Which ultra wide angle lens for Venice (or do I actually need one)?

UWA lenses ARE 'perfect for getting more of a scene into the camera'.   However, that tends to end up being a boring image.

As for mountains, I find them even less likely to lend themselves to a UWA lens.   Unless you are really close to a wall.

Shooting ultrawide works well when everything is close - subject, foreground and background.   Really wide redefines 'close'.   When I shoot with a fisheye, I have to worry about the subject touching the lens.    Backgrounds more than 10 feet away shrink so much they can disappear.

If you get next to a cliff, you can use it for a background, assuming it works well as a background.  What you need then is a (very) close subject, and a bit of medium distance subjects of interest.   Let's say a nice flower (close subject), on a rockpile (medium distance) 10 feet from a wall.

I once took a new 12-24 to Hawaii.   Took a lot of useless shots with it where there were mountains/volcano on the horizon.   They might as well have been short hills as they were almost unseen in the end result.   Now when I think about using a wide angle, the first thing I consider is if there is a really close, really big background.   Then I look for subject matter I can get close to, and I think of it works in conjunction with that background.  Otherwise I might just stand back and shoot the subject with a 105vr.

In Venice, I can see shots where you are very close to a gondola, and you still want to show it as being in Venice, when you have a bridge looming overhead, or buildings nearby.    There are lots of possibilities there, but you may not be thinking along those lines if you haven't used wide angle before.

Here's a fisheye shot I like for showing a close subject (table about 2 inches from the lens) in a small Mexican cafe:

http://www.cjcphoto.net/travels/images/100106-120336-84-d300.nef.jpg

--
Craig
www.cjcphoto.net