I need me a wide angle - suggestions?

[tim]

After saying for the last few months that I don't need a wide angle lens, i've now decided I do want one after all. I was away on a long weekend in and around Christchurch, in the south island of New Zealand, and i'd say if I had a wide angle i'd have used it for more than 50% of the shots. As it is I have a BUNCH of panoramas to stitch together tomorrow.

The Canon 10-22 EF-S is the obvious candidate, or maybe the Tokina 12-24. The problem I have with those is that I plan to upgrade to a 1D Mk III at some point, and i'd like to have a full frame EF lens if possible. On the other hand I will probably keep my 20D, so I could keep a EF-S lens on the 20D and put the 28-70 on the bigger camera.

I did check the sticky, but there's been a crop of releases in this area recently, so I thought i'd solicit opinions, especially from people who've used more than one wide angle lens on a 1.6X body. Sample photos would be most welcome :)

Any thoughts or suggestions?

For your possible enjoyment, here's one of my favorite photos from the weekend.

http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/potn/boat_at_sunset.jpg

[Redbird_xo]

I plan to upgrade to a 1D Mk III at some point, and i'd like to have a full frame EF lens if possible. On the other hand I will probably keep my 20D, so I could keep a EF-S lens on the 20D and put the 28-70 on the bigger camera.

I am also considering a wide-angle/ultra wide-angle lens. I, too, expect to upgrade to a higher level digital body (those with 1.3x crop factor or full frame). It boils down to one thing -- that is if full frame compatibility is a must.

If yes, I will go with Sigma 12-24.
If no, I will pick one out of this group: Tamron 11-18, Tokina 12-24, Canon 10-22. Canon's resale value will be higher than the other two. All three are great lenses based on reviews I read. Sigma has a DC lens yet to be released (don't know when). If money is not tight, I will pick the Canon. Between the Tamron and Tokina, I prefer the Tamron. Not sure if this is of any help.

BTW, very nice capture of light in the picture. I've got to get myself to see the Kiwiland one of these days!

[martook]

Well, you could go for a Canon 17-40 or 16-35. The 17-40 isn't that expensive (well, compared to the 16-35 anyway ;) and it's quite a lot wider than your Tamron. Nothing compared to 10mm of course, those last 6-7mm makes a huge difference, but if you get the 1D later, the 16-35 on a 1D is just as wide as the 10-22 on the 20D.

[Dante King]

Tim, I sold my 10-22 as it was too wide for my tastes, but I am finding the 16-35 much more to my liking.

Love the capture!

[J Rabin]

Tim. I enjoy your posts, now observe you have 000s!

1. If you intend to go 1.3x, FF, or some film in future, stick with EF mount and quality since vignetting and chromatic ab. are common in all WA lenses at all prices.
2. What do you do most of? I could not justify the 16-35L, for the amount I use WA, or I would have done that, and been finished. Instead, I spent on the 24-70. I do not even need nor use a 50mm on 20D or any other camera. I like to give subjects space, using an 85mm, or get really close to distort perspective with 35-40mm on 20D.
3. In summer 2004, I went to local shop, bought the Sigma 12-24. Yuck. Exchanged it the next day for 17-40 f/4 L. Did not like the handling of lens, slow focus, unprotected front element, and slower f/stop. Have not been disappointed. That Sigma lens was NOT for me. Though the 17-40 is f/4, it's constant, functional in changing events. I'd get a Canon 10-22 before the Sigma. I did not understand how, nor couldn't relate, to using that Sigma lens. It did not work for me. For landscapes, how does one put a polarizer on this Sigma? With the 17-40L, I just share the 77mm polarizer from other lenses.
4. How wide is wide enough? There is nothing I have NOT been able to accomplish with 17mm on my 20D (28mm) for near-far compositions and distorting perspective by getting too close. In film days, the widest I had was the famed Olympus Zuiko 24mm. Never needed more then either. Some people are artsy-fartsy and like unique views. I do workplace/documentary/PJ type stuff so 17mm on 1.6 has been fine.
5. Try a cheap entry. Just borrow someone's Canon kit lens for a while, and see if it's wide enough.
6. When I'm using the 17-40 outdoors, I'm usually using it at 17mm. This means a cheaper Tokina 17mm f/3.5 might have worked for me. But, then, there'd be no inside event flash pictures zooming the "whole table." I don't subscribe to the "zoom with your feet" primes approach. Kiss of death in changing events. I love zooms when they are sharp, and when the contrast and color is good. The 17-40 requires very little PS postprocessing for contrast.
7. I too want to acquire a future 1D MkII. For events, that means I would keep the 17-40 on the MkII switching to the 85mm and keep a 70-200 tele zoom on the 20D, switching to a 24-70 as needed, exploiting the strength of each sensor size. I shoot people all the time at 135mm, on the 20D. That gives you an idea of how far away I like to stay!
J

