundhouse. Most of the video is shot with the EX3. Audio was recorded separatly.

CSRR 5 minutes of Winter Steam (http://www.westsideav.com/CSRRdemo/)

check this link:

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

I use the 17-40mmL. Historically this has not been a great Canon lens but for some reason the 5DII likes it and I've used it quite a bit for stills with very good results, and some for video where it does well. It uses the normal L series 77mm filters. At f/4 it won't give the really small depth of field of a faster lens but I'm not looking for that in an ultrawide. It's quite a bit less expensive than the 16-35L. Any ultrawide will have some vignetting.Thanks Charles,

I'm leaning toward an f/2.8 simply for that extra stop of light, rather than for DOF. And, yes, at half the price of the 16-35mm, it's attractive.

Still, I'm leaning toward a prime, because the price is even lower, and I can get that extra stop.

Jon, your timing of this post is perfect. I ordered a 16-35 2.8 from B&H and it's arriving today. I already invested in 77mm ND filters previously so I also ordered that lens with a step-down (82 to 77). If it vignettes a full wide it should most definitely do so with a step-down and 77mm filter. However I'll let you know how it works out.

I really don't want to have 2 sets of ND filters. I'm also thinking that the in-camera vignette correction may help. While I use faux vignettes on a lot of my stuff in post I don't like to have it naturally on the footage right out of the camera. I like the choice to add it or not.

I have a sigma 20mm 1.8 and it takes 2 filters (82mm) easily without vigneting in video mode. It's not a sharp lens by any means, even at close apertures, but it's a 1.8 :)

Thanks Charles,

I'm leaning toward an f/2.8 simply for that extra stop of light, rather than for DOF. And, yes, at half the price of the 16-35mm, it's attractive.

Still, I'm leaning toward a prime, because the price is even lower, and I can get that extra stop.

It seems like a lot of money and weight for one stop. There are a lot of other ways to get a stop.

I love my 17-40 and when I need the light I use a 35mm 1.4. Three stops makes a significant difference. One stop doesn't. If the 35mm is expensive, get a 50 1.4, a great value.

I ordered a 16-35 2.8 from B&H and it's arriving today. I already invested in 77mm ND filters previously so I also ordered that lens with a step-down (82 to 77). If it vignettes a full wide it should most definitely do so with a step-down and 77mm filter.

It will vignette terribly with the step down. Hell, it'll vignette at 82mm without a slim.

I use Olympus lenses on my 5D2, all handed on from my old OM-1 cameras.
My widest is the Oly 21mm f2, followed by the 24mm f2.
The fantastic thing about Oly lenses is they are all small! The 21mm for instance weighs only 250 grams and takes 55mm filters.
See details here:
Zuiko lenses - 21mm f/2.0, 21mm f/3.5 (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/21mm.htm)

I've finally got around to buying the Cokin P 'wide' holder so I can use ND filters across all my lenses for video.

Dave T

I think another reason why we'd want an extra stop is simply for nicer bokeh, not only for more light.

The OP mentions Nikon's so I'd like to toss this question in: The ability to do rack focus is huge for what I want from the 5d. I've read that Canon AF lenses don't have great focus rings for manual racking. Whereas old manual Nikons have a longer throw on the rings. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

It seems like a lot of money and weight for one stop. There are a lot of other ways to get a stop.Exactly! Which is why I'm leaning toward a 20mm prime f/2.8 in the $400 range.

I love my 17-40 and when I need the light I use a 35mm 1.4. Three stops makes a significant difference. One stop doesn't. If the 35mm is expensive, get a 50 1.4, a great value.
I've got the EF 85mm f/1.8, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 35mm f/2, and the EF 28mm f/1.8. Of these, I like the 85 and 28 the most. (The 50 has slight barrel distortion and green/magenta fringing on high contrast edges when slightly out of focus; the 35 has a five blade iris.)

Anyway, I like the 28mm, but would like to be able to push the perspective further without going to a fisheye.

One problem we've found is that when we set up a scene that works with a fast lens, we can be unpleasantly surprised when we go to a slower lens. I see f/1.8 as our baseline, so f/2.8 is already losing a stop, and f/4 loses two. (In fact, our previous experience was exactly that - going from f/1.8 to f/4.)

Anyway, I've drawn a mental line at f/2.8 for video, and would prefer to go faster, when in budget.

