Looking for a simple super wide solution

[Martin Ocando]

I don't really shoot super wide much, and for most purposes the 20mm side of my 20-70mm is more than sufficient, but I want to have wider options but not spending too much. Speed wise f/4 is also enough, although I might shoot the occasional astro, is way too unfrequent to justify a lens for only that so the 16mm f/1.8 while very nice, is not in my budget right now.

So, long story shot, I've been looking into many FF options, but a lens I wasn't expected appeared on a youtube video and the reviewer mentioned that while is for the APS-C format, and shows a prominent vignette on the 10mm side, it almost disappears at 12mm. I can find this lens at around $400 on eBay.

Have anyone had experience on this one?

Any other options you can recommend?

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I found one in excellent condition on eBay for around $250. It's not compact, and it won't win any awards for sharpness, but it's reasonably good, and the few reviews I found were positive. I use it for event and trade show work, for which it's more than adequate.

 

[Martin Ocando]

I found one in excellent condition on eBay for around $250. It's not compact, and it won't win any awards for sharpness, but it's reasonably good, and the few reviews I found were positive. I use it for event and trade show work, for which it's more than adequate.

Well, I have one in the local Facebook marketplace for $150 and I might grab it for the price, but is too bulbous for my purposes. I want to use ND filters, but is definitely a bargain at that price.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I found one in excellent condition on eBay for around $250. It's not compact, and it won't win any awards for sharpness, but it's reasonably good, and the few reviews I found were positive. I use it for event and trade show work, for which it's more than adequate.

Well, I have one in the local Facebook marketplace for $150 and I might grab it for the price, but is too bulbous for my purposes. I want to use ND filters, but is definitely a bargain at that price.

I also have, and quite like, Samyang's AF 18mm f2.8, which is cheap, small, light and sharp, and takes filters. But, it's not much wider than your 20-70.

 

[Martin Ocando]

I found one in excellent condition on eBay for around $250. It's not compact, and it won't win any awards for sharpness, but it's reasonably good, and the few reviews I found were positive. I use it for event and trade show work, for which it's more than adequate.

Well, I have one in the local Facebook marketplace for $150 and I might grab it for the price, but is too bulbous for my purposes. I want to use ND filters, but is definitely a bargain at that price.

I also have, and quite like, Samyang's AF 18mm f2.8, which is cheap, small, light and sharp, and takes filters. But, it's not much wider than your 20-70.

Yeah, too close to the 20-70mm.

I guess I'll grab the 14mm merely for the price, and now that you mention, for events sounds very good, especially the f/2.8 aperture. And I can even use it for astro. Hmm, it might not be a bad idea after all. Still I'm getting the 16-35 f/4 to be able to use 72mm filters, same as my other two zooms.

 

[deednets]

I have been using the Voigtländer 15/4.5 for a few years, why wouldn't you consider that one? Sunstars add some extra magic to all shots when there's some lightbulbs or breaking sun in a forest.

Super small, great quality and contrast and occasionally available at around 350-400 US. I bought mine from Map cameras in Tokyo. Took 36 hours using DHL to New Zealand

Deed

Oh wow, that's a very nice option. And it takes filters, so I can sooth water with an ND. And I already have NDs that will easily fit with an adapter. Thanks. Will be in the top of the list.

I had posted some shots here:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

And if you kind of yeah/nah like sunstars??




Love it ...

Good luck with your decision and: yes, it takes filters, I think I had a few ND shots in that link??

Deed

 

[thunder storm]

I've been using the Viltrox 16/1.8 and Venus 10/2.8. They pack a punch, not even considering their price.

I have the Viltrox, and I like it. I'm not a wide angle expert, so I can't compare it to other options.

Oh God, now you made me doubt myself. This will be perfect also for Astro, but then again, I might do Astro once maybe twice a year, not worth the investment. So far the Zeiss 16-35 f/4 wins.

I never shoot astro. The Viltrox has next to no distortion, so you can shoot it with corrections turned off. It's very sharp corner to corner at f/2.8. In aps-c mode it acts like a 24mm f/2.8 wide open, and even then it gives a very good amount of detail.

The only downside is a low magnification factor.

