wide angle

[c0ntr0lz]

alright most of yall know what i'm going to use this lens for, car photography. I'm looking at get either the 17-40mm f/4 L, the 20 mm f/2.8 or the 15mm f/2.8. Not really sure if i want to go the 15mm Fisheye for walk around use, but it would be fun to have. I listed it cause it's about the widest thing you can get and it's f/2.8.

I really like the 20mm cause of the f/2.8 but the 17mm is a bit wider and it's 'L' but it's stop is only f/4

so what do yall think.

[Olegis]

I like my Sigma 15-30 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37783), very nice wide angle lens for the money. I got it second hand for about $400 ...

[c0ntr0lz]

do you have any shots taking with it. saying this i'm going into your site to find some.

thanks

[neo_xeno]

if all ur mainly going to use this lens for is shooting cars will u really shoot one at a 2.8? i would go with the 17-40, i just got one and i love it.

[c0ntr0lz]

well the 2.8 would be used in some shots
like when i do my close ups to remove background items/cars/ppl

[evilenglishman]

canon also make a 14mm 2.8L
sigma also make:
8mm F4 fisheye (which is the wides thing you can get :wink: )
14mm Asperical 2.8
12-24mm f4.5-5.6

[drisley]

I've been seriously looking at the 20F2.8 as a wide angle solution to replace the kit lens. However, the main reason I would choose this lens over the 17-40L is because it is much smaller and easier to store/carry so I could keep it in my bag and use it in the oft chance that I need it.
Also, it is cheaper.

That said, controlz, I would recommend you get the 17-40L. It's wider and more practical for what you are shooting. Also, I think it has the edge in image quality over the 20F2.8. In addition, the "L" lens will control purple fringing from hotspots on the cars much better I believe.
When you are shooting this wide, the aperture doesnt make much difference as far as blur is concerned. In addition, with wide angle lenses, you can get away with much slower shutter speeds handheld than zooms, so F4 is usually more than adequate.

I dont think I've ever heard anyone say anything bad about the 17-40L. Everybody that buys one seems to love it. The 20F2.8 is a mixed bag.
Again, I would get the 17-40L, however the 20F2.8 is a better fit for me.

That's just my opinion. Sorry about trying to talk you into a more expensive lens. :wink:

[evilenglishman]

I dont think I've ever heard anyone say anything bad about the 17-40L

a few reviewers here point out some good and bad points about that particular lens.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&thecat=27

[Olegis]

do you have any shots taking with it. saying this i'm going into your site to find some.

thanks

Well, all the photographs in this gallery - http://www.pbase.com/olegis/streets_ta&page=all - were shot with the Sigma 15-30.

[c0ntr0lz]

drisley don't ever worry about pushing me in that direction, cause that's the way i'm walking most of the time.

i know what you're saying for the extra 3mm but between the lenses it's only 5mm difference with the 1.6 added in. and after looking thru some of the reveiws I'm kinda scarie off by the 17-40mm.i took some pix with boths lenses at wolf and i see the 17mm being a tad clearer.

http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/images/17mm.jpg

http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/images/20mm.jpg


evilenglishman thanks for the link
i always forget to go there and see what others say about a lens

Olegis nice shots!!! it looks like it's avery crisp lens for that wide of an angle. thanks for the pix

[Olegis]

You welcome.
I use USM on all my photographs, that's one of the reasons for their sharpness ... 8)

[Cadwell]

I use the 17-40L for this kind of work. Some examples (well a lot of examples) here...

http://valaraukar.fotopic.net/c215223_1.html

The first five pages worth are all taken with the 17-40 apart from the track shots at the end of page 5 The remainder of the gallery was taken using the 70-200L and the Tamron 28-75mm.

[cmM]

Controlz,
I photographed cars this weekens at a car show using the 20mm f/2.8. The lighing was crappy, but I got a few nice pics. I posted some pictures in the "share pictures" forum, check them out. I will post the entire gallery as soon as I edit all of them.

If you'll shoot indoors, I don't think the 17-40 will be fast enough. 16-35 would ne ideal in my opinion.

[c0ntr0lz]

cadwell thanks and WOW i wish i could see some of those cars here

CMM on my way thanks