WHICH WIDE ANGLE LENS?!?!?!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hello everyone. I'm buying my 20D soon, and I need a good wide angle zoom lens to go with it for some land scape, close up sport, and portrait photography. As well as some pics of houses. I've been looking around, have found a few I like, but can't make up my mind! I don't want to spend more than $700.00 for it right now.......

Thinkin about these:
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 (103.7-63.4 degrees AOF)
Canon 17-40mm f/4 (74-29 degrees AOF)
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (104-63 degrees AOF)

Oh, also kind of like it to be a walk around lens for basic use too..... don't feel like buying another lens like a 28-135mm for that purpose or anything. Any suggestions?

[raylks]

Why the AOF of Canon 17-40mm is significantly narrower than the other wide angle lens?
I suggest using 17-40mm of Canon. It is sharp and the build is decent. It is still the most used lens in my lens collection.

[drisley]

If you are looking at a zoom, I would get the Canon.
It is very highly regarded, and you wont have to worry about future compatibility like you might with the Sigma.
I'm not that familiar with the Tamron.

[vkalia]

From what I've seen of the Tamron, it is pretty much in the same league as the Canon - and gives you an extra stop on the wide side, and is cheaper. That's the lens I wanted to buy (ended up getting the 17-40L as it was easier to find here). I've been very impressed by Tamron's offerings of late - they are starting to seriously challenge Canon when it comes to standard lenses, which is good for us customers.

Vandit

[ScottE]

I have the Canon 17-40 and found that it is not wide enough. I just purchased a Canon 10-22 to get those wider angle shots.

Scott

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Man, if I had the money, I'd just get the Canon 16-35mm..... fantastic lens and the AOF is very wide. Unfortunately I don't have 1400 to blow on a single lens. I'd rather have my walk around, semi wide, and telephoto for the cost of that one lens. Maybe sometime in the future.

Anyway, sounds like many people find that the 17-40mm isn't wide enough...... but maybe that's a good thing, because I want it to be a good walk around lens, which'll need some good zoom anyway for those slightly futher away shots. My only other choice would be to get a canon 28-135mm IS and a tamron 17-35. That would do the trick at about 800ish. Or I could go with the 17-40... hold on to that for a while, save up and then buy a sigma, or tamron 17-35mm.

What combonation do you guys think would be the better choice?

And does anyone know what the sigma offers over the tamron? Or vice versa. Since the sigma is 70 bucks more after rebate. I've heard sigmas are better quality than tamron as well.

Lots of questions I know, but thanks so much for helping me out!

[soupdragon]

Nikon 20mm afd

[Sicily1918]

I have the Canon 17-40 and found that it is not wide enough. I just purchased a Canon 10-22 to get those wider angle shots.

ScottI love that lens (10-22)! Since you're getting a 20D, get this sucker... equivalent of a 16-35mm and it's fantastic. Even at its widest the shots are sharp with little to no aberrations (other than elongating people, but that's to be expected) ;)

[gcogger]

Man, if I had the money, I'd just get the Canon 16-35mm..... fantastic lens and the AOF is very wide. Unfortunately I don't have 1400 to blow on a single lens. I'd rather have my walk around, semi wide, and telephoto for the cost of that one lens. Maybe sometime in the future.

Anyway, sounds like many people find that the 17-40mm isn't wide enough...... but maybe that's a good thing, because I want it to be a good walk around lens, which'll need some good zoom anyway for those slightly futher away shots. My only other choice would be to get a canon 28-135mm IS and a tamron 17-35. That would do the trick at about 800ish. Or I could go with the 17-40... hold on to that for a while, save up and then buy a sigma, or tamron 17-35mm.

What combonation do you guys think would be the better choice?

And does anyone know what the sigma offers over the tamron? Or vice versa. Since the sigma is 70 bucks more after rebate. I've heard sigmas are better quality than tamron as well.

Lots of questions I know, but thanks so much for helping me out!

Your figures for AOF are wrong - the Sigma, Tamron and Canon are the same at the wide end with the Canon going very slightly longer. They basically all do the same job.
From what I've read, the Canon and Tamron are similar in optical quality with the Sigma a little further behind. The Canon is much more solidly built and will hold its value well. The Tamron is cheaper, a little lighter and has a very usable f/2.8 at 17mm.

[Jon]

Canon reports AoV for horizontal, vertical, and corner-to-corner. The others are just corner-to-corner. And Canon's lens chart entry for the 17-40 is just plain wrong. They are, in fact, the same as it shows for the 24-70 (which lists the correct values for AoV, only in reversed order!).