 

[Impulses]

Used Laowa 11/4.5? It's a bit better than the old CV 12/5.6 AFAIK, and cheaper, I'm pretty happy with mine even tho shooting that wide is very very challenging... But you can always crop in. Did you ever shoot the Laowa 6/2 on M4/3 or anything this wide? It's quite a shock to the system even if you're used to shooting at 16mm. Another tiny and not too expensive option would be Laowa's 15/5 Cookie, so small you'll never have a reason to leave it behind.

I'm not trying to cheerlead for Laowa, they just make a lot of small relatively inexpensive UWAs. The CV 15/4.5 is worth a look too but that's pricier and heavier/larger. I don't think the Sigma 17/4 DN would be wide enough to complement your 20-70, but I think ~15mm could be. I carry my 11/4.5 alongside my 20/21mm or my 17-50 zoom, I use the latter far far more but for some shots a lens as wide as 11-12mm can produce some striking results... You'll also shoot a lot of garbage frames with it, inevitably.

Edit: Oh I see the thread went in a different direction after the first post. Really hard to go wrong with the 16-35/4 G PZ IMO (as small as some primes) but it's probably out of budget, and lots of overlap with your 20-70/4 G tho... I dunno about the old Zeiss at this point, you better be getting a very good deal on it to make it worthwhile. I'd probably take any of the primes over it. I'm surprised none/few of the Laowas have been mentioned.

PhillipReeve.net has better coverage and reviews of all of these than what you'll find anywhere, just look at the options on their UWA guide and start poring over some reviews to narrow down your priorities.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Used Laowa 11/4.5? It's a bit better than the old CV 12/5.6 AFAIK, and cheaper, I'm pretty happy with mine even tho shooting that wide is very very challenging... But you can always crop in. Did you ever shoot the Laowa 6/2 on M4/3 or anything this wide? It's quite a shock to the system even if you're used to shooting at 16mm.

A bit too wide for my needs. And out of my budget. I never used the 6mm. The widest I had was the Panny 7-14mm f/4, but I never really clicked with it. Again, lack of filters.

Another tiny and not too expensive option would be Laowa's 15/5 Cookie, so small you'll never have a reason to leave it behind.

Oh that's a lovely tiny lens. Way out of my budget, though.

I'm not trying to cheerlead for Laowa, they just make a lot of small relatively inexpensive UWAs. The CV 15/4.5 is worth a look too but that's pricier and heavier/larger.

I don't think the Sigma 17/4 DN would be wide enough to complement your 20-70, but I think ~15mm could be. I carry my 11/4.5 alongside my 20/21mm or my 17-50 zoom, I use the latter far far more but for some shots a lens as wide as 11-12mm can produce some striking results... You'll also shoot a lot of garbage frames with it, inevitably.

Edit: Oh I see the thread went in a different direction after the first post. Really hard to go wrong with the 16-35/4 G PZ IMO (as small as some primes) but it's probably out of budget, and lots of overlap with your 20-70/4 G tho... I dunno about the old Zeiss at this point, you better be getting a very good deal on it to make it worthwhile. I'd probably take any of the primes over it. I'm surprised none/few of the Laowas have been mentioned.

Yeah, the PZ is out of budget. Do you think $450 for the Zeiss is a good deal?

PhillipReeve.net has better coverage and reviews of all of these than what you'll find anywhere, just look at the options on their UWA guide and start poring over some reviews to narrow down your priorities.

Will check it out.

 

[Impulses]

Used Laowa 11/4.5? It's a bit better than the old CV 12/5.6 AFAIK, and cheaper, I'm pretty happy with mine even tho shooting that wide is very very challenging... But you can always crop in. Did you ever shoot the Laowa 6/2 on M4/3 or anything this wide? It's quite a shock to the system even if you're used to shooting at 16mm.

A bit too wide for my needs. And out of my budget. I never used the 6mm. The widest I had was the Panny 7-14mm f/4, but I never really clicked with it. Again, lack of filters.

Sorry I got thrown by the comment of wanting to use the 10-18 as a FF lens near the wide end... Which is indeed very niche (that is, anything < 14mm on FF).

Another tiny and not too expensive option would be Laowa's 15/5 Cookie, so small you'll never have a reason to leave it behind.

Oh that's a lovely tiny lens. Way out of my budget, though.

I thought the budget was $400? That's what it runs in the US...

I'm not trying to cheerlead for Laowa, they just make a lot of small relatively inexpensive UWAs. The CV 15/4.5 is worth a look too but that's pricier and heavier/larger.

