The 165 Super Angulon is excellent, has plenty of coverage etc, and is (relatively) not horrifyingly expensive (especially not compared to what they'd cost new today) - but it's huge (105mm or 110mm filters, makes 8x10 Sinar Normas look like 4x5's), heavy (1600g), and mostly in a #3 shutter (some earlier versions are in custom mounts in #1 Compurs). If you're not going to crash the front standard with the weight, it's the best balance of performance-to-price, as opposed to the desperation for ultimate light weight at the cost of performance - to the point that price parity between the old 6.25-6.5" ultra wides and some 165 Super Angulons is not far off - and I know which I'd prefer if you want edge to edge performance for the sort of documentary mode suggested by the OP (unless you have masochistic urges involving 8x10's and backpacks).
The various Super Angulon competitor lenses - Nikon 150/8 & Rodenstock 155/6.8 Grandagon, are a bit lighter and wider, persuaded into #1 shutters and quite expensive currently. The Super Symmar XL was supposed to be Schneider's latest and greatest and gained a stop of speed and a #1 shutter over the 165 - I'd also bet that they were overall less costly and demanding of assembly skill to make and thus had a lower QC rejection rate than the 165. None of them meaningfully beat the Super Angulon's coverage.