I need help...

[sandrus]

Hi to all,
I have a 10D and a EOS 30 and now I'm searching for a wide lens for them.
I never had a wide zoom and I don't know if I really need a 2.8 lens in this focal because I use medium and tele zoom often for my works, but I'm also thinking to start in buying a "L" series of lens to change all the lens I have ( I prefer to invest in buying only canon lens if possible ).

So, can you help me in this hard decision?
It's so great the difference between thoose lens about image quality? It's better to have a 17mm instead a 20mm because the 1.6x factor reduce the wide angle of the lens in the digital body?

The lens are: (all of them I can buy approx at the same price)

canon 20-35 f3.5-4.5
canon 17-40 f4
sigma 17-35 f2.8-3.5
tokina 20-35 f2.8


The question starts because I want also to change my sigma 70-210 f2.8 with the canon 70-200 f2.8L and to buy the 100-400 f4L that I surely use much more than the wide lens; so it may be a good idea to pay less for the wide lens...

Last question: it's so better the canon 70-200 f2.8 than the sigma 70-210 f2.8 to need to change it?

Thanks to everyone that answer me. BYE BYE.

[scottbergerphoto]

I use the 16-35/2.8 to shoot architechtural shots as well as waterfronts. It's very sharp. It's also heavy. I think it's worth the money based on build quality, performance, and the fact that camera bodies come and go, but lenses stay with you.

[rdenney]

sandrus wrote:
Hi to all,
I have a 10D and a EOS 30 and now I'm searching for a wide lens for them.
...
So, can you help me in this hard decision?
It's so great the difference between thoose lens about image quality? It's better to have a 17mm instead a 20mm because the 1.6x factor reduce the wide angle of the lens in the digital body?
...


If you are primarily a telephoto shooter, but you want a wide-angle zoom, then I'd invest in the long L glass and consider the 20-35 USM. I have that lens and it is excellent. I think it compares favorably to the 17-35L, but I've not compared it to the newer 16-35L or the 17-40L. All the L's are more expensive, of course. Compared to the other wides you list, the 20-35 USM is a good choice.

I've owned a Sigma 18-35, and it is a poor lens, in my opinion. It is not the same one that you mentioned, however.

Rick "who decided that his 14mm rectilinear and ultracheap 16mm fisheye provided enough ultrawide options" Denney

[boyhowdy]

I have the Sigma 17-35mm 2.8 HSM and it really is a good quality lens. But, I've heard that quality varies from lens to lens. I don't know if this is true. It works out to 28mm wide angle which is not very good. Another wide angle you may want to consider for the price is the new Sigma 15-30mm EX DG-D. This is supposed to be an incredible wide angle zoom lens with a low end of 24mm converted. If you want to invest in "L" lenses for telephoto and standard (50mm), and are not as concerned with wide angle, I would definitely consider the 15-30mm sigma and read up on it. If it is as good as quality as my 17-35mm, you will love it.

Patrick

[nucki]

Hi!

few weeks ago I bought the Sigma 15-30mm EX DG and I'm very happy with it! Its very sharp and not that expensive. Ok, its not a Canon "L" lens, but thats another story. I'm quite happy with the lens, although it's not that small and a little bit noisy

unfortunatelly I cant give a sample pic now, because my FTP client is not working!

regards
Peter

[sandrus]

thanks to all for your suggestions.... I'll tell you my choise soon.. :-)

[charr5]

I have always bought Canon lenses in the past, yet this past year I wanted to get a wide angle as well.
I did not have the money or the patience to wait to save up to purchase the Canon 17-35 or 16-35. So after alot of research and reading up on wide angles (and all of the preaching about Canon lenses are better than all offbrand lenses), I still bought the Sigma 17-35. Since then I bought the 10D and after shooting with all of my lenses and taking more notice during the digital processing, I have noticed that the Sigma is no where near the crispness of my Canon lenses. So now I have my own proof that the Canon lenses are better..too bad I had to be stubborn and learn the hard way.
One other note..if you are going to spend $1,500 on a camera body, it hurts even more when the shots don't come out as good because you bought a cheaper lens.
Sometimes you get what you pay for I guess.
I would go for the Canon 16-35 or 17-35 in my opinion....or do as I have and buy a Sigma and realize later and replace it with the Canon!
My 2 Cents.

[Moosehunter]

I started out with a Sigma 17-35 on the recomendation of friends (with Nikons). The first one was a dog and my local retailer changed it without question. The second one was much better, but still 'not quite right....' I've tried a Sigma 15-30, which is a superb lense but very heavy. I'm now waiting for my Canon 17-40 L to arrive at my local camera shop. If you've just spent a small fortune on the 10D body, get the 'L' lenses to match.

Jim