Recommend for a wide angle lens

[jj_vuong]

I am seeking your advice on what wide angle lens should I be

considering for taking weddings and landscapes. I currently own a 24-

70L and 70-200L IS. I want to experiment with wide angle lens that

suitable for and at the same time giving a interesting perspective to

weddings and landscape photograph. Prime lenses would be great as I

think to carry another zoom such as the 16-35L (?) would be a

struggle but also the hard decision to use which zoom to use for a

perspective between 24mm to 35mm. Prime lens would also be cheaper

than Zoom? Thanks in advance.

[ian_hobday]

You don't mention your body or budget.<br>

<br>

If you are going to go zoom then the 17-40 4L is an excellent choice. Most say it is sharper than the 16-35 2.8L, and it is certainly lighter and cheaper. I am extremely happy with mine.<br>

<br>

Canon has a good selection of wide primes, both L and non L. Buying a couple of L primes is certainly going to cost you more than the 17-40 though, but you might find some good deals on non L primes. I am sure others here will have some ideas for you about this.<br>

<br>

Good luck with your hunt!

<br>

Ian<br>

--<br>

Ian Hobday<br>

Osaka, Japan<br>

<a href="http://hobday.net/photos" target="_blank">http://hobday.net/photos</a> (Opens in a new window.)

[WM]

Hi JJ,

 

I think in your case, there are only a few options that might fit what you already have and that is the 17-40/4L or if you have a need

for speed, then the 16-35/2.8L would be the way to go. With what you already have, adding the 16-35 would just be perfect. I currently shoot with the 70-200 and 16-35 as well, and looking to get a 24-70 in the future.

 

I am tempted to suggest the 14mm prime, but I am not sure if you would want such a specialised lens. Another good prime I have used is the Sigma 20/1.8 EX which is super fast, cheap, noisy and optically brilliant, but for another extra 4mm from your 24-70, it is probably not a good choice. Other than that, if your body is able to take the EF-S lenses, then you might want to consider the 10-22mm ?

 

wm

[gaius1]

I've heard mixed reports about the Sigma 14mm f/2.8 HSM. Some say it's good, others are disappointed. But it's half the price of the Canon equivalent, I guess you get what you pay for.

[jim_larson1]

17-40/4L=$650

 

16-35/2.8=$1300

 

optical quality similar.

 

All the primes are fine. You lose features like USM, FTM on the 2.8 primes. .

 

. .wait.. . .you already have the 24-70/2.8L. . ..so you are talking about either the 20/2.8, ($400), the 14/? (?). The 20/2.8 is reputably a good lens, but not as sharp as the other primes.

 

Ah heck. Get the 17-40/4L.

[jj_vuong]

Thanks guys and much appreciated. I was originally thinking of the 14mm but walk away as it limits my usage (or that I don't have the creative touch to use it as much). 16-35L sounds like a logical progression - back to savings. Thanks

[jj_vuong]

Thanks guys and much appreciated. I was originally thinking of the 14mm but walk away as it limits my usage (or that I don't have the creative touch to use it as much). 16-35L sounds like a logical progression - back to savings. Thanks