I use Olympus lenses on my 5D2, all handed on from my old OM-1 cameras.
My widest is the Oly 21mm f2, followed by the 24mm f2.
The fantastic thing about Oly lenses is they are all small! The 21mm for instance weighs only 250 grams and takes 55mm filters.
See details here:
Zuiko lenses - 21mm f/2.0, 21mm f/3.5 (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/21mm.htm)

Oooh. Tell me more! (As I sing the song from "Grease.")

What adapter is needed? Is it really an f/2, or does the falloff and contrast loss get extreme? How's it look with your filter system? Does the front move when you focus? What's the typical price range?

Wide?

Sigma 12-24mm... everything else is just... wide-ish. :)

I have a the Canon EF 20mm f/2,8. I place a step up ring adapter to go from 72mm-77mm filter size. This allows me to put 1-2 filters on with minimal vignetting. The lens does an overall good job image wise. Where I live they are pretty hard to come by and I bought mine used on eBay for about 450.00 USD. Good Luck.

Wide?

Sigma 12-24mm... everything else is just... wide-ish. :)

12mm sounds like a blast! Unfortunately, it won't accept filters and peaks at f/5.6. Ken Rockwell doesn't like it much: Sigma 12-24mm Test Review © 2004 KenRockwell.com (http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/1224.htm)

Still, it sounds like a lot of fun!

I have a the Canon EF 20mm f/2,8. I place a step up ring adapter to go from 72mm-77mm filter size. This allows me to put 1-2 filters on with minimal vignetting. The lens does an overall good job image wise. Where I live they are pretty hard to come by and I bought mine used on eBay for about 450.00 USD. Good Luck.

Victor, thanks! Knowing that I can add 77mm filters is really helpful. How do you like the lens for video and for stills?

12mm sounds like a blast! Unfortunately, it won't accept filters and peaks at f/5.6. Ken Rockwell doesn't like it much: Sigma 12-24mm Test Review © 2004 KenRockwell.com (http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/1224.htm)

Still, it sounds like a lot of fun!

1) Ken Rockwell is a Nikkwhore.
2) Screw on filters are for photographers and hippies. We are cinematographers and thus use 4x4 filters on matte boxes, which work fine.
3) It's only 5.6 at 24mm, who cares about the boring end? It's f4.5 at 12mm, which fine is still kind of slow... but so what, it's 12mm! (and his review is flawed, stating that the Canon and Nikon 10mm and 12mm lenses are better, but since they are both EFS and DX lenses and the Sigma is full frame, they aren't in the same category).
4) Also, I heard Ken Rockwell punched a puppy and drinks light beer... so... I'm just saying...

I picked up a tamron 20-40 f2.7-3.5 in nikon mount since I had been looking for a tamron 17-35 2.8-4 based on good reviews but everywhere seems to be out of stock in for that lens in nikon mount. I had seen the 17-35 reviewed in comparison to canon and sigma. These tamron lenses provide comparable quality to canon especially when using as manual focus so usm is no concern, and all sigma superwides with reasonable prices seemed extremely lacking in sharpness bad for distortion based on reviews I read. The tamron 20-40 was incredibly cheap used. its ~$150 and keh has it, but i picked one up at adorama in person since i wanted it sooner. after some use ive been very impressed with the sharpness and lack of distortion (for the fov) on my 5dmk2. I used it a lot on a 48hr film fest entry last weekend and love having such a wide lens. I shot some photos and video this week on top of the empire state building and I just have to say it is insane not to have a lens at least this wide if you are shooting landscape exteriors. It's a pretty amazing look shooting at f2.7 at 20mm and being in a Medium-Full shot and still having the background quite blurred out despite the wide angle. Feels like an even larger format. Only thing to be careful about is flare, it doesnt flare too pretty and at 40mm it still flares like a 20mm. I had to be careful with this on some heavily backlit stuff I shot. Only problem ive found is backfocus, though thats probably my nikon-eos adapter. i have a cheap ebay kawa adapter and an even cheaper ebay hongkong adapter, and both seem to be too short in depth, so the lens focuses quite a bit past infinity.

i should mention my original choice of the 17-35 tamron was based on reviews at the fred miranda reviews site, but they had no reviews for the 20-40 which i eventually came across on my own and looked up reviews which seemed to be quite good.

what about the Tokina 11-16mm, just bought one for my Red that is being converted to PL mount as I type.

