Originally posted by Gutta Perka I cannot imagine what You shoot - but 35mm is the normal wide angle for FF.
That and a 85 or 100 mm - nowadays a modern macro - in the pocket is all you need for 95% of all shooting .......however You must move some meters now and then!!
Are You reinventing photographing or trying to get first price somewhere?
(In that way You may skip the normal 50mm and ALWAYS have the camera with You!!! It worked in the sixties and for sure even now! - more keepers - less weight - that is.)
+1
In the seventies, when I worked with 2 Exa/Exakta bodies and a 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm lens, I only occasionally missed something slightly wider (mainly for landscape and architecture).
When, beginning of the eighties, I switched to Pentax, for a long time I had only a SMC-A 1.4/50 (expandable with a 2x TC) and 2 zooms (Tokina 35-70/2.8, and something like 28-105). When I saw a used Makinon 24mm for a reasonable price, I bought it out of curiousity. I sold it after just one roll, because IQ was just not acceptable. But the experience with 24mm on FF told me that wide would (for my kind of shooting) only make sense as a shift lens. I also found that, at the rare occasions I would need 24mm, that lens would most likely still be at home. I never liked carrying a lot of stuff with me.
Now, on APS-C, my widest lenses are the WR kit and the film era Cosina 19-35 AF (which is quite good, but unfortunately has a mustache distortion on the wide end, which is nearly impossible to correct in post). I have thought about buying the DA 16-45 for the rare cases I need it, but I am afraid if I don't know for sure I will need it, I would rather have the kit lens with me.
On FF (my experience with film) any lens wider than 24mm would only get use 1-2 times a year. To buy one, for me would be a waste of money.