07-16-2021 11:21 AM
Hi There ;
I have a 5D Mark 4 with 24-70 2.8 , and 50mm 1.4.
I do just "general hobbyist" photography and was wondering if an Ultra wide zoom would be useful or just extra weight in the bag ?
The 11-24 seems hard to justify for the price if it's not in pretty consistent use.
There doesn'tappear to be much in the way of affordable choices.
Thanks for your time .
07-16-2021 12:47 PM
Unless you are running into situations where a more general lens doesn't work for you, then it is just extra weight and expense for you. If you find yourself in a situation (like interior shots) or a landscape where you need the extreme field of view and your current lens doesn't allow the setup you want, then it is time to think about another lens.
I have owned an EF 17-40 f4 for a long time and I like what it provides, I don't miss the extra stop in a wide angle lens but if you need f2.8 then the 16-35 f2.8 is worth considering. Most general users aren't likely to use the widest end of a 11-24 on a full frame very often. Most of the time for hiking and general outdoor use my 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 glass covers what I need but I have taken a fair number of images with the 17-40 both inside and out.
07-17-2021 10:09 AM
In my field of work I could not afford to say, I wish I had a more WA lens. So I have lenses from 8mm to 600mm. Now as a retired photographer I find the more wide lenses almost as much fun to use as their big brother super tele lenses.
For work, this shot was with a 15mm lens.
For leasure, this was sot with a 12mm lens.
So, I consider a WA or a UWA lens mandatory and just as useful just differently.
07-17-2021 12:04 PM
I don't know what exactly you are looking for but a fine low cost alternative, I rarely recommend off brand lenses but this time I do, check out the Tokina opera 16-28mm f/2.8 FF Lens. I guess not really a UWA but a very nice lens. It can get you some WA experience to see what you really want or need. It may be all you need!