I don't think the Sigma 17/4 DN would be wide enough to complement your 20-70, but I think ~15mm could be. I carry my 11/4.5 alongside my 20/21mm or my 17-50 zoom, I use the latter far far more but for some shots a lens as wide as 11-12mm can produce some striking results... You'll also shoot a lot of garbage frames with it, inevitably.

Edit: Oh I see the thread went in a different direction after the first post. Really hard to go wrong with the 16-35/4 G PZ IMO (as small as some primes) but it's probably out of budget, and lots of overlap with your 20-70/4 G tho... I dunno about the old Zeiss at this point, you better be getting a very good deal on it to make it worthwhile. I'd probably take any of the primes over it. I'm surprised none/few of the Laowas have been mentioned.

Yeah, the PZ is out of budget. Do you think $450 for the Zeiss is a good deal?

If it's in decent condition, sure, tho I'd cross check what newer/lighter (potentially with better sealing and/or flare handling and/or MFD) 3rd party UWA zooms are going for used, eg the Tamron 17-28/2.8 & Sigma 16-28/2.8. If similar, I'd take the latter. I owned the 17-28 for a few years FWIW, my sister still owns the 16-35 ZA AFAIK.

PhillipReeve.net has better coverage and reviews of all of these than what you'll find anywhere, just look at the options on their UWA guide and start poring over some reviews to narrow down your priorities.

Will check it out.

Just be aware, Bastian K is great at shooting UWA so most lenses look solid in his hands. Their reviews are very critical and to the point tho, and very thorough. The guide is a good starting point to what's available before diving into the reviews.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Used Laowa 11/4.5? It's a bit better than the old CV 12/5.6 AFAIK, and cheaper, I'm pretty happy with mine even tho shooting that wide is very very challenging... But you can always crop in. Did you ever shoot the Laowa 6/2 on M4/3 or anything this wide? It's quite a shock to the system even if you're used to shooting at 16mm.

A bit too wide for my needs. And out of my budget. I never used the 6mm. The widest I had was the Panny 7-14mm f/4, but I never really clicked with it. Again, lack of filters.

Sorry I got thrown by the comment of wanting to use the 10-18 as a FF lens near the wide end... Which is indeed very niche (that is, anything < 14mm on FF).

Another tiny and not too expensive option would be Laowa's 15/5 Cookie, so small you'll never have a reason to leave it behind.

Oh that's a lovely tiny lens. Way out of my budget, though.

I thought the budget was $400? That's what it runs in the US...

Sorry, you are right. I just saw that on Amazon. Why eBay have them for over $800 is beyond me.

I'm not trying to cheerlead for Laowa, they just make a lot of small relatively inexpensive UWAs. The CV 15/4.5 is worth a look too but that's pricier and heavier/larger.

I don't think the Sigma 17/4 DN would be wide enough to complement your 20-70, but I think ~15mm could be. I carry my 11/4.5 alongside my 20/21mm or my 17-50 zoom, I use the latter far far more but for some shots a lens as wide as 11-12mm can produce some striking results... You'll also shoot a lot of garbage frames with it, inevitably.

Edit: Oh I see the thread went in a different direction after the first post. Really hard to go wrong with the 16-35/4 G PZ IMO (as small as some primes) but it's probably out of budget, and lots of overlap with your 20-70/4 G tho... I dunno about the old Zeiss at this point, you better be getting a very good deal on it to make it worthwhile. I'd probably take any of the primes over it. I'm surprised none/few of the Laowas have been mentioned.

Yeah, the PZ is out of budget. Do you think $450 for the Zeiss is a good deal?

If it's in decent condition, sure, tho I'd cross check what newer/lighter (potentially with better sealing and/or flare handling and/or MFD) 3rd party UWA zooms are going for used, eg the Tamron 17-28/2.8 & Sigma 16-28/2.8. If similar, I'd take the latter. I owned the 17-28 for a few years FWIW, my sister still owns the 16-35 ZA AFAIK.

PhillipReeve.net has better coverage and reviews of all of these than what you'll find anywhere, just look at the options on their UWA guide and start poring over some reviews to narrow down your priorities.

Will check it out.

Just be aware, Bastian K is great at shooting UWA so most lenses look solid in his hands. Their reviews are very critical and to the point tho, and very thorough. The guide is a good starting point to what's available before diving into the reviews.

