a good value wide angle- UWA non-fisheye lens?

i have the 16-35/2.8 ii which i love but i feel i don`t use it often enough to justify keeping it. so i am considering FF alternatives, most likely primes. with my 16-35 at the zoom end, i usually switch to my 35/1.4 anyways, i also have the 24 prime, but almost never use it and will probably sell it. i know from experience that i dislike the 24mm and 28mm angles of view and avoid them when i can. So i am looking more in the 15-20 range. there is that superb UWA canon zoom, but that is even pricier than my 16-35 and images bellow 15mm look quite unnatural to me... i need something with a normal look, free of distortions, and cheap if possible. i don´t mind too much slower speeds or manual focus, or vintage lenses, or 3d party, or other mounts lenses with adapters, as i don´t often use UWA...i have been eyeing some laowa and samyang but i am not convinced, any recommendations?

N:B the WA needed is not for architecture or landscapes use,...only for portraiture and group shots...and i did get the 16-35/2.8 because i convinced myself i need the range, IQ and verstility and cringed at even thinking about the "loss" ofa few degrees angle of view and f stops that i would get with the cheaper old 17-35/4...and sorry if the answer is already somewhere in the forum, still new here though i used to be a photo.net member in the late 90´s have only been back to photography recently. Edited December 22, 2017 by thefrogtog

I assume that you're talking about for a full-frame body. Is that correct?

 

Assuming that you're talking full-frame, then the 17-35/f4 is an excellent value, particularly if purchased used.

 

Shooting wide and ultra-wide is an acquired skill. Only certain subjects are candidates. For the right subjects, only an ultra-wide will do. I'm surprised that you can't find much use for 24mm.

 

I use my EF 14mm f/2.8L II for "big sky" shots, where the foreground has lots of interest, but the sky is doing things that can't be denied. Here's an example at 14mm, then I cropped 2:1 to emphasize the wideness:

 

Sandhill Cranes Fly Across The Horizon At Sunrise by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

You can't do that with a 35mm. ;-)

 

BTW, I'm switching to Sony and bought a full-frame 12-24mm for those bodies, so the Canon 14mm is for sale at a bargain $1,400. ;-)

i have the 16-35/2.8 ii which i love but i feel i don`t use it often

That is a good lens. Sure there are some cheap UWA lenses out there some manual focus stuff and some f/4 lenses a bit more. You are going to take a hit selling this lens used. Maybe only coming out with a lesser lens and a couple hundred in your pocket.

 

Let me see if I understand this. You have a great Wide Angle Zoom L Lens. But you don't use it, I assume enough to justify it's price tag. New it runs $1299.00, yet if you sell it, you might still want a wide angle prime in case you do want to shoot some wide angle stuff in the future. I get it. These are selling around $799 used. So maybe you could sell it privately for about that, a shop that buys used gear won't even come close to offering you that because they want to resell it and make a profit. Typically they will google a used lens, show what they are going for used and then give you several hundred below that. So maybe they will give you $400. That is a hell of hit and you still want to buy a cheap UWA lens. So that Cheap UWA lens is really going to cost it's price plus all the money you will lose selling that fast wide angle L glass II. I am just pointing out the obvious, so be really sure what you are giving up and gaining. Maybe you can find a guy will give you more, but most people will look at what they can pick these up for used on Amazon or B&H. If you need the cash I understand, but it is going to be hit.

In fairness, a complete kit, in good condition, you can probably ebay it successfully for $8-900 they go for that (or more) on a continual basis. Replacing it w/ a 17-40/4 L (which shouldn't cost you much more than $400-450 used) does put 4-500 in your pocket. If you are shooting group portraits, while I almost never need to go wider than 24mm, if you do need to go wider, a zoom UWA is really a must, because you want to zoom 'in' as much as possible (to prevent unpleasant distortion to faces) at all times, - so a prime is NOT a good idea for that work... plus of course you don't need anything wider than f4...

true, maybe a silly notion,,,

reminds me of the joke:

 

how to make money from photography?...sell your gear

I'm in agreement with those who suggest that if you get rid of this lens,

you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.

There are a number of lenses 14-20mm, but none are really cheap, if you want no distortion. Canon is lacking a good 15-21mm prime lens, apart from the 17mm TSE, which is more lens than you need. The best lens rationally to get is probably the 16-35mm f4IS, but you have a similar lens and you don't want it. You could try the now discontinued Zeiss ZE 21mm or 18mm. Both are good, but neither are cheap and they have manual focus. The Milvus versions are even more expensive. Any Zeiss will cost the same or more than the 16-35 mm f4 IS and is less versatile, and probably not a lot different in performance. The Canon 20mm f2.8 is an old lens and not up to current optical standards, but a s/h one would be quite cheap. I doubt it is much better than the lens you already have though.

I don't get it, you have a 16-35 zoom, but you want a prime in the 15-20mm range, which is within the range of your 16-35.

 

And you want something "with a normal look, free of distortion."

In the past, people would stop at 28mm because of the distortion of wider lenses. Yet you want to go much wider, to 15-20mm?

15-20mm is in the ultra/super wide range. Tilt the camera a tiny bit and you will have converging lines.

 

I would NOT use a lens that wide for portraiture or group shots, unless I literally had no room to backup.

I hope you tried this with your 16-35 set to 16mm.