just 2 things!!!

[fatrat]

I want your opinions on 2 things, first is why should i get a battery grip for my 20D.
are they really worth getting my batteries last for a long time and i have a spare one so is there any other reasons i should get one?

Also i am looking at getting a wide angle lens what should i get??
a EFS 10-22 a EF 16 to 35 L ( i know the 10-22 is wider but does the lower aputure and the fact the 16-35 L is a L lense mean it will take better photos?? realy how much dif in quality will there be?) or what about the sigma 14mm f2.8 or any other sigma's or tamrons you rekon i should consider?? its a real hard decision

[cmM]

the main reason I got the grip for the 20D is for the balance when shooting in portrait mode and when using longer lenses. The battery life is a plus too.

As for your lens decision, I've shot with a 16-35 (not mine) and it lives up to its expectation. It's awesome for low-light (indoor) wide angle shooting. Also, if you ever upgrade to an EF mount camera your 10-22 becomes obsolete :)

[Dante King]

It has been said that if the 10-22 was not in the EF-S category it would be an L lens. It has all the L parts except the red ring.

I love my grip as I shoot mainly in portrait mode. The extra button and shutte release make it much more comfortable.

[Tom W]

If battery life is your only concern, I'd say skip the battery grip. If its other values (balance, shooting in portrait position, etc.) are valuable to you, then you might want to consider the grip. Also, if you shoot a huge number of shots at a given event (weddings, etc.), you might want the added capacity.

As for the lenses, it depends a lot on how you see 16 mm on your 20D - is it wide enough? The 10-22 seems to be gaining a very positive reputation, and would serve you well if you need the width. Likewise, the 16-35 is a well-built, fast wide zoom. Its hard to beat if you need f/2.8, but if you don't, the 17-40 might be a better choice.

For forward capability (moving up to the 1-series or other potential larger-format sensor), the 16-35 is the best bet. On full-frame, it is reportedly better in the corners than the 17-40. Mine is modestly better than my 17-40 was on my 1D2.

Also, don't worry that the 1.6 sensors aren't here to stay for a long time - Canon would not have designed 4+ lenses for the EF-S format if they weren't intending to market them for some time.

[roanjohn]

If you're considering the 16-35......how about the 17-40 and the Canon fisheye??

Anyways, just a suggestion........you really can't go wrong with your choices. They are all very well recommended.

Ro1

[Tom W]

Forgot about the fisheye - its very sharp, and you can use the free PT-Lens standalone or plugin (Photoshop Elements 3, or CS) software to defish the image if you want rectilinear. From what I've read on the net, the defished image is similar to what a 12 mm lens would produce.

[Toogy]

One thing to consider with the 10-22, is that with such a short focal length, it is pretty easy to hand hold it and get sharp images with slower shutter speeds.
I can get really good pictures hand held at shutter speeds around 1/15th even.
So basically what I am saying is that I don't see the F3.5-4.5 as a problem at all.

Plus the 16-35 on a 20D is equilvalent to a 26-56mm on a regular camera which isn't really THAT wide. If you want W-I-D-E, then you really don't have many choices.
Get the 10-22!! :)

[k2kv]

I don't think it is a matter of which lens is "better." You have to decide how wide you would like to go, and that will help you decide. There are other issues, like the costs, and speed, but since you did not mention these as factors in your decision, I won't either.

FWIW, I own both the 17-40 and the 10-22, and I am now seriously considering selling the 17-40 because I'm hardly using it since I got the 10-22 (even though it has given me some wonderful images), and the 10-22 delivers gorgeous wideangle perspective; perhaps I will replace it with either a 24-70 or 17-85 (have not decided this one yet. My bag is getting pretty heavy, and the 17-85 looks like a good, lighter walkaround, but I know the 24-70 is sharper. I have the same dilemma as you, different focal range!).

Anyhow, there is a BIG difference between 16mm/17mm and 10mm on a 20D - - Really big!

Cheers,

Jeff

[fatrat]

mmmmm, looks like i will get a 10-22 :)