Which wide angle?

[paigew]

I'm trying to decide between the 11-24 f4 L or the 16-35 f2.8 iii L. Anyone have one? Both? Help me choose! I was set on the 16-35 but now my husband has me second guessing myself...do I want those extra mm? Really wanting something for landscape and also some interior architecture type stuff.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[photoflyer]

I have neither. However if you are looking at also doing interiors I think the f 2.8 offers an advantage in low light.

That said, two different apps I have say that on a full frame, at 100 meters, the horizontal field of view on 327 meters on the 11mm and 224 on the 16 mm.

I think you have to ask yourself this, with which one will you be able to make more of the type of shots you want. They are both high quality.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Are you on a full frame or crop sensor? I had a 12mm prime that was great on my aps-c. I take pictures of the staircases I build so mostly for architecture. When I went up to full frame I went with a 16-35. I’m very happy with it. I don’t know if I would even like something lower than 16mm on a full frame.

Also, I always ended up using a tripod for my interior shots so I don’t know that a lower aperture is really beneficial in that regard. I think the only area that would really benefit from it would be astro.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Are you on a full frame or crop sensor? I had a 12mm prime that was great on my aps-c. I take pictures of the staircases I build so mostly for architecture. When I went up to full frame I went with a 16-35. I’m very happy with it. I don’t know if I would even like something lower than 16mm on a full frame.

Also, I always ended up using a tripod for my interior shots so I don’t know that a lower aperture is really beneficial in that regard. I think the only area that would really benefit from it would be astro.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[paigew]

Thank you for weighing in your opinions I know the f2.8 would offer an advantage in low light, but when shooting architectural stuff i'll probably be using a tripod and low shutter so it likely won't be an issue. Although I do prefer the lower aperture I was just wondering if anyone preferred the actual focal length over the other. As for what body I'm on, I have (2) mark iii bodies, so full frame. I'm still leaning towards the 16-35! I also have the 24-70 as well as a 35 prime just looking for something really great for landscapes!!

 

[Derrel]

The 11-24 is strictly a wide angle lens, and it is very wide at the short end, and you probably know what 24 mm is like.

The 16-35mm on the other hand is a more versatile lens inasmuch as it's wide,at the short end, and also the 35mm upper end gives a more naturalistic look.

 

[TCampbell]

What other lenses do you have?

For example.... if you already own a 24-70 or a 24-105... then a 16-35 offers a bit of overlap. e.g. if you wanted to shoot something at 28mm... you'd have two different lenses that offer the same focal length. To that way of thinking... the 11-24mm offers a whole new range with no overlap.

Both landscapes and architecture are the sort of thing that can be shot using a tripod ... no need to be in a hurry. A low-focal ratio (e.g. the fact that the 16-35 is offered in an f/2.8 version while the 11-24 is only f/4 ... one stop slower) isn't necessarily an advantage when you're on a tripod (and often you want more depth of field and wouldn't shoot at f/2.8 anyway).

16mm is extremely wide when using a full frame body. I have a 14mm and it's ultra-wide.

You might want to check out the Canon 11-24 lens photo-group on Flickr and browse through the photo pool for examples of how people use it.

Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM

 

[paigew]

thank you! I was thinking I would want something more versatile like the 16-24, but my husband made the same point as you, @TCampbell. I do own the 24-70 so there would be overlap. I'm wondering if I would want the extra wide...I'll check out that group to see what shots they get! Thanks so much!

 

[paigew]

You might want to check out the Canon 11-24 lens photo-group on Flickr and browse through the photo pool for examples of how people use it.

Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM

some of those photos are amazing! Maybe I do want the 11-24! Should I get them both? LOL just kidding

 

[weepete]

16-35mm f2.8 would be my pick without any hesitation. Cracking lens and great focal length for landscapes on a full frame. Also the 16-35mm will take filters, but the 11-24mm will not because of the shape of the front element. One you start to go below 24mm it can have that weird squishy ultrawide distortion effect, particularly on verticals which make it much more of a niche lens and much more difficult to use IMO. 16mm on a full frame is really pretty wide anyway and most of the time those old, traditional focal lengths of 24 and 35mm will serve you much better perspective than wider lengths.

 

[paigew]

16-35mm f2.8 would be my pick without any hesitation. Cracking lens and great focal length for landscapes on a full frame. Also the 16-35mm will take filters, but the 11-24mm will not because of the shape of the front element. One you start to go below 24mm it can have that weird squishy ultrawide distortion effect, particularly on verticals which make it much more of a niche lens and much more difficult to use IMO. 16mm on a full frame is really pretty wide anyway and most of the time those old, traditional focal lengths of 24 and 35mm will serve you much better perspective than wider lengths.

Thank you! Good point on the filters, I hadn't thought of that! I was thinking there might be too much distortion on the 11-24.