[ddelallata]

If you plan on upgrading to a full size sensor, then I'd recommend the Canon EF 17-40 L or the 16-35 L.

[nat869]

I bought a used copy of the Tamron 17-35, it arrives today, so I am anxious to see how good it is. I know 17mm at the wide end is not as good as 10mm, but it would serve you well on a full frame sensor or the 1.3 crop.

[lostdoggy]

After saying for the last few months that I don't need a wide angle lens, i've now decided I do want one after all. I was away on a long weekend in and around Christchurch, in the south island of New Zealand, and i'd say if I had a wide angle i'd have used it for more than 50% of the shots. As it is I have a BUNCH of panoramas to stitch together tomorrow.

The Canon 10-22 EF-S is the obvious candidate, or maybe the Tokina 12-24. The problem I have with those is that I plan to upgrade to a 1D Mk III at some point, and i'd like to have a full frame EF lens if possible. On the other hand I will probably keep my 20D, so I could keep a EF-S lens on the 20D and put the 28-70 on the bigger camera.

I did check the sticky, but there's been a crop of releases in this area recently, so I thought i'd solicit opinions, especially from people who've used more than one wide angle lens on a 1.6X body. Sample photos would be most welcome :)

Any thoughts or suggestions?

For your possible enjoyment, here's one of my favorite photos from the weekend.

http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/potn/boat_at_sunset.jpg

Tim I'm also considering upgrading to the 1D. Do you have info on the release of 1DMKIII??? If it is soon then I'll wait???

[tim]

Thanks for the advice guys. I didn't realise wide angle lenses would be so expensive, and I don't like the variable maximum apertures, and reasonably slow lenses (F3.5 on 10-22, F4 on 12-24). I guess for what most people would use them for slower lenses would be ok, and I can probably deal with it.

J Rabin, thanks for all that. I have the kit lens, but I forgot to take it with me for this trip :( 18mm would have been a lot better than 28mm, though it's still not wide enough for what i'd like. Neither of the Canon L lenses are wide enough either.

LostDoggy - I don't have any info about a 1D Mk 3, I just figure it'll come out some time.

I guess the new Sigma 10-20, Sigma 12-24, or even 12mm or so prime might do the job. I'll give it some more thought. Thanks to everyone who made a suggestion, more are always welcome :)

[tim]

Any other suggestions?

[Carzee]

Well, I have a 24mm Zuiko sitting still now I have a 10D. I want to get something equivalent but its down on my wishlist under a 100mm and a flash.

In the meantime, without a WA, I have to "shake and fake"
as an example
http://www.pbase.com/pulp_depiction/image/44633885

.

[aggarcia]

I just bought the Sigma 12-24 for some of the same resons you are mentioning. I want a real wide angle 10 or 12 mm, the ability to upgrade to a 1.3x or full frame/film camera. Right now the only lens that can do all ofthe labove is the Sigma. Yes, I do not like the 4.5-5.6 variable aperature, but most wide angles are not used the same way as the tele zooms. I have only started to play with it and I am impressed. Here is a full rez out of the camera test shot ( no photoshop anything with this image except to hide the lic plate number) www.akgarcia.com/Sigma12_24.jpg . I will not get a real chance to play with 12-24 till the weekend, but what do you think? Good Luck.