I picked up a tamron 20-40 f2.7-3.5.... The tamron 20-40 was incredibly cheap used. its ~$150... ive been very impressed with the sharpness and lack of distortion (for the fov) on my 5dmk2....reviews for the 20-40 which i eventually came across on my own and looked up reviews which seemed to be quite good.Noah, thanks for the heads-up on this lens that I had never even heard of as I have been looking for a wide zoom. After looking at a few pretty decent reviews I started looking on eBay & amazingly found a Canon mount one for auction here in France with just 4 hours to go. I won it at 200 Euros (about $285) including shipping & should receive it next week. On the various eBay sites that I looked (UK, France, Germany & US) there were a few Nikon mount ones available for a around the same price but the only other Canon mount one was 400 Euros ($570) so if I don't like the lens maybe I can turn a profit:-)

Nikon 14-24G > Contax N Zeiss 17-35 > Nikon 17-35 > Canon 16-35 > Third Party

Jon:

You asked <<What adapter is needed? Is it really an f/2, or does the falloff andcontrast loss get extreme? How's it look with your filter system? Does the front move when you focus? What's the typical price range? >>

I'm using the eBay sourced 'Big-iS' EOS-OM adaptor from Hong Kong. An 'AF Confirm' type adaptor (beeps when in focus) and it now comes in a version that can have the lenses EXIF data inputted to the adaptor...via a sequence of shutter and aperture 'fiddles' to set the adaptor for the lens.
A great idea but since I'm using 6 Olympus lenses with one adaptor probably not too relevant.
Not all adaptors are equal, a matter of the machining tolerances. Fotodiox do an expensive adaptor and there are some rated Japanese ones.No Novoflex though.

In the wide angles, I have the 21mm, 24mm and 35mm Oly lenses which are all f2.0 versions, so great for video work.

There are users posting on the web, like this one:
PixelPix by Russell Stewart: Tip 8: Olympus Lenses on your Canon SLR (http://russellspixelpix.blogspot.com/2007/06/olympus-lenses-on-your-canon-slr-one-of.html)

There obviously is some fall off on the 21mm but I guess the Nikons have that too.
Software can take that out on stills...but it's hardly noticeable on video to be honest as narrow DOF helps the eye in video.
The front elements do move during focusing.
I'm using the Cokin P Filters and have the 'wide-angle' holder which avoids vignetting....just I guess. Mostly using ND8 (3 stops ND) because of video exposure in daylight and have the older Cokin A filters on the narrow lenses.

Oly manual lenses are prized for sharpness so keep reasonable prices and the 21mm f2 is sought after, I'm not sure how much you'd pay locally though.
David T.

How do you like the lens for video and for stills?

It gives a strange sort of perspective. I really like it for having the subject relatively close to the camera and off center and it will give huge panorama of the background with just a hint of fisheye effect. Its really light and discreet as well for more street shots. I do a lot of solo work in urban settings and I like a rig that doesn't scream "steal me". I am finishing a video project this weekend that I can try and post on youtube some examples of the 20.

I am on a waiting list for the new 17 TS lens... That will be really nice lens I think.

How about the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II Rectilinear...

How about the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II Rectilinear...At $2k+, that looks like a fine rental.

I've got a concept that would include timelapse and astronomical shots, and that lens is at the top of the list for that job...

I went with the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8.

I was gonna go with the Canon 17-40 f4,
but the Tamron was only $300 and it was f2.8.

I'm satisfied with it.
Having the f2.8 is nice.

It is soft in the edges but not an issue for video.
For stills it could be, but only if you're really blowing up your photos.

-Bill

I went with the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8.

That might just be my purchase - to go along with the occasional 14mm rental.

A couple of questions:
* Have you tried it with filters? (I like the 77mm thread, btw)
* Does the contrast die, when you go to f/2.8? (Some lenses seem to go dark when you open them that last click - which defeats the purpose of the large aperture.)

Thanks!

That might just be my purchase - to go along with the occasional 14mm rental.


Just a reminder that the 5DII's Peripheral Illumination Correction doesn't work with Tamron lenses (or any 3rd party lenses). This is a reason to consider staying with Canon, especially with an ultra wide lens where vignetting is a factor.

