Wide angle to 70 mm coverage: your opinion required

[Raj]

Ok I have 70-200 nicely covered with sigma EX HSM. I now want to cover wide angle to 70mm with some good glass.

Combo's I thought are:

Easy way: canon EF-S 10-22 mm or tokin 12-24 mm plus tamron 28-75 xr di
Tough way: 17-40 f4L or 16-35mm f2.8L plus 24-70 f2.8 L (expensive, I will have to do this in two stages)

I am not really sure how useful 10mm will be but I do use 18mm end of my a lot, so may be I can start at 16 or 17 mm.

So I need your opinion on two things:

1. Do these combo's make any sense ? Can you suggest anything better.

2. 17-40 f4L is some $800 cheaper than 16-35 f2.8 L here in Japan.
Whats the difference between these two lenses which makes the later so expensive ? Its much brighter at f2.8, however can you please know if this makes a big difference in landscape/wide angle photography practically ? I understand it will make a difference indoors.
Is it worth to spend extra bucks on f2.8L ? Please let me know your opinion.

Thanks !

[tim]

If you don't think you're going to jump to a 1 series body, the 10-22 would be a cool lens to have. The Tamron's a great lens too, I can't compare it to the L, but I like mine. I don't buy lenses slower than F2.8 any more, so i'd avoid the F4 lens, that's just me though.

[Citizensmith]

I agree with Tim, if you aren't sure you'll use the 10mm then just leave that lens for now.

As an alternate I'd like to suggest the 17-40 pared with the 50 1.4 (or maybe just the 1.8). Very good lenses and an easy combination to use.

[Sean-Mcr]

I bought the 16-35 and i found it to be too soft at 2.8 and not a huge step in extra light/speed to warrent the almost double the price of the 17-40.

Maybe i was expecting too much, but i was getting shots with my primes that the 16-35 could not manage at 2.8. I never really had to think that hard about returning it after that

I think smithy (i'm guess you're a shaun of the dead fan) gave a good combo there

[kawter2]

I have the 10-22mm and the Tamron 28-75, I LOVE the combo but eventuly upgrade the Tamron to Canon "L". I am afraid of the Tamron build quality

[gramps]

go with the "tough way".....you will never regret the 24 - 70

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I've been debating this myself. 10-22 and a 24-70L sounds more logical. Only a 2mm gap. 17-40 and 28-75 tamron or the L sounds stupid to me. Too much over lapping.... Even though you may not need the 10 right now, I'm sure you'll find a use for it, and if you have the cash, I would go with the 10-22mm and the 24-70L they seem so sweet! Or the 10-22 with the 28-75 tamron for now, and upgrade later when you have the cash to the L.

I know I'm just going to get the 17-40mm f/4. The f/4 doesn't worry me much because shooting land scape and stuff you need a large DOF provided by smaller apetures anyway. I have the 50mm f/1.8 and 70-200 kind of like you. So, this to me seems like a good array of lenses. Like someone else suggested, maybe you should go for the 17-40 and the 50 f/1.4.

Never owned these lenses, but I do a lot of research, and those are my thoughts on this. Tellin ya though, if I had the cash, the 10-22 and the 24-70L would be in my camera bag by tomorrow! :-)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Oops, forgot to subscribe.:o

[symes]

yup here is a vote for the 10-22 and the 24-70...

I am just short the 24-70 to make my kit look niceeee...oh yeah and a body upgrade, and a 16-35 for when I pass through the same focal length alot, and a good flash, and solid bag for hiking and....

[KevC]

Sigma 24-70/2.8 or 24-60/2.8 to nicely compliment that 70-200. Then get yourself a wide prime, be it the Tokina 17mm/3.5 or the Russian Fishy MC Zenitar 16mm/2.8. You don't *really* need to zoom wide, do you?

Anyway, the 10-22 is an awesome lens none-the-less... but it'll be far pricier than my other suggestions :D

[hoghunter]

I recently got the Sigma 12-24 and I love it. I've had my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for a while and I love it. I had a Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 and it was an older version. I've read that the older version is better than the current model Tokina. I gave that lens to a buddy of mine.

