Best wide choice

[Vicente]

I'm looking for the best wide lens for 10D (1.6 sensor factor is the point). I'm thinking about Sigma 14mm 2.8 or Canon 16-35mm 2.8L to complemente Canon 24-70mm 2.8L. What's the best choice, 14mm or 16-35 if I shoot landscape and architecture? I think image quality and low distortion are the aim.
Thanks a lot.

[JAB1]

I would certainly recommend checking out the new Canon EF 17-40....I am waiting on mine...

[dbarthel]

I have the 16-35L and love it on my D60 and 10D. It spends a lot of time as a walking around lens. From what I have read about the 17-40mm it doesn't seem enough smaller to give up the last mm and and a full stop.

[soumya63]

1.6 multiplication factor is a big killer. If you use 17 mm, you will get an angle of vision nearly 28mm but the perspective distortion will be like 17mm. For landscape, this will make the distant objects so small that you may not wish to shoot sunrise or sunset with this.

If angle of vision is not that important (unless you want to shoot inside a cramped space) and perspective of a wide-angle lens is more then go for Canon 24mm. This is the sharpest of the lot. My next two favorites are 20mm and 35mm. All are very sharp and beat any wide-angle zoom hands down. Zoom offers the convenience but not the quality of a prime. But again it is a personal preference.

In my opinion a bare minimum configuration, which will allow you to shoot almost everything at minimal expense, is

20mm, 35mm, 50mm, 135mm soft focus and a EF25 extension tube.

[Mr.Jalapeno]

Consider the Sigma 15-30 3.5-4.5 lens for $475.
A lot of 10D owners (myself included) are extremely happy with this lens.

[Vicente]

Mr.Jalapeno,
better angle Of view and aperture are also importants to me and Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX is Aspherical, has 110.5-71.6 degrees but is only f/3.5-4.5. Sigma 14mm f/2.8 EX has 114.2 degree, is also Aspherical, has HSM and is RECTLINEAR! I don't know how distortion is corrected in Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX or Canon 16-35mm 2.8L. However I prefer Canon 16-35mm 2.8L much expensive but has better optics, 108-63 degrees and dust and moisture resistance. My only doubt is if I have a Canon 24-70mm 2.8L, it worths to buy a L lens that will be used as 16-23mm?
Thanks for your attention

[D60DIETER]

I can support your choice of the 16-35/2,8L USM. There are two more points you should recognize. The 24-70 (28-70)/2,8 L USM and the 16-35 are color adjusted and both of them are built in pro Quality!

[Dans_D60]

I must admit, the Sigma 15-30 EX is an excellent lens. I have noticed the color is a little warm compared to the Canon L lenses. But, I don’t do much wide shooting so the lens fits me fine. I will take a look at the new Canon 17-40 L to compare.
Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com
D30,D60,10D,Elan II, Canonet Q17 G-III, 50 1.4,15-30 EX, 28-70 2.8L,70-200 2.8L, 70-200 4L,100-400 L

IMAGE TAKEN AT CARLSBAD BEACH ON 27 APRIL 2003 – SIGMA 15-30 EX
http://www.pettusphoto.com/sigma/1.jpg

[Vicente]

JAB1 wrote:
I would certainly recommend checking out the new Canon EF 17-40....I am waiting on mine...

You are quite right. The 17-40 looks better than 16-35. It's unbelievable but http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml shows that. Perhaps a combination of primes Canon 20mm 2.8 and 15mm f2.8 fish-eye (with a software like ImageAlign to correct the barrel distortion and vertical tilt) could be a better complement to Canon 24-70mm 2.8L. Better than Canon wide zoom.