The 16-35 ZA has a very good review there. Only complain is lack of a rubber gasket on the lens mount. But the Cookie is not weather sealed, is it?

Well, I think the tables have turned. Looks like the 15mm f/5 is taking the edge, mostly because its tiny size and weight.

 

[ahaslett]

Used Laowa 11/4.5? It's a bit better than the old CV 12/5.6 AFAIK, and cheaper, I'm pretty happy with mine even tho shooting that wide is very very challenging... But you can always crop in. Did you ever shoot the Laowa 6/2 on M4/3 or anything this wide? It's quite a shock to the system even if you're used to shooting at 16mm.

A bit too wide for my needs. And out of my budget. I never used the 6mm. The widest I had was the Panny 7-14mm f/4, but I never really clicked with it. Again, lack of filters.

Sorry I got thrown by the comment of wanting to use the 10-18 as a FF lens near the wide end... Which is indeed very niche (that is, anything < 14mm on FF).

Another tiny and not too expensive option would be Laowa's 15/5 Cookie, so small you'll never have a reason to leave it behind.

Oh that's a lovely tiny lens. Way out of my budget, though.

I thought the budget was $400? That's what it runs in the US...

Sorry, you are right. I just saw that on Amazon. Why eBay have them for over $800 is beyond me.

I'm not trying to cheerlead for Laowa, they just make a lot of small relatively inexpensive UWAs. The CV 15/4.5 is worth a look too but that's pricier and heavier/larger.

I don't think the Sigma 17/4 DN would be wide enough to complement your 20-70, but I think ~15mm could be. I carry my 11/4.5 alongside my 20/21mm or my 17-50 zoom, I use the latter far far more but for some shots a lens as wide as 11-12mm can produce some striking results... You'll also shoot a lot of garbage frames with it, inevitably.

Edit: Oh I see the thread went in a different direction after the first post. Really hard to go wrong with the 16-35/4 G PZ IMO (as small as some primes) but it's probably out of budget, and lots of overlap with your 20-70/4 G tho... I dunno about the old Zeiss at this point, you better be getting a very good deal on it to make it worthwhile. I'd probably take any of the primes over it. I'm surprised none/few of the Laowas have been mentioned.

Yeah, the PZ is out of budget. Do you think $450 for the Zeiss is a good deal?

If it's in decent condition, sure, tho I'd cross check what newer/lighter (potentially with better sealing and/or flare handling and/or MFD) 3rd party UWA zooms are going for used, eg the Tamron 17-28/2.8 & Sigma 16-28/2.8. If similar, I'd take the latter. I owned the 17-28 for a few years FWIW, my sister still owns the 16-35 ZA AFAIK.

PhillipReeve.net has better coverage and reviews of all of these than what you'll find anywhere, just look at the options on their UWA guide and start poring over some reviews to narrow down your priorities.

Will check it out.

Just be aware, Bastian K is great at shooting UWA so most lenses look solid in his hands. Their reviews are very critical and to the point tho, and very thorough. The guide is a good starting point to what's available before diving into the reviews.

The 16-35 ZA has a very good review there. Only complain is lack of a rubber gasket on the lens mount. But the Cookie is not weather sealed, is it?

Well, I think the tables have turned. Looks like the 15mm f/5 is taking the edge, mostly because its tiny size and weight.

Now I see that the 14mm f4 Zero D is £209 used from mpb vs £429 new for the 15/5 from Wex.

I can live without another 15mm but I do like Laowa lenses…

Andrew

Edit - that’s a lot of field curvature!

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Martin Ocando]

Used Laowa 11/4.5? It's a bit better than the old CV 12/5.6 AFAIK, and cheaper, I'm pretty happy with mine even tho shooting that wide is very very challenging... But you can always crop in. Did you ever shoot the Laowa 6/2 on M4/3 or anything this wide? It's quite a shock to the system even if you're used to shooting at 16mm.

A bit too wide for my needs. And out of my budget. I never used the 6mm. The widest I had was the Panny 7-14mm f/4, but I never really clicked with it. Again, lack of filters.

Sorry I got thrown by the comment of wanting to use the 10-18 as a FF lens near the wide end... Which is indeed very niche (that is, anything < 14mm on FF).

Another tiny and not too expensive option would be Laowa's 15/5 Cookie, so small you'll never have a reason to leave it behind.

Oh that's a lovely tiny lens. Way out of my budget, though.

I thought the budget was $400? That's what it runs in the US...

