Ultra-Wide Angle lens advice.

[SemieE]

In a few weeks I'm going to be getting back a nice tax refund which should enable me to buy my second lens. Considering my love for landscape photography and the fact that I own a 50mm 1.4 (great lens btw) which works out to be slightly telephoto I'm in the market for a wide angle.

Living in Australia (which explains why I'm getting my tax refund at this time of year), pretty much everywhere you go is fairly flat so really I want to get the widest possible wide angle Canon lens I can afford. I've narrowed it down to three that fall within my price range.

EF 20mm f/2.8 USM (AU$1050)
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (AU$1500)
EF 15mm f/2.8 FISHEYE (AU$1500)

I'm pretty intent on sticking with Canon lenses too, just so you know.

Any experience or advice on the lenses will be greatly appreciated. I'm also particularly interested in knowing how well the fisheye works with the 10D (examples pictures would be great too) and if that would be a good choice as a sole wide angle lens to use (keeping in mind that I'm pretty good at photoshop so I could make distortion corrections).

[Aylwin]

From the 3 choices above, I'd go with the 17-40L. There's not a lot of difference in price and the 17-40L offers wide angle with flexibility. Not to mention, it's an L.

As for fisheye, I'm not really a big fan. I have one for my G1. It was great fun in the beginning but I quickly got bored with it. It's nice for taking effect shots once in a while but I wouldn't consider it for a 2nd lens. Having said that, I don't know if the 1.6 factor of the 10D cancels the fisheye effect. Still, for the same money and a difference of only 2mm, I feel the 17-40L is a much better choice.

Just so you know, I don't own any of the lenses you listed so I guess my comments don't hold a lot of weight. However, I did "play" with the 17-40L at the store and took a few pictures. Also, it's the next lens I'm going to buy... someday. Does that count for anything? :)

By the way, I like your "Tree Alone" photo.

[Vegas Poboy]

17-40 f/4 is the way to go I just got mines today and its fast and sharp. This is my first L lens and I have to say I'm going for more.
If you can take your camera with you and play with the choices you have decide to look @ and go from there.
Good Luck

[Aylwin]

Congratulations! I look forward to seeing some photos taken with the new lens.

Aylwin

[lightandlife]

The landscape shots are great! Especially, the sunset.
I wonder why the trees are bent. Windswept or magnetic field?

[SemieE]

Thanks for the comments so far.

I appreciate the compliment Aylwin, that is definately one of the better I've done so far (which still isn't many but I am going an a short little road trip this afternoon) and my guess lightandlife is wind, as this picture was taking out in a country field.

Back to the lenses though and yeah, I might spend that bit of extra money and get the L lens. I'm still not sure though as I'm curious of how strong the distortion is with the fisheye coupled with the multiplying factor of the 10D. I guess the only other thing holding me back from the L is that when I bought my camera I was going to try to stick with prime lenses only as they are sharper and force you to frame you shots better (so I hear). I can imagine though that if I did get that 17-40mm it would get the most use at 17mm anyways.

On the other hand, who doesn't want to own an L? :)

[TomKa]

Maybe worth looking at it are also some russian lenses. There is the Zenitar 16mm fisheye and the Peleng 8 mm.
Here are some examples and a tutorial with some links to correct the distorsion.
A source for russian objectives could be www.rugift.com

http://www.razziphoto.com/archives/000023.html#more

[Aylwin]

SemieE wrote:
...I guess the only other thing holding me back from the L is that when I bought my camera I was going to try to stick with prime lenses only as they are sharper and force you to frame you shots better (so I hear)...

Hmmm... this poses an interesting question... Which is actually sharper: a good non-L prime or an L zoom (using same focal length and aperture settings)? Perhaps our more experienced members can enlighten us?

As for forcing yourself to frame your shots better, you could always impose self discipline. Simply keep the lens at 17mm and walk forwards and backwards as needed. :)

[ifurlong]

I read that with the 10d the 15fish is really a 12.5mm rectlinrar when you use a software package to remove the fish effect, also they say that the 15 fich is clearer thar the 14 L! go figure. Anyways, I have one on order. I think the revews are at

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

[cubfan]

I have a 17-40 and a 20-35 USM..The 20-35 is really sharp and less than half the price of the 17-40. Its not quite as wide but I have had really good results with it. The 17-40 L is also very nice and an L lens but I'm not sure its worth the extra $500 you would spend, especially if you are an amateur. Just an opinion but I own both of them and both are superb.

[SemieE]

Just an update to let you guys know that I placed the order for the Canon 20mm 2.8 today. It's $500 less than the 17-40mm and from what I've gathered, just about as sharp (making it much sharper than the 20-35mm). I also get to stick to my goal of only having prime lenses (so far, at least).