Jon,

Sorry to come to this late, I would seriously suggest you look at the older Nikon 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. It can be found quite cheaply now and features better manual focus than the newer lenses, importantly it also has hard end stops and a 77mmm filter thread.

The other sensible options are the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8, Canon 17-40 f4 and 16-35mm f2.8 II lens.

Dan

Wide?

Sigma 12-24mm... everything else is just... wide-ish. :)

AGREED!! I researched the Sigma 12-24mm like mad on flickr and was sold.

Flickr: Sigma 12-24 (http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma12-24/)

Cheaper than the Canon 17-35, and I feel way more satisfied having an extreme wide that's not fish-eye.

Regarding it's slow aperture, I really don't care. I have other fast lenses for stupidly low light. This thing does just fine with a modest amount of light on the 5DMkII.

-steev

Steev.

I used to have a 12-24 Sigma, also owned a Sigma 15-30 in the past. They are all usable and I think the 12-24 is hard to beat for ultrawide effect. If you need ND you can fit a small gel over the rear of the lens.

If you intending to run and gun I would recommend the 20-35, 16-35, 17-35 range of lenses though as they give more flexability for following people around and take filters. You will rarely want to use 12mm on people because of the extreme egg head effect you give them.

Dan

You will rarely want to use 12mm on people because of the extreme egg head effect you give them.

Dan, I agree that you can use 12mm wrong on people. But I definitely bought it for having the under-24mm ability. I was tempted by the Canon 17-35, but it was too much $$, and felt like 12-24 filled the ultra wide gap better. But you're right that the 17-35mm is a bit more sane for closeup shots of people.

For 24mm+, I have a 24-70mm f2.8 which is definitely the primary run and gun lens. But I'd keep the 12-24mm right on my side in case I want to go ultra wide.

I am still pretty happy with even 24mm on the 5D. It's significantly wider than my HVX200 stock lens.

At $2k+, that looks like a fine rental.

I've got a concept that would include timelapse and astronomical shots, and that lens is at the top of the list for that job...

Why not go with the 14-24 G if timelapse and astro are some of your goals? It's more versatile than the EF 14mm prime and boasts better image quality.

It used to be good to go with Nikon lenses for timelapse, because you could gain control over the iris, which eliminates some of the flickering that can be caused by the inaccuracies of an iris opening and closing with each frame. I read somewhere at the Timescapes forum that the 5D2 firmware update allows you to lock iris for stills, but I do not know if this is true. Either way, you might consider investigating the 14-24 vs the EF 14.

Thomas,

The Nikon 14-24G looks like an awesome choice, except that it has no aperture ring. I've read that one can prop it closed with a matchstick, but I've never had my hands on a G-lens to test if this is practical. It's available as a daily/weekend rental locally for $30, so it's very practical from that perspective. Reading review, the optics sound fantastic!

I've got a few applications, and plan to cover them with a ~$400 purchase and occasional rental. The applications are:

* Ultrawide timelapse. I've got a concept for a short film that would incorporate this into the story. If I can prop closed the 14-24G aperture, I'll rent that. Having no rear gel slot could be a problem though, as I'd need a very large mattebox to ND daylight shots. I want no quality compromises here.

* Forced perspective stills. My purchased lens should cover this. The subject would generally be inanimate objects. The Sigma could be the right choice - the wider the better! I generally publish to the web, rather than print, so I'll balance price and quality.

* Forced perspective video. I'd like to do stuff like showing a hand on a chess piece in the foreground, with the person's face in the background (where it won't be as distorted). This lens doesn't need to be crazy wide, but should be no slower than f/2.8. I've got the EF 28mm f/1.8 (and a 24mm f/2.8 Vivitar), but would like 20mm or wider. Maybe the Sigma will cover this too.

My filter strategy (NDs, polarizers and softening/diffussion) had been built around screw ons, but I've got to re-evaluate that. I've been avoiding the matte box approach because it adds cost at every step and isn't as practical for straight-up photography.

Decisions, decisions...

You can control the 14-24's iris ring with this adapter:

Nikon G - Canon EOS Adapter (http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/)

I have it on my 14-24 now, on my 5D2. It works great!

Of course, no screw-on filters for the 14-24. At night, you don't want any, though.

Like you say, choices, choices!

Well... I think I've figured out my ultra-wide strategy.