[Bob_A]

Tim,

Does it need to be a zoom? There are several primes you could choose from in the 14 to 17mm range. However, if you want a zoom I think I would choose the 17-40 f4L.

[joeseph]

Tim,
for what it's worth, you could probably use the 17-40 just as well as 16-35 for landscape down south as you won't be needing the 2.8 unless it gets really, really dark. I specifically went for the 16-35 to get low light museum shots and wouldn't part with it.
I've spent some time down there and sure is nice to photograph!

[formula4speed]

I have the Tokina 12-24 lens and personally like it a lot, especially for the price compared to the canon. When you move up are you sure you will sell the 20D? It could serve as a good backup camera. If not then you can sell the lens, you will lose some money but to me its worth it to get the shots you want.

[AjP]

I tried 10-22 and didn't like it much, going for 16-35 L it nice lense and range fits me perfectly

[tim]

The Tokina 12-24 F4 looks like a good option. The price is pretty good at $499 including lens hood, and I like the constant F4 better than the other variable aperture lenses. Having F4 isn't a problem for me, for wide angle lenses. 16-35 is too expensive for me, as I won't be using it very often, and 17-40 isn't as long as i'd like. Thanks for the help everyone :)

[Orogeny]

What about a fisheye?

Tim

[condyk]

My Tokina 20-35 f2.8 is a cracking lens. Well reviewed on FM by users and lots of keepers and minimal post processing needed. Very nice for walking around even. As this is a 'secret' lens, unlike the 17-40 for example, it is possible to pick them up at decent prices. It costs new around £450 in the UK. I tend to agree with your approach and like f2.8 or better when I can get it. Wides are good indoors and it'll help!

[tim]

What about a fisheye?

Tim

I'm noy hungry right now, thanks :p I don't want the distortion of a fish eye either.

[velvetjones]

Whenever I want to shoot really wide angle stuff, I just use some good ol' Velvia with my Elan 7. It is a good solution for the time being if you are going to upgrade to a 1.3x crop factor camera in the near future, IMO. This way, you don't have to blow $800 on the 10-22mm, although it would be nice.

In the case that you don't already have a film camera, you could get a nice used one for < $280 or so...

[tim]

Good suggestion, but the main use for a wide angle would be when i'm on holiday, and i'd like to drag the minimum amount of gear possible around with me. Given the prices of lenses, and how often I use them, I might just keep using my Tamron 28-75, camera sideways, and stitched together. It doesn't work as well as a single shot, generally, but if it's done right you end up with more resolution.

[primoz]

I'm just getting my own wide angle lens and I was considering 17-40/4, 16-35/2.8 or Sigma 12-24. After quite a bit of testing of Canon lenses (couldn't get 12-24 for test) I decided for 17-40. It's half cheaper, in most cases it's sharper and those few times when f2.8 would come right (with wide angle it's usually more then enough light anyway) I can always set iso to 3200 :) That 1mm less on 16-35 is more then it sounds, but for that price difference I can get bunch of other things including 8mm fish which I will probably also get on end.

[giantod]

I'm in your same condition. I want buy a good wide angle lens for my 10D.
I'm owner of a sigma 70-300 and a sigma 24-70 (in the past).
I must say that the image quality and colors are very good, i buy recently a Canon 28-135 IS, i have sell it! The quality of the images are not so good.
So, i will buy a Sigma in the future. I think that my choice is for:

Sigma 20-40 f2.8 EX DG
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC

Anyone have suggest about this choice?

[buze]

I too am shopping for a "wide-ish" lens. I hesitated a lot on the 17-40L (since I also have that £70 rebate!), but eventualy the f4 wasn't enough for my taste, so given the very good reviews I've seen I'm going to go try a couple 18-50 f2.8 Sigma next week...