Looking wide zoom lens

AliMoore

AliMoore

Messages
325
Name
Alastair
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi I uses 24-70 and seconded shooter uses 24-105 canon!!
Looking for a wider 16-35 f2.8 or 17-40 f4! I've heard the 16-35 is much nice but not worth the extras £500/£600, plus at 2.8 is very soft around edges so its best at f4 and above, so this leads me to think if I'd use the f2.8 so as soft as ones say!
I'd be looking it for creative bride&groom stuff with interior and exterior, using buildings etc and for documentary stuff ie receiving line and getting ready shots!

If I did get the 16-35 I'd sell the 24-105 and let second shooter use 24-70 (mk2) and I'd use 16-35 and 50 f1.2!
But I suppose I just want to know is it worth extra £500, if its as soft at 2.8 as people say and I'd have to use it f4 and above would I be best with cheaper 17-40 f4?

Thanks
 
Get the 2.8 if you can afford it you will appreciate it the first time you need to use it in a gloomy church also it will give you some more dof options which is a bonus.

It's landscape togs that moan about the lack of sharpness and that's because they want/need corner to corner sharpness this should be much less important for you as a wedding tog unless you like putting the bride and groom in the extreme corners!
 
Yea exactly that's what I was thinking I can handly lens distortion (well at least lroom can) and if my middle 3/4 is sharp then edges of buildings and landscapes ain't a big worry to me, really want to go for 2.8 but was hopping someone would convince me not to!
 
Sigma 12-24 is incredibly wide on FF! Extremely well corrected as far as rectilinear distortions go too - perspective is exagerated but "ye cannae beat the laws o' physics"! A good copy will be plenty sharp in the critical areas - try before you buy.

Not sure where you're based but if you're anywhere within striking distance of Exeter, you're welcome to play with mine.

Potential downsides are its relatively slow max aperture and the lack of filter thread but look at the price compared to its rival (the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 which also suffers the filter "problem, although I believe ther is a solution [at a price...]) along with Sigma's QC problems (which are more reported than experienced IMO).
 
Tokina 16-28 if you don't need the filters. In a wedding you might just get away with it. At least it is a lot cheaper if anything else.

Zeiss 21mm if you are happy with manual focus, or the 17mm TSE if you fancy special look.

Both L zooms are rather poor for sharpness and quality control. The worst L lenses in the current line up? If you don't care about the corners (30-40% photo area :lol:) and get a good copy 16-35 is OK (no more)
 
Awesome guys some good feed back, that's why am scared to buy either them don't wanna waste another £1000 and prob sell a good 24-105 to fund it, so it'll only leave me with 1 reliable wide zoom. Love the stuff other togs are getting with wide angles, just wondering what there using! Am in northern ire so miles from Exeter lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top