Sorry, you are right. I just saw that on Amazon. Why eBay have them for over $800 is beyond me.

I'm not trying to cheerlead for Laowa, they just make a lot of small relatively inexpensive UWAs. The CV 15/4.5 is worth a look too but that's pricier and heavier/larger.

I don't think the Sigma 17/4 DN would be wide enough to complement your 20-70, but I think ~15mm could be. I carry my 11/4.5 alongside my 20/21mm or my 17-50 zoom, I use the latter far far more but for some shots a lens as wide as 11-12mm can produce some striking results... You'll also shoot a lot of garbage frames with it, inevitably.

Edit: Oh I see the thread went in a different direction after the first post. Really hard to go wrong with the 16-35/4 G PZ IMO (as small as some primes) but it's probably out of budget, and lots of overlap with your 20-70/4 G tho... I dunno about the old Zeiss at this point, you better be getting a very good deal on it to make it worthwhile. I'd probably take any of the primes over it. I'm surprised none/few of the Laowas have been mentioned.

Yeah, the PZ is out of budget. Do you think $450 for the Zeiss is a good deal?

If it's in decent condition, sure, tho I'd cross check what newer/lighter (potentially with better sealing and/or flare handling and/or MFD) 3rd party UWA zooms are going for used, eg the Tamron 17-28/2.8 & Sigma 16-28/2.8. If similar, I'd take the latter. I owned the 17-28 for a few years FWIW, my sister still owns the 16-35 ZA AFAIK.

PhillipReeve.net has better coverage and reviews of all of these than what you'll find anywhere, just look at the options on their UWA guide and start poring over some reviews to narrow down your priorities.

Will check it out.

Just be aware, Bastian K is great at shooting UWA so most lenses look solid in his hands. Their reviews are very critical and to the point tho, and very thorough. The guide is a good starting point to what's available before diving into the reviews.

The 16-35 ZA has a very good review there. Only complain is lack of a rubber gasket on the lens mount. But the Cookie is not weather sealed, is it?

Well, I think the tables have turned. Looks like the 15mm f/5 is taking the edge, mostly because its tiny size and weight.

Now I see that the 14mm f4 Zero D is £209 used from mpb vs £429 new for the 15/5 from Wex.

I can live without another 15mm but I do like Laowa lenses…

Andrew

Edit - that’s a lot of field curvature!

That's the one. $330 from mpb US.

 

[Lichtspiel]

I am extremely happy with my Voigtlander 15. It is small and relatively light, so I always take it along. It is also a fitting part in my lightweight 15-40-90 prime trio hiking set.

Optically it is mostly great - sharp and the colorful Voigtlander rendering, along with sun stars and all that. Some have reported sample variation, but I guess I got lucky with my (used) copy.

Two small issues that come along with tiny super wide lenses - some vignetting, and a little bit of LoCA, but nothing to really fret about.

While it is manual focus, this isn't really an issue for superwide shooting, and it has electrical contacts so Exif and aperture are all freely exchanged with the camera, and reflected in image processing software.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I found one in excellent condition on eBay for around $250. It's not compact, and it won't win any awards for sharpness, but it's reasonably good, and the few reviews I found were positive. I use it for event and trade show work, for which it's more than adequate.

Well, I have one in the local Facebook marketplace for $150 and I might grab it for the price, but is too bulbous for my purposes. I want to use ND filters, but is definitely a bargain at that price.

I also have, and quite like, Samyang's AF 18mm f2.8, which is cheap, small, light and sharp, and takes filters. But, it's not much wider than your 20-70.

Yeah, too close to the 20-70mm.

I guess I'll grab the 14mm merely for the price, and now that you mention, for events sounds very good, especially the f/2.8 aperture.

I actually wish it were f4 and smaller. It sharpens up a bit at f4 and f5.6. For event work, I'm using it stopped down on a tripod to do room/venue shots, also exhibitor booths at trade shows.

And I can even use it for astro. Hmm, it might not be a bad idea after all. Still I'm getting the 16-35 f/4 to be able to use 72mm filters, same as my other two zooms.

I didn't think I'd need anything wider than my 18mm, but now that I have the 14mm I'm using it more than expected. 16mm might be wide enough for you, or even me, and the 16-35/4 has a rep for very good optical performance. So, if I were in your shoes, I'd get the 16-35/4 first and see if that's enough, and get the 14/2.8 only if absolutely necessary for astro.