For purchase, I'll get the EF 20mm f/2.8. It looks like all of the affordable lenses have falloff issues, but only the EF lenses get in-camera correction. I eliminated all of the affordable 3rd party lenses for this reason. Besides, it will match my collection of mid-level EF lenses from 28mm to 85mm.

The Canon 17-35 and 17-40 f/4 L lenses are pretty attractive, but I'm already feeling at the end of the plank with f/2.8.

The Olympus Zuiko 21mm f/2.0 looks like a jewel, but it's rare and out of budget. The Nikon 20-35mm is also out of budget.

The rental picture surprised me. I think I'll end up renting the Nikon 17-35, when I want high quality, the versatility of a zoom, and want to use filters. The EF 16-35 II uses 82mm filters, and the original 16-35 (77mm) isn't available at the local shop anymore, so the Nikon wins.

For crazy wides, the Nikon 14-24mm looks insane for time lapse night work. I have to see if there's a way to jerry-rig the aperture down without risk though. I can't justify a $200+ adapter for a specialty rental. The Canon 14mm simplifies things and lets me use a gel ND for daylight work. So the Canon gets the nod for crazy wides under most conditions. The Nikon would only work for me at night if I can find an aperture hack. Either way, I'd pair one of these with the Nikon 17-35.

Thanks everybody for your input!

Nikon 14-24G > Contax N Zeiss 17-35 > Nikon 17-35 > Canon 16-35 > Third Party

The Nikon needs a special adapter, but it is the clear stand out on both Canon and Nikon. And it's 2.8

Any buyer needs to define prime or zoom and focal length to have a reasonable analysis. Talking about Bokeh on ultrawides is optimistic unless focus is very close.

Originally Posted by Thomas Lowe View Post
Nikon 14-24G > Contax N Zeiss 17-35 > Nikon 17-35 > Canon 16-35 > Third PartyThe Nikon needs a special adapter, but it is the clear stand out on both Canon and Nikon. And it's 2.8

Any buyer needs to define prime or zoom and focal length to have a reasonable analysis. Talking about Bokeh on ultrawides is optimistic unless focus is very close.

Also, the Contax N Zeiss 17-35 needs to be professionally adapted to fit the Canon. It's way out of budget and not a standard rental.

And I agree that bokeh is not generally a concern with ultrawides. For timelapse, I'll be stopping things down anyway. For video, I want a fast lens in order to minimize noise in natural, indoor light. As long as the iris has six or more blades, it's likely good enough for me. The only really bad-bokeh lenses that I've seen in the Canon line have been the five blade lenses - not so much because I don't like the shape, but because the alignment is often poor, resulting in poor symmetry, which I find distracting.

UPDATE: My Canon 16-35 2.8L went back. I was experiencing vignetting, as expected (especially with 82-77 step-down) and to be honest it wasn't much wider than my existing 24-70 2.8L. I should have thought about it before ordering- it's only 8mm wider.

Now a 14mm fish could be fun. Even though it's technically 14mm it offers 180 degree coverage! However that is ONLY an effects lens. I'm sticking with my 24-70 2.8, 50 1.2, and 85 1.8 combo for now. Next lens to invest in is the 70-200 2.8L IS.

UPDATE: My Canon 16-35 2.8L went back. I was experiencing vignetting, as expected (especially with 82-77 step-down) and to be honest it wasn't much wider than my existing 24-70 2.8L. I should have thought about it before ordering- it's only 8mm wider.

Now a 14mm fish could be fun. Even though it's technically 14mm it offers 180 degree coverage! However that is ONLY an effects lens. I'm sticking with my 24-70 2.8, 50 1.2, and 85 1.8 combo for now. Next lens to invest in is the 70-200 2.8L IS.

I gotta say again, the Sigma 12-24 satisfies the boost to ultrawide, as distinct from the 24-70. It's tremendously wider when you need/want it. The 16-35 didn't seem to be enough *oomf* to me.

UPDATE: My Canon 16-35 2.8L went back. I was experiencing vignetting, as expected (especially with 82-77 step-down) and to be honest it wasn't much wider than my existing 24-70 2.8L. I should have thought about it before ordering- it's only 8mm wider.

Now a 14mm fish could be fun. Even though it's technically 14mm it offers 180 degree coverage! However that is ONLY an effects lens. I'm sticking with my 24-70 2.8, 50 1.2, and 85 1.8 combo for now. Next lens to invest in is the 70-200 2.8L IS.

