Looking for wider angle...

[dmm96452]

I want to get a wider angle zoom or prime for indoor use. I am considering the following lenses:
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Autofocus Lens
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Autofocus Lens

I was wondering what others that own the above lenses thought of them. I don't mind zooming with my feet if I decide on one of the prime lenses.

[Photo-John]

I've got the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. I like it a lot better on a crop sensor camera than the 16-35mm f/2.8L. In fact, what I'd really like is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Right now I think that's the boss of super-wide lenses. Although, I've also been playing with the new Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6. If *wide* is really what you're after, that's the king. But I'm guessing the slower, variable aperture isn't what you're looking for.

What will you be taking pictures of with this lens?

If you haven't already looked at it, check out this What's a good wide-angle? thread. There's a lot of useful info and opinion in there, plus photos and a link to yet another wide-angle thread.

[dmm96452]

I actually have the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5. I have no specific use in mind other than indoor and without flash as much as possible. I will check the Tokina out but I think 11-16 may actually be a little wider than I am looking for.

[Loupey]

The 35mm f/1.4L is an awesome lens. Images are extremely sharp, the colors are well rendered, and the bokeh is very pleasing. On a crop body, the focal length is a tad long when in small rooms and/or crowded situations. But I sold it earlier this year because I didn't often shoot it wide open.

The 16-35mm f/2.8L II is what I have now. Sharpness is OK but doesn't peak until around f/5.6~8. Vignetting is pretty awful on full-frame cameras at 16mm and until about f/5.6 (obviously the effects won't be as pronounced on crop bodies). But still, images are useable for most jobs at these extremes. For me, I find the 16mm to be wide enough for almost all my applications.

The 17-40mm f/4L is a solid performer (regardless of the lower price). I had it until I bought the 16-35mm.

[dmm96452]

...The 17-40mm f/4L is a solid performer (regardless of the lower price). I had it until I bought the 16-35mm.

If you could choose now between the 17-40 and 16-35...?

[Loupey]

If you could choose now between the 17-40 and 16-35...?

I haven't regretting going with the 16-35mm because it is still sharp enough at f/2.8. And because you emphasized indoor use, I would recommend this one over the 17-40mm.

Keep in mind that the 16-35mm has 82mm filter threads instead of the more common (i.e. cheaper) 77mm.

[Loupey]

But if I could start all over, I would probably go with a set of Zeiss lenses in the EOS mount (the 18mm f/3.5, 21mm f/2.8, and/or the 35mm f/2) and forget the zoom altogether.

[dmm96452]

But if I could start all over, I would probably go with a set of Zeiss lenses in the EOS mount (the 18mm f/3.5, 21mm f/2.8, and/or the 35mm f/2) and forget the zoom altogether.

:yikes:

I like good glass and am not afraid to spend a little money but that may be a little deep in the streets for me.

Thanks for the feedback!!