I guess what I'm saying is they are both great but I think I would pick the Sigma over the Tokina. The Sigma seems to be tighter and a bit better built. To top it off, I recently dropped it and it got damaged. They told me it can be repaired for between $50 an $75. I'll be sending it out next week.

[Raj]

Thanks everybody for your suggestions, keep them coming.

Umm I am more confused now as I see more options. May be I should just get 24-70 F2.8L for now, cover 18-24 with my sigma lens & then get another good glass to cover WA, like 10-22 mm.
I see edge distortion with 10-22 & although many ppl think its a cool effect (sometimes me too) I dont want to see it all the time. I guess if I zoom a little it will go. Any comments on this ?

Thanks

[symes]

Thanks everybody for your suggestions, keep them coming.

Umm I am more confused now as I see more options. May be I should just get 24-70 F2.8L for now, cover 18-24 with my sigma lens & then get another good glass to cover WA, like 10-22 mm.
I see edge distortion with 10-22 & although many ppl think its a cool effect (sometimes me too) I dont want to see it all the time. I guess if I zoom a little it will go. Any comments on this ?

Thanks

The distortion is only at 10-14mm but beyond that I have yet to see distortion on the 10-22...the effect is nice, Check it out on the Latern Shot...

the effect is only really noticable when you are close to a subject but much less noticable on landscapes,...look at the first pic and I think you might see what I mean..

It is a really great lens with a lot of creative abilities:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=74283

Cheers,

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Holy crap! Symes, you just helped me find a new found love for that lens with those pics. Raj, I think your making the right decision for now. Start with the more expensive one that way your wallet wont hurt so much the second time. :-)

[garyhun]

Emmmm...now you have me spending more money :D


I am about to buy a 20D and was going to buy body only plus the 17-40L. My main stuff will be landscape.

However....I'm now thinking EFS 10-22 and 24-70L!!!!

Original plan £1355
New plan £2254

I need to be brave!!!!!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Who cares about the money as long as it gives you something to do and brings ya lots of joy. :-) As long as you can pay it off in a reasonable amount of time, it's worth it.

[hoghunter]

Comparing the Canon 10-22 and Sigma 12-24 I choose the the Sigma. For the following reasons:

Price - I paid $500 for the Sigma. I couldn't see spending $350 more for two degrees an questionable quality. Now mind you if it was L glass, I may have had to think harder about this.

Full Frame - the Sigma works with all Canon bodies. The 10-22 only works with 1.6 crop bodies like the 300d, 350d, 20d & 10d. Now I don't see a full frame digital in my near future, but I already own a Canon film Rebel. I can use my Sigma on it. In that case, the lens become a true wide angle. Film bodies a real cheap these days.

Quailty - From the reviews I read, the Sigma out performed the Canon. This was the least contributing factor because, I had a hard time telling the difference and I figure I will introduce more quality issues with my poor skills. :D

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

" Now mind you if it was L glass, I may have had to think harder about this."


Curious why you said that because the 10-22 is just as good as any L lens. It should be marked with an L! The proof is in it's MTF charts my friend.

[hoghunter]

" Now mind you if it was L glass, I may have had to think harder about this."


Curious why you said that because the 10-22 is just as good as any L lens. It should be marked with an L! The proof is in it's MTF charts my friend.

I did not mean to get a flame war started. I am no expert. Having said that, the reviews I've read on the 10-22 put it in a different class than say the 16-35L. In my limited experience I have observed that L glass is more than just the MTFs. L glass is sealed, it has fast focusing, it is better built.

From what I have read about the 10-22 it does not qualify as L. I guess we disagreee. Having said that, I believe if Canon could have made it L glass they would have. They know better than any of us that the L designation means more moeny for them.

[willg]

17-40
50
70-200

that combo sounds perfect to keep in the bag....missing some range but a few steps in either direction should take care of that

[Raj]

OK, seems like 24-70 f2.8L is fixed for now. I will get this one now, cover the 18 mm end with my sigma till I save some cash for next lens which would be EF-s10-22mm/sigma12-24/tikon 12-24...

Thanks everyone for taking time to suggest :-)

Cheers
- Raj

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yes, I'm sorry hoghunter if I sounded hostile in anyway. That wasn't my intent so sorry about that.

And good luck Raj! I envy you! :-)