Smaller Alternative To 17-40L

[drisley]

I've been contemplating for a while getting a wide angle lens to replace my 300D kit.
I've done ALOT of reading here and on google, and from what I've read the 17-40L has the quality I want.
However, since I won't be using it that much, I would like a smaller lens.
I don't need a zoom. Price isn't a big deal. If I could find a wide angle solution with the same quality as the 17-40L, for the same price or less, I would get it.
So, in summation, is there an nice, small wide angle lens (approx 17mm) that offers the same quality as the 17-40L for the same price or even less?

Thanks in advance.

[roanjohn]

There is the Tokina 17 prime.

I don't think there is anything that will replace the 17-40 f4L for me. It is not that big. The hood is a tad cumbersome but the lens balances very well with my Rebel.

I will not trade this lens for anything. If you're used to the "L" effect, this lens is the only way to go without going over 1000 USD.

;-)

Ro1

[velvetjones]

I like the Canon 20mm f/2.8...but that might not be quite wide enough for you. I don't think there are a whole lot of primes available between 20mm and 14mm. Hmmm.......

[drisley]

I was looking seriously at the 20F2.8 at one point, but I think I might want something wider just in case.
I've been eyeballing the Canon and Sigma 15mm F2.8 fisheyes.
Although they are fisheye lenses, apparently correction with software when needed is very good.
These lenses both get very good reviews almost everywhere on the web.
Has anybody used these?

[velvetjones]

Yeah, I have the Sigma 15mm too. I have found it to be very sharp. I am pretty happy with it, and the distortion is not as dramatic once you have the crop factor (and I have heard that it IS pretty easy to correct this fully with the right software too.)

The only problem I have with the sigma is that is pretty terrible with the auto focus in low light, but that is to be expected I guess. Not a big deal. Overall it is a great value because you should be able to find one around $350 or so.

[nosquare2003]

Is it easy to correct the fisheye distortion?

Well, I'm afraid that there are not much alternatives. Tokina 17/3.5 is certainly a smaller lens but the weight is similar to 17-40/4L. Yet it is cheaper.

[CoolToolGuy]

Take a look at the Tamron 14mm f2.8. I have one and I love it. KEH has a used one as I type this for $665. The focus motor is a bit noisy, but other than that it is a fine lens. Much better than $1800 for the Canon.

[Persian-Rice]

Dris,

I read a couple place s that the tokina is quite a good choice.
If you want here is a good article wrote about it.

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html

Cheers.

[drisley]

Thanks for the recommendations.
The Tokina really does look darn good in that review Persian-Rice.
That may in fact be the way to go!

[nosquare2003]

Thanks for the recommendations.
The Tokina really does look darn good in that review Persian-Rice.
That may in fact be the way to go!

I'm interested in the Tokina lens myself. (I've read that review before.) One of my consideration is whether Canon will announce a similar lens or something like 12-24 soon...

[Olegis]

Hi Drisley !
I was on this boat too a few month ago. I wanted to go for the Tokina 17mm from the start, after a great review from Petteri Sulonen's site that was mentioned here. But then a friend of mine sent me a link in a local forum where some guy was selling his Sigma 15-30 zoom, so I started to read about this lens also. The reviews were great and the quality of the pictures I saw was quite impressive, so I decided to go for this lens, and guess what - I'm not dissapointed !
The only thing that may not suit you is the size of this lens - the Sigma 15-30 is BIG, but not very heavy on the other hand. I think you should go to the nearest photo store and try it yourself, just to see if you like the feeling of it and the balance of this lens on your Rebel.

[gcogger]

I too have been considering the Tokina 17, and comparing it to the Tamron 17-35. From what I've seen:
the Tokina is no cheaper;
it is of no better quality;
it is heavier;
it is slower ( f/3.5 vs f/2.8 );
it doesn't auto-focus very well.
At the moment, I can't see a reason to buy one!
I still have an open mind :) If anyone has a comparison that shows the Tokina to be of better quality than the Tamron, or some other reason to choose the Tokina, I'd certainly be interested...

[drisley]

The Tokina is MUCH cheaper.
It's $364 US at Adorama, the Tamron is $469 US.

However, it might be worth a look.

[gcogger]

Sorry - my mistake.

I'd still prefer it to be lighter, though :)

[nosquare2003]

The weight of the Tamron and Tokina lens is the same, 440g.

The Tokina lens is even cheaper in local shop here, about USD320 while the price for Tamron is similar to the US.

For me, f/2.8 and f/3.5 is not a big deal for a 17mm lens. I don't use f/2.8 most of the time when using 17mm. Since I need only a 17mm lens, Tokina is cheaper for me.

[gcogger]

Strange - the place I looked at had the Tokina at 500g. I'm sure you're right, though, since I've checked one or 2 other sites and they show it as 440g (same as the Tamron).
I'd really like to find a prime that's lighter than this, since my camera will usually be in a rucksack on its way up a mountain :-) The kit lens is great (at ~200g), but it would be nice to get something of better quality.