One other thought: If you're not using DxO to process your RAWs, consider that its lens profiles use more of the captured image circle than most other RAW processors, yielding an effectively wider image. For example, you might get the same framing from a 16mm with DxO as from a 15mm with Lightroom. FYI, DxO does have a profile for the Samyang 14/2.8 FE and most Samyang AF FE lenses.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Due to recent tips from fellow forum members, the stakes are now like this:

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

Let's see how things roll out in the next few days.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Due to recent tips from fellow forum members, the stakes are now like this:

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

Let's see how things roll out in the next few days.

 

[Martin Ocando]

I found one in excellent condition on eBay for around $250. It's not compact, and it won't win any awards for sharpness, but it's reasonably good, and the few reviews I found were positive. I use it for event and trade show work, for which it's more than adequate.

Well, I have one in the local Facebook marketplace for $150 and I might grab it for the price, but is too bulbous for my purposes. I want to use ND filters, but is definitely a bargain at that price.

I also have, and quite like, Samyang's AF 18mm f2.8, which is cheap, small, light and sharp, and takes filters. But, it's not much wider than your 20-70.

Yeah, too close to the 20-70mm.

I guess I'll grab the 14mm merely for the price, and now that you mention, for events sounds very good, especially the f/2.8 aperture.

I actually wish it were f4 and smaller. It sharpens up a bit at f4 and f5.6. For event work, I'm using it stopped down on a tripod to do room/venue shots, also exhibitor booths at trade shows.

And I can even use it for astro. Hmm, it might not be a bad idea after all. Still I'm getting the 16-35 f/4 to be able to use 72mm filters, same as my other two zooms.

I didn't think I'd need anything wider than my 18mm, but now that I have the 14mm I'm using it more than expected. 16mm might be wide enough for you, or even me, and the 16-35/4 has a rep for very good optical performance. So, if I were in your shoes, I'd get the 16-35/4 first and see if that's enough, and get the 14/2.8 only if absolutely necessary for astro.

One other thought: If you're not using DxO to process your RAWs, consider that its lens profiles use more of the captured image circle than most other RAW processors, yielding an effectively wider image. For example, you might get the same framing from a 16mm with DxO as from a 15mm with Lightroom. FYI, DxO does have a profile for the Samyang 14/2.8 FE and most Samyang AF FE lenses.

I'm thinking that the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 might be a better investment overall, even if is beyond my budget. Kind of buy it nice or buy it twice, like has happened to me so many times when I used to shoot m43.

If I still feel I want to go wider, the Laowa 14mm f/4 looks like a good option, but I don't think I need to go that wide.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Due to recent tips from fellow forum members, the stakes are now like this:

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

Let's see how things roll out in the next few days.

Oh wow. That's right in the ballpark of my budget. God, so many options. I'm overwhelmed. If nothing better gets mentioned, I think that will be the one.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Due to recent tips from fellow forum members, the stakes are now like this:

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

Let's see how things roll out in the next few days.

Oh wow. That's right in the ballpark of my budget. God, so many options. I'm overwhelmed. If nothing better gets mentioned, I think that will be the one.

If you really want f2.8 for <$600, that's how I'd go. But, if f4 is equally acceptable, the Sony 16-35/4's reviews are hard to ignore.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Due to recent tips from fellow forum members, the stakes are now like this:

1. Laowa 14mm f/4 ...

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8 ....

Let's see how things roll out in the next few days.

IMO you may not be sufficiently considering zoom versus prime. If your next-widest lens is 20mm, then the gap is vast between 14mm and 20mm. Compared with 20mm, at 14mm the field of view has more than twice the area, and is 43% wider and 43% taller. That makes a massive difference in composition. Yes, you can crop, but doing so from the wider lens at a minimum (to say nothing of the probably-modest quality loss) makes it more difficult to compose carefully and effectively. If what you really need is 17mm or 18mm, then a 14mm lens plus cropping may not work well for you.

To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't get a 14mm prime, or that you should get the Sigma 16-28mm. Maybe your experience tells you the 14mm would be fine, and the price difference is large. On the other hand, if you've accepted the step up from an initial budget of $400 and would seriously consider spending $989 for the Sigma 16-28mm, then I'd have to think long and hard about spending a little more ($1198, which is 21% more) for the Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ.

Decisions, decisions!