I had reckoned that, Peter, but was not sure enough to take it as a given. Thank you, anyway, for taking the remaining doubt off my guessing and "outing yourself" as the author of those interesting remarks on full-frame and ultra-wide. (BTW: one more thought still on the TS-E 17mm: it's—in addition to very expensive—quite big and heavy to be carried all day(s) long as one's second or rather third lens on a trip...) ~ db.
Guest
22-Jul-2013 21:54
Oops, that was me Daniel. Forgot I was logged in as admin here.
Thank you, Anonymous, for that inside "view": very much appreciated, indeed! As I said, though, the decision won't be taken before my having sampled full-frame and its characteristics for a while... ~ db.
I don't think the 24mm will give you the capability to capture the ultra-wide images you'll want at times. I also took several months before I decided on an ultra-wide lens for the FF. It was a tough choice, but the cost of the 17 TSE put it out of consideration for me, and I decided to go with the widest capability at the expense of some IQ. Very happy with the sigma, as I'm sure you'll be with the 17 TSE, if that's what you decide on. Have fun with the 6D!
Thank you very much, Peter, for your kind comment. I have loved this lens as well, using it relatively often for quite a few years. And I do not know yet which will be my "super wide-angle" solution after going full-frame. The 24-70mm f/4—that comes as kit-lens with the 6D I ordered—might not be wide enough for FF shots similar to this APS-C one; if that's right, I might want to forego the 17-40 and 16-35 zooms in favor of the luxury TS-E 17mm, justifying the significant expense (and the probably steep learning curve) with all my architecture photography...; but *let's cross that bridge when we'll come to it*: after a few months of some general FF practice and experience! ~ db.