Not arguing with you at all here, just going to provide a second opinion for others.

I find my 16-35II significantly wider than my 24-70 and more versatile than a 12-24. But, I say that more as a stills photographer than a videographer, and I do understand that the 12-24 is much more of a "specialty" lens, so no one using it expects it to be that versatile. You use that lens when you're going wide, real WIDE, on purpose.

For PJ-like work, the 35mm on the 16-35 makes the lens very, very usable even for non-wide shots. It's really apples and oranges comparing the two in a way. But regardless, at 16mm, that 8mm extra from the 24-70mm is SIGNIFICANT, plus the distortion on the Mark II of the 16-35mm is quite impressively small given the focal length.

Also, using a step-down ring on the 16-35mm is just a complete non-starter right out of the gate. If anything, use a step-up for screw-on filters, or at an absolute minimum, use a slim filter. That said, the 82mm filter size of the 16-35 II kind of sucks, but it just goes to show the new version of the lens is quite different from the Mark I.

I gotta say again, the Sigma 12-24 satisfies the boost to ultrawide, as distinct from the 24-70. It's tremendously wider when you need/want it. The 16-35 didn't seem to be enough *oomf* to me.

I know what you mean. Once you use it, nothing over 16mm will ever seem wide again. Really. It kind of spoils everything else.

12mm owner: "What's that lens?"
Other photog: "A 20mm.
12mm owner: "Why are you shooting telephoto?"

Anyway, it's definitely not what you want for an all purpose walking around "wide" lens.

I know what you mean. Once you use it, nothing over 16mm will ever seem wide again. Really. It kind of spoils everything else.

12mm owner: "What's that lens?"
Other photog: "A 20mm.
12mm owner: "Why are you shooting telephoto?"

Hahaha.. yes indeed!

Anyway, it's definitely not what you want for an all purpose walking around "wide" lens.

Yes, I agree with it not being an all purpose anything. But I wouldn't call the 17-35mm as all purpose either, although, yes 35mm is more useful than 24mm. But 12mm-16mm is far more useful to me than the 17mm limit for wide.

All in all though, great thread! I had deliberated and purchased prior to this thread beginning, but I would have loved to have these opinions available to me at the time.

-steev

All in all though, great thread!Agreed - and not because I started it. ;)

There are a lot more options listed in this thread than I knew existed, and the hands on experience that people have shared brings a lot of weight to the discussion. Now, if only I had the cash to buy a small collection the best recommended lenses!

Jon,

This had indeed been a great thread. One word of caution though, I really don't rate the Canon 20mm f2.8 wide open. It's nothing that the in camera correction can help. Maybe I've just had duff copies in the past but its not a patch on the zooms for some wierd reason. I'm surprised the Nikon 20-35 is out of budget, when I got mine it was cheaper used than a new Canon 20mm, there's one on ebay with no bids at $295 but it will probably go up. Maybe people have realised what a bargain it is.

Dan

I'm sticking with my 24-70 2.8, 50 1.2, and 85 1.8 combo for now. Next lens to invest in is the 70-200 2.8L IS.

You might want to check out the often over-looked Canon EF 200mm 2.8L MKII. Its not IS but the prime colour renditions are amazing.

I'm surprised the Nikon 20-35 is out of budget...I should shop around more. When I did a quick check, I recall a listing that was close to $1k.

A Canon 20-35 f/2.8 L non-USM just popped up locally. Anybody have experience with that lens? From what I read it lacks modern coatings, so it suffers from CA.

But frankly, I'm in no rush to buy. My first ultrawide target project needs top quality, so I'll rent the 14mm Canon and 17-35 Nikon for the trip.

So far, we have :-
Primes :- < 1K
Olympus OM Zuiko f2.0 21mm
sigma 20mm 1.8
Olympus OM Zuiko f2.0 24mm

Zoom :- ~ 1K
Canon EF 16-35 f2.8

Summary - recommended affordable fast primesI don't think that there has been any consensus yet on recommendations. One post from Dan Chung alone lists four zooms none of which are in your 'recommended' list.

I don't think that there has been any consensus yet on recommendations. One post from Dan Chung alone lists four zooms none of which are in your 'recommended' list.

Agreed! I'll echo now quite redundantly.... Sigma 12-24!