Need a Wide Angle!!!!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hello everyone! Just bought a 50mm f/1.8 and a 70-200mm f/4L. Now I need a wide angle. It'll be a while before I can buy it, but figure I should start researching it now.

Well, right now I'm looking at the 17-35mm Tamron f/2.8 and the 17-40 f/4L. I really like both!! Possibly the 24-70L cause it's wide enough, and a good walk around lens. It'd be stretching my budget pretty far though.

I can't afford anything higher than the 24-70L at all. That's my limit. I've looked at the 10-22mm, but I think that may be a little tooooooo wide. I want some walk around capability. Not just incredibly wide.

Would the wicked wide be worth it though? I'm just kind of lost here. What would all of you recommend? Thanks!

[cdhender]

Just to let you know, a 24-70L on an 20D will not be that wide because of the 1.6 crop factor. Your choices are the lenses you listed and the 10-22 (which is actually more expensive than the 17-40L, figure that one out).

I'm currently in a "wide lense debate" myself. If you do an advance search of "17-40" on this forum, you will find hundreds of post. I spent pretty much all last week reading posts all the way from last year about this lense. And I've decided that it's right for me. However, again realise that with the crop factor, a 17-40 is really a 27 - 64. That's wide but it's not W-I-D-E like the 10-22.

It comes down to what you plan to shoot and how wide is wide enough for you. I suggest browsing Pbase so you can see typical shots from these lenses. Here is the 17-40L gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_1740_4l

Good luck.

[dsze]

Tokina 17mm Pro....

[fetching]

I'm currently in a "wide lense debate" myself. If you do an advance search of "17-40" on this forum, you will find hundreds of post. I spent pretty much all last week reading posts all the way from last year about this lense. And I've decided that it's right for me. However, again realise that with the crop factor, a 17-40 is really a 27 - 64. That's wide but it's not W-I-D-E like the 10-22.




you sound like me.

so, have you come up with any other options for a quality wide angle?

[Maureen Souza]

I just got the 16-35mm/2.8L. I haven't given it a real workout yet but so far, so good.

[ScottE]

I have the 17-40/4 and found it was not wide enough. I was used to using a 20-35 mm lens on my 35mm cameras. It is more like a mid-range zoom on the 20D.

I recently acquired a 10-22. That cetainly answers my wide angle lens concerns on the 20D. It is about the same as the 16-35 I never got around to getting for my 35mm camera.

I have heard good things about the new Tokina 12-24 which should give a good wide angle range, but it doesn't have full time manual focus override so I didn't give it much consideration. If that isn't a factor for you, you should take a look at that lens too.

Scott

[Persian-Rice]

Well there are a couple good choices.

10-22, we got a shipment of new lenses at school before the break and I tested one of the 10-22 out, quite a nice lens, it's an unbranded L if you ask me. The 17-40 and 16-35 are great. I love my 17-40, I have yet to use the 16-35, but I know it's very similar, but better then the 17-40. Then there is the Tokina 17mm prime, also very good lens.

If you you want to save some money, go with the Tokina, you will be happy.

[drisley]

I mirror Persian-Rices statements almost exactly.

[condyk]

Here's the list I came up with when I was looking for wide/walkaround lens/es. Scores are from FredMiranda review section, i.e. score out of 10 anhd number of user reviews featured. The napprox UK price (not for you, but I just left it in rather than edit, for other UK people here!):

Wider

xTokina AT-X 17 f3.5 AF Pro - 9.2/9 £250
xTokina AT-X Pro 12-24 f/4 £365
xTamron AF 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical - 8.9/17 £329
xCanon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - 9.1/33 £559
xSigma 14mm f2.8 EX Aspherical - 8.4/11 £535
xCanon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - 8.9/33 £549
xSigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM - 8.6/32 £450
xSigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF - 8.3/33 £390
xSigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC - 8.2/11 £329

Wide-ish to Mid range (18mm +)

?Tokina 20-35mm AT-X 235 AF PRO - 9/5 £450
xTamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom - 9.6/53 £264
xTamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) 8.2/13 £265
xSigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DF - 8.5/11 £229
xSigma 20-40mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF - 10/3 £350/250
xSigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF - 8/30 £279

I went with the lenses in my Sig ... wide via an ebay bargain buy and walkaround as found great new price online. I split wide-ish and walkaround as they are different things entirely in practice.

[Rob612]

Add a vote for the 10-22 I have had mine just a few days ago and I already felt completely in love with it.

[gasrocks]

Since you have the 70-200/4 L (that takes 67mm filters) get the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon efs 10-22. they also use 67mm filters. 3 zooms to cover a wide (hope that wasn't a pun) range with great glass.

[Toogy]

Just a small correction the 10-22 actually takes 77mm filters :)

[jfrancho]

Tamron 11-18.

[blue_max]

I have the 17-40L and it is lovely. I couldn't look at an ef-s lens cos' I have a 10d. I couldn't afford the 16-35 and primes were a mixed bag or very expensive.

I have the 70-200Lf4 and 85mm prime, so the logical choice was the 17-40Lf4. I had borrowed a Sigma 16-35, but it was really not very good and felt 'cheap'. So I found a second hand canon and am very pleased with it.

I particularly like the fact that it goes to 40mm, which make it a whole lot more flexible.

Would I have gone for the 10-22 if I had a 20d? It's very wide, but I don't have much experience of wide angle photography (from a G5 point and shoot). Therefore I would worry about getting my use out of it – once the 10mm novelty had worn off!

