Do many people use a lens wider than 24mm?

[ugoor]

I recently got a 24-70 to complement my 16-35. I mostly shoot travel / family / landscape photography and always figured I needed something super wide like the 16-35. Now, after getting the 24-70 I feel like 24 is plenty wide. I shoot on an R8 so with the FF sensor I kinda feel like I might not need the 16-35, especially given the deformations wider than 20.

Would love to know for people who have both what they use / if maybe I’m just in the honeymoon phase with this new lens

[JCin]

I use the RF 15-35mm f2.8 L IS USM lens for room shots. For example the ceiling of a beautiful cathedral or church, I've shot at 15mm. I pretty much then use the 35mm of this lens for journalistic shots. Unless you need to go real wide the RF 24-70 2.8 is the great all around pro lens to have. Eventually I'm sure you'll you'll add more lenses to your arsenal.

 

[shadowsports]

100% agree.  I don't remember if this was my 15-35 or 24-70.  This was a small church I stumbled upon in Norway.  I stayed for most of the service.  🙂

[TomRamsey]

I shoot a lot of  landscape where I will go anywhere from 24 to 800mm on my R6ii, and 15 to 420mm on an APS-C system I have, of course 15 on APS-C is near the field of view of 22-23mm on FF.  For my use 24 is plenty wide, but in a situation where it may not be wide enough you can stitch photos into a panorama.  It's a big misconception by a lot of people that think you have to go ultra wide on landscapes.  

Ultimately, it is up to you to decide if you need those extra millimeters of width, you might give it a little more time.  If you find yourself shooting a lot at 24 you may need it, if you aren't using 24 much, maybe not.  It is good that you are asking these questions, you are doing your research.

Sorry but I have to illustrate the long focal length landscape, these two was shot at 800mm, only with long focal lengths can you make the fog thicker and the sun bigger.  Both with the R6 MarkII and RF200-800:

[ebiggs1]

‘“The only reason why you may want to consider an RF lens is because Canon is no longer servicing the EF16-35 mkII ….”

I would not think that even a consideration. I have lenses that have never seen or needed Canon servicing and some are over 30 years old.

[zakslm]

On a recent trip to visit family and to be a "tourist" in my home town, I re-discovered and enjoyed using my EF-S10-18mm IS STM lens (full frame equavalent 16-29mm).  I used it for architectuaral shots, landscapes, shots taken of exhibits and objects in museum, street/market scenes and general street shooting.  I was really happy I had it in my bag.  

Sometimes having the perspective that a wider angle lens provides is useful and you see what you wouldn't see otherwise.  In my opinion, you'll eventually want to or need to use the 16-35.  Also in my opinion, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Good luck!

LZ

EF-S10-18mm IS STM @10mm

[ebiggs1]

"Sometimes having the perspective that a wider angle lens provides is useful ..."

Useful especially only if you can't back up farther. All lenses will have the same AOV if the distances are matched up accordingly. A 600mm super tele is a UWA lens if you are shooting the Moon for instance.

[March411]

Nice capture zakslm!