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Well, if that's so, then what are the correct reports for AOV on each lens......?

[KevC]

Ever consider different lenses?

Maybe the MC Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 for the wide angle (<$200)
The 50mm f/1.8 for portraits ($70)
The 28mm f/1.8 for walkaround ($300)

Just an alternative..... primes are inherently sharper than zooms.

[Jon]

Well, if that's so, then what are the correct reports for AOV on each lens......?

Sigma and Tamron correctly report the AoV of their lenses (for 35 mm format). The Canon would be the same max (103+ deg) at 17, about 48 deg. at 40 mm.

[Simon Spiers]

Well i use the Tamron 17-35 and its great!

[roanjohn]

I would highly recommend the 17-40 f4L...............I broke my first copy of this lens.............and I felt lost without it...........Of course, a few days later, I went to buy another one...............It's that GOOD!!! And trust me, if you get the Canon, you won't be thinking about the Tamron and Sigma..........Not sure if that works the other way around.

Ro1

[thomasrhee]

Out of the 3 lenses you listed, I'd take the Canon 17-40/4L without hesitation. It's a killer lens regardless of price and when you take into account the price, it's one of the best values out there. The image quality is absolutely superb and if for some reason you decide to sell the lens in the future, the resale value and demand will be much higher than the Tamron or Sigma.

[I Simonius]

Hello everyone. I'm buying my 20D soon, and I need a good wide angle zoom lens to go with it for some land scape, close up sport, and portrait photography. As well as some pics of houses. I've been looking around, have found a few I like, but can't make up my mind! I don't want to spend more than $700.00 for it right now.......

Thinkin about these:
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 (103.7-63.4 degrees AOF)
Canon 17-40mm f/4 (74-29 degrees AOF)
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (104-63 degrees AOF)

Oh, also kind of like it to be a walk around lens for basic use too..... don't feel like buying another lens like a 28-135mm for that purpose or anything. Any suggestions?

You seem to definitely want a zoom so my suggestion is probably superfluous, but I am going for the 15mm and 35mm primes. I tried loads of zooms and none seemed quite right, then I realised that's cos really I needed primes.

From the zooms I've tried from the selection you are looking at - I'd go for the Canon, it's a cracker and holds up very well in the reviews

[Hellashot]

Hello everyone. I'm buying my 20D soon, and I need a good wide angle zoom lens to go with it for some land scape, close up sport, and portrait photography. As well as some pics of houses. I've been looking around, have found a few I like, but can't make up my mind! I don't want to spend more than $700.00 for it right now.......

Thinkin about these:
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 (103.7-63.4 degrees AOF)
Canon 17-40mm f/4 (74-29 degrees AOF)
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (104-63 degrees AOF)

Oh, also kind of like it to be a walk around lens for basic use too..... don't feel like buying another lens like a 28-135mm for that purpose or anything. Any suggestions?

The best value wide angle lens for the focal range you're asking is the kit lens: 18-55 EF-S. $90 vs. $400+

[Olegis]

The best value wide angle lens for the focal range you're asking is the kit lens: 18-55 EF-S. $90 vs. $400+

I second this - the kit lens is the best when it comes to price / performance ratio, especially for a beginners lens. But if you have this $700 budget, I'd say - go straight for the 17-40mm f/4L. I know for certain that I would ...

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thank you all very much! I think I will go with the 17-40mm f/4L as many of you have suggested. That, and maybe a 28-300mm Tamron I think would be a great start. Thanks for all the help. If anyone else has any suggestions, please feel free to post.

[Sean-Mcr]

I've had the 16-35 for over week now and i'm very happy with it. I've not tested it next to the 17-40 but i really wanted the extra stop

Can't really ask for me

[I Simonius]

Seems to me you're doubling up unneccessarily on focal lengths?

[Gary W. Graley]

Well it's good to read all those accolades for the 17-40L as I had emailed adorama to change my order from the Tokina 12-24 f4 to the Canon 17-40L I had the Tokina 17mm and for me, that was plenty wide enough for what I shoot. If it gets to where I need a wider lens, I'll figure that out down the road. My first try was getting the 16-35L but after two attempts with lenses that didn't work just right, I gave up and split the dollars in almost two by purchasing the Canon 200L f2.8 and now the 17-40L, the L builds are very nice, I only hope that the 17-40L works better than either of the two 16-35L's. I borrowed a friend's 16-35L and his was sharp and fast, so it was the copies that I had and not the camera, which I was worried about at first.
G2