Your shooting style would be the first criteria, budget the next and whether you would always wonder what the L would have been like!

Graham

[cdhender]

you sound like me.

so, have you come up with any other options for a quality wide angle?

Well yes. I've decided to go with the 17-40L. I'm actually not looking for a super-wide angle like the 10-22. I think, even on my 20D, the 17 will be wide enough. I like to shoot architecture and landscapes with these lenses and looking at photos on pbase, the 17-40L looks good.

All that being said, if I find myself not liking the 17-40 because it's too "narrow", I won't hesitate to sell it and buy a 10-22, which I've heard great things about.

[KevC]

I would say pick up a wide prime (such as the Russian Fishy, MC Zenitar 16mm/2.8 or Sigma 14mm/2.8 or Tokina 17mm/3.5) and a standard zoom cos that's what I think you're missing. Of course, the Canon 24-70L would be your best bet, but I'd take a look at Sigma's 24-60 or 24-70 and Tamron's 28-75 for a very nice alternative.

Good luck!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hm, yes, I like these ideas. What I'd really like to do is get the 10-22 and the 24-70L because that is a sweet combo when the 70-200 is thrown in there. Veerrryyyyy expensive though! 1900 bucks.... but then again if I wait a full year, that'll be pocket change to pay off..... I also want the 100-400L to complete the series. So, I have to consider the price of that as well. The Sigma 24-70 with the 10-22 may work.... that'd be more around the 1200 range, plus the 100-400L would be around 26-2700 after filters and stuff. I could definately do that by next year.

Then again I'm not even sure if I need the 10-22..... I'm shooting with a 50mm right now and I consider that pretty wide..... So, I don't really think I'd need more than 17mm. Plus, 150 bucks extra for 7mm on the wide end? Lose 18 on the long end? Kind of kills it's versatility....

I'm thinking maybe at least start off with the 17-40. It'd compliment the 50, and the 70-200 ranges. Seems like a good idea. Then I'd have PLENTY of cash for the 100-400L which is what I really want. So, that's probably the way I'll go.

Any other suggestions? Also, I'm curious about the quality of the 17-40mm..... I've heard the Tamron 17-35 is sharper.... true? Yes? No?

Thanks for all the help!

[booggerg]

Dude just get teh 17-40L and then get a Russian Fisheye.. simple as that.. the 40mm end on the 1740 really comes into use sometimes(without having to swap lenses) I don't think the 22mm will cut it.

[GTogs]

I've found the 17-40 plenty wide for my needs right now. I love the quality of this lens!

[stapimp]

I was in a similar position, when i purchased the 20D my first lense was the 24-70L which I love, but i wanted something wider.

ended up getting the sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye which is a full frame fisheye for full frame camers, and only has a slight fisheye effect with a 1.6 crop factor. i really like it and it was half the pirce of the 10-22, granted it dosen't go as wide but it was a good compramise.


here is a link to one of the first pics i took with it

http://web.mit.edu/stamanti/www/IMG_0682.JPG

-steve

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Nice shot Stapimp, and thanks booggerg and Gtogs. That helps! I think 17mm is plenty wide for my needs too, if I need more I can always resell it and get the 10-22. so, I guess that resolves that!

I'm curious now though, Stapimp, how do you like that 24-70mm? I'm just curious about it because I think it'd make a great walk around.

Oh, and, does anyone think the 17-40 is good enough for a walk around? Or is 40 way to wide for most things walk around?

[GTogs]

I generally carry two lenses, the 17-40 and the Tamron 28-75, makes a great combination for most street and landscape shots.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Is this Tamron 28-75 really all that great? Because, it looks sooooo ugly to me. This may sound stupid, but I like my equiptment to look good. Makes it easier for me to justify dropping hundreds of $'s on things. If the performance is really that fantastic though, I'll give it a second look!

[KevC]

Consider the Sigma 24-60 or 24-70 :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Jeez, so many lenses out there! haha, thanks for the suggestion though, I'll look into those right now.

[stapimp]

the 24-70L is a great lens, its DNO (dead nuts on) for sharpness, and great in low light conditions. and its an L lens so the build quality is immaculate, and the weight is not a problem for me. Have held it for hours at a time and don't mind it even without the grip. a friend of mind has the 20D, grip, and the 28-70L which feels really well ballanced.

[condyk]

Oh, and, does anyone think the 17-40 is good enough for a walk around? Or is 40 way to wide for most things walk around?

Is this Tamron 28-75 really all that great? Because, it looks sooooo ugly to me. This may sound stupid, but I like my equiptment to look good.

For shots that don't need more zoom then the 17-40 can be fine. 40mm is not that wide anyway. I have used my 20-35 plenty of times like that when walking around. Depends on the shots you want: the range isn't too flexible.

I carry my Tamron as well ... which looks fine too: not ugly at all with the hood on! It is quite light and can fit in a jacket pocket and so might work nicely with a wide lens. It's a very decent lens, but I wouldn't call it fantastic, or expect £1000 results for a £300 lens. It's simply excellent.

The 17-40mm is a super safe buy with excellent resale: try and get a good SH one and you won't lose money on it. It was my preferred buy but hard to find SH in UK.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hm, right now I'm leaning towards the 17-40L! I think that'll be wide enough for me. Plus, I'd rather same some money by not getting the 10-22 and use it to get my 100-400L.