I am looking for a lens to cover the wide angle and complement my 24-105....

[col4bin]

any suggestions? I want to stay away from ef-s mounts for the time being. What are my options for a high quality lens in the wide angle range?

[Double Negative]

What else? Either the 16-35mm ƒ/2.8L or the 17-40mm ƒ/4.0L.

Later on, pick up a 70-200mm and you'll have everything covered.

That is, if you want to stick with zooms.

[Tsmith]

I'd recommend the EF-S 10-22mm but since you don't have a desire for them now then it'd be the Tokina 12-24mm < but thats still designed for the cropped sensor.

[zacker]

ii have the sigma 10 - 20 it will give the "fisheye" at 10MM on a FF or 35MM cam but it still mounts and works quite well, im not sure as to what MM it is when the dark circle goes away.. Im totally guessing its at about 12mm or so.
I just used mine on my Elan 7 and it workd great!
its one of Sigmas "Digital" only lenses. but I dont care Cause, Im a Rebel (XT) .... get it?, get it? lol,lol,lol.
-zacker-

[ed rader]

any suggestions? I want to stay away from ef-s mounts for the time being. What are my options for a high quality lens in the wide angle range?

my vote would be for the canon 17-40 or tamron 17-35. i own the latter and it's a great lens.

ed rader

[gasrocks]

Canon efs 10-22. A great match for the 24-105. I do not see any reason to stay away from EFS mounts. Unless, you are going FF soon. Still will have resale value for some time.

[jaykkub]

I say go with the 16-35mm f/2.8 L. You can get some pretty wide shots with it. Here's a few that I've taken with mine...

http://static.flickr.com/37/81934579_935b3bc67f.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/36/87731799_eef9e79f6a.jpg

Or you can go with a prime. My friend just picked up a 24mm prime lens about a week ago. He's enjoying it so far.

[ScottE]

I suggest the 10-22 and stay away from full frame cameras. For most people that makes more sense than staying away from EF-S lenses.

[Jumpaholic]

I am pretty new (returning after about 20 years absence) to photography. I have a 20D, and use my 15mm fisheye for skydiving stills. I was using a cheap regular EF lens (I had a 18-55, and 28-80), and bought a 17-40L for family pictures. I paid full retail, but the lens is so worth it. I won't buy anything but L lenses now. I cannot believe the difference. I have just ordered a 24-105 f4/L IS lens as well. I don't know if this will make my 17-40 obsolete for me, but it sounds like I'll want to keep it.
I am waiting until the end of the month when I get the new lens, so that I can compare the two.
You WILL be happy with the 17-40L lens. It is incredible.

[Tee Why]

16-35 or 17-40 is not that wide on a cropped sensor, plus there would be so much overlap with a 24-105.
I'd suggest an ultrawide instead. Currently the only ultrawide zoom for FF is a Sigma 12-24.
I'd probably get an ultrawide for cropped sensors and if you upgrade to larger sensor, sell it.

[Lord_Malone]

16-35L is plenty wide for my needs currently, keeping in mind that it'll be even wider when the time comes for me to mount it on a FF body. Both the 17-40L and the 16-35L come highly recommended.

[ed rader]

16-35 or 17-40 is not that wide on a cropped sensor, plus there would be so much overlap with a 24-105.
I'd suggest an ultrawide instead. Currently the only ultrawide zoom for FF is a Sigma 12-24.
I'd probably get an ultrawide for cropped sensors and if you upgrade to larger sensor, sell it.

i don't buy the overlap argument. that's like saying if you have a 70-200 you should get the 24-70 instead of 24-105 because of overlap.

overlap is good imo because it eliminates many lens changes, at least for me.

ed rader

[Raj]

If you want to stay away from EF-S lenses then in addition to above look into sigma 18-50 f2.8 lens. Decent range, reasonable wide & decent reviews.

[Raj]

i don't buy the overlap argument. that's like saying if you have a 70-200 you should get the 24-70 instead of 24-105 because of overlap.

overlap is good imo because it eliminates many lens changes, at least for me.

ed rader

Ditto, I second this.

[Rob612]

The perfect complement of the 24-105, as other have stated, is the 17-40 or the 16-35. The only other otion that you have that goes really wide even on FF (you mentioned that EF-S aren't for you) is the Sigma 12-24. I have that one also and I love it. But its really a tough lens to manage.

[timmyb]

I'm surprised nobody's recommended the Sigma 12-24.It gets generally good reviews and seems like the obvious choice to me.

[ed rader]

I'm surprised nobody's recommended the Sigma 12-24.It gets generally good reviews and seems like the obvious choice to me.

how so (obvious choice)?

ed rader

[timmyb]

He wants a wide angle but not an efs mount.Answer equals Sigma 12-24.17-40's nice but if you've got the 24-105 already it's a bit extravagant and not ultra wide.Personally I wouldn't worry about the efs thing and in fact have just ordered a Sigma 10-20.

[ed rader]

He wants a wide angle but not an efs mount.Answer equals Sigma 12-24.17-40's nice but if you've got the 24-105 already it's a bit extravagant and not ultra wide.Personally I wouldn't worry about the efs thing and in fact have just ordered a Sigma 10-20.

the OP wants a wide angle but you're saying he should get a super wide because of the other lenses he has?

you see, i just don't agree with this type of logic.

ed rader

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

17-40 f/4L all the way! I own it, always use it, and completely love it. I've had it for a good 10 or so months now, and it's on my cam more than any other lens. Took it to Virginia with me last week, and it didn't leave my cam even once during my time in DC. It's a great focal length, and very sharp!!!!

There's also the 16-35 f/2.8L, but the 17-40L has been said to be sharper than it time, and time again. Plus, how often will you be shooting at f/2.8 with a wide angle lens...? Save the cash for another purchase down the road. :-)

Here's a page full of examples, all taken with the 20D, and 17-40L. http://storyclip.smugmug.com/gallery/1297392/1/61045836

[Juan Zas]

My vote for the one I have in IQ/price relationship. Toki 12-24 mm
You have a Rebel, and the 17 mm isn´t wide enough, just my thougts.

[Lord_Malone]

There's also the 16-35 f/2.8L, but the 17-40L has been said to be sharper than it time, and time again.

Though the 17-40L is a great lens for the money, I would never say that it's head and shoulders sharper than the 16-35L. I had the 17-40L, and to my eyes, my 16-35L images are just as color accurate, sharp and spot on as any lens in my stable.

Plus, how often will you be shooting at f/2.8 with a wide angle lens...?

I do quite often. I've taken many wide shots indoors in less than adquate lighting. f/2.8 is the primary reason why I sold my exceptional 17-40L for the 16-35L. True, most people probably won't need a fast WA zoom, but for others, it's a godsend. ;)