need a fast, ultra wide, full frame lens. something under 20mm.

i currently have a canon 16-35 f/2.8L II. while i like the lens mostly, sometimes the images are softer than i would like them to be. and the distortion is just ridiculous at smaller focal lengths.

i'm looking to upgrade to something better. don't care if it is prime or zoom, auto focus or full manual. i just need the best image possible with a 5D Mark III and i need it to be under 20mm.

i looked at the Carl Zeiss 15mm Distagon T* f/2.8 ZE. i'm thinking that may be my best option. but before i plunk down such a stupid amount of money for what is nothing more than hobby, i want to know if it is worth it.

are there any other suggestions that i may have missed?

thanks

solomonshv wrote:

i currently have a canon 16-35 f/2.8L II. while i like the lens mostly, sometimes the images are softer than i would like them to be. and the distortion is just ridiculous at smaller focal lengths.

i'm looking to upgrade to something better. don't care if it is prime or zoom, auto focus or full manual. i just need the best image possible with a 5D Mark III and i need it to be under 20mm.

i looked at the Carl Zeiss 15mm Distagon T* f/2.8 ZE. i'm thinking that may be my best option. but before i plunk down such a stupid amount of money for what is nothing more than hobby, i want to know if it is worth it.

are there any other suggestions that i may have missed?

thanks

I rejected the Zeiss 15mm ZE for not being sharp in the corners for a lens that, as you say, costs "stupid money".

Have you checked out the 16-35/4 IS. Slower but...your only other decent choices that might beat the 16-35 II in the Canon brand are the 14/2.8 II, the TSE-17 or maybe one of the fish-eyes.

For the price of the Zeiss, you could buy the latest APS-C camera (7D 2?) and try the EF-S 10-22 or 18-something or druther or the 18-35/1.8 by some3rd party  manf whose name escapes me.

Forget the 17TS-E. At f/4 it ain't fast, and the 16-35IS is just as sharp (source: Lensrentals Blog testing).

I've used the new 16-35 f/4L IS several times under really cruddy light and been delighted. My old 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) has been relegated to a drawer for backup duty. Center sharpness is similar to the 24-70 f/2.8L II and the corners/edges are light years better than the 16-35 f/2.8.

In theory I want the lens to be f/2.8 to match the rest of my lens lineup, but I honestly have not missed the extra stop.

solomonshv wrote:

i currently have a canon 16-35 f/2.8L II. while i like the lens mostly, sometimes the images are softer than i would like them to be. and the distortion is just ridiculous at smaller focal lengths.

The 16-35 doesn't have much distortion, its considered a pretty clean lens from the distortion side.

Unless yours is unusually bad, you are probably talking about "distortion" from being Ultra Wide Angle (which is not distortion, is just the extreme stretching and exaggeration that happens with super wide angle lenses).

So you should know that the greatest optical 15mm lens in the world will have the identical exaggeration as your 16mm (except even worse since 15mm is wider) as you see it.

Tilt Shift is your only real option if you want to improve the natural exaggeration of wide angle lenses, and even then it won't be perfect.

If you want fast, you will get not wide enough choices, like 24mm f/1.4, or the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. The latter is useful and sharp but does exhibit odd star shapes in the corners in night shots. My Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is wider, very low vignetting and distortion, but can't be reliably focused at infinity, and also isn't so sharp wide open. The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is apparently very good wide open though it vignettes and has crazy distortion.

Other options are fisheyes. Canon and Sigma 15mm f/2.8 and maybe the new Samyang 12mm f/2.8 for full frame. In my experience the Samyang 8mm for APS-C is not so sharp wide open, I hope the new model is... It has stereographic projection which feels natural, with curved lines but every small object retaining its natural shape without compression near the edges, unlike equidistant and equisolid projections, or stretching like rectilinear wide angle lenses.

Samyang 14mm f/2.8. I own it.  Very sharp for the money but lots of distortion.  Not so bad if you keep horizontal lines bisecting the frame.

i'm guessing it is due to the IS? i'll give it a whirl. since i don't use my wide angle lens at night the aperture shouldn't matter too much. and i too would like to have a wide angle that matches the aperture of my other lenses. but oh well.

solomonshv wrote:

i'm guessing it is due to the IS? i'll give it a whirl. since i don't use my wide angle lens at night the aperture shouldn't matter too much. and i too would like to have a wide angle that matches the aperture of my other lenses. but oh well.

In truth, I always had to stop my old 16-35 f/2.8 down to f/4 or f/4.5 anyway to achieve decent edge results, so the new f/4 16-35 is fine for real world shooting. The IS function is quite useful if the subject isn't jumping around too much.

What are you shooting?

I own this lens and don't see the "distortion" you are referring to. As stated by others maybe it's the UWA perspective throwing you off. This requires care when shooting and can benefit from perspective tweaks. If i really wanted sharper corners the 16-35/4IS would be the obvious choice but all the same "distortion" would apply to any lens 16mm or less obviously.

Lightroom has nice lens corrections for the 16-35II which work great making any issues with it moot imho anyways. maybe you should try using them before buying new glass.

solomonshv wrote:

i currently have a canon 16-35 f/2.8L II. while i like the lens mostly, sometimes the images are softer than i would like them to be. and the distortion is just ridiculous at smaller focal lengths.

i'm looking to upgrade to something better. don't care if it is prime or zoom, auto focus or full manual. i just need the best image possible with a 5D Mark III and i need it to be under 20mm.

i looked at the Carl Zeiss 15mm Distagon T* f/2.8 ZE. i'm thinking that may be my best option. but before i plunk down such a stupid amount of money for what is nothing more than hobby, i want to know if it is worth it.

are there any other suggestions that i may have missed?

thanks

Samyang 14mm f/2.8  - this is a decent astrophotography lens, little coma, corners reasonably sharp at f/2.8, better at f/3.5 to f/4. $300.00

Canon 15mm L f/2.8

Zeiss 15mm f/2.8

Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 with adapter

Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8

That's it for the f/2.8s

If you can deal with f/4:

Canon 16-35mm f/4 L, brand new

Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 (widest TS-E available from any manufacturer)