Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 18 Apr 2011 (Monday) 05:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Going wide on APS-C.

 
Ross_Curtis
Member
184 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: Herts
     
Apr 18, 2011 05:40 |  #1

As you can see from my profile the widest lens I have is 24mm. Although for 90% of the time this is perfect for me, there are times I'd like a wider lens.

I'm quite temped by the 17-40 as it would double up as a nice travel lens.

But I'm interested in some left field suggestions. Maybe some old converted zeiss?
I once owned a Tokina 17mm F4 which I really liked but it had to go back as it caused the camera to error. But these are so hard to find.

Any other alternate suggestions?


6D | 24L II | 50MP | 85L II | 200L II | 16-35L F4 IS | Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 | Markings Q10 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sdiver2489
Goldmember
2,845 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 111
Joined Sep 2009
     
Apr 18, 2011 05:45 |  #2

Canon 10-22mm?


Please visit my Flickr (external link) and leave a comment!

Gear:
Canon 5D III, Canon 24-70L F4 IS, Canon 70-300L F4-F5.6 IS, Canon 100mm F2.8L IS Macro, Canon 35mm F2.0 IS, Canon 430EX II-RT, Canon 600EX II-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bdp23
Senior Member
471 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: melb,au
     
Apr 18, 2011 05:51 |  #3

I love my 10-22, but you seem to have a penchant for L and want a walkaround, so a EF-s 17-55 f2.8 IS USM would be my recommendation for you.

I don't know if there are many 'left-field' options. The EF mount is 20-ish years old and very suitable to 'cross-mount' many other lenses due to its larger flange-to-sensor distance, but given that Canon is one of the largest lens manufacturers, there aren't a heck of a lot of people using weird lenses (perhaps also because auto-focus is an important luxury for most). There certainly aren't any standout combinations that I've heard of.


I like making photos and sometimes I think I'm getting better... then I realise it doesn't matter. I like making photos!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bdp23
Senior Member
471 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: melb,au
     
Apr 18, 2011 06:01 |  #4

More info: http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Flange_focal_di​stance (external link)

The mount systems with a greater flange focal distance are the ones you'll want to investigate. Where the Canon EF mount is shorter, the remaining millimeters are filled in by the mount adapter. Going in reverse is impractical without added glass in the adapter, and you may lose infinity focus, etc.


I like making photos and sometimes I think I'm getting better... then I realise it doesn't matter. I like making photos!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ross_Curtis
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
184 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: Herts
     
Apr 18, 2011 06:15 |  #5

I must admit I do have a thing for L lenses and even more so Zeiss!

The 10-20 does always seem to stand out as one of the best UWA on crop.

I didn't really want to spend out too much on a lens so I've ruled out the 17-55 for this reason.

I do hope the landscape bug doesn't bite as I can see this being very expensive....;-)a


6D | 24L II | 50MP | 85L II | 200L II | 16-35L F4 IS | Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 | Markings Q10 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdrober2
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Durham, NC
     
Apr 18, 2011 07:23 |  #6

10-22 will definitely open up your repertoire, and they aren't too expensive.


Fujifilm X-T1 | 23 | 27 | 56 | 90 | 55-200
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Steve ­ Campbell
Senior Member
449 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Apr 18, 2011 07:36 as a reply to  @ pdrober2's post |  #7

Get the 10-22 on a crop. You will love the new options you get with this lens. 17-40 is not that wide on a crop. The 15-85 gives a decent wide angle on a crop and will be a better walk around lens.


Gear List
5D Mark III |5D Mark II | 7D | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 24-105 | 17-40 | 300 f2.8L IS |35 1.4L | 50 1.8 | | 24 3.5 TSE II |
Speedlite 430 EX II |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paddler4
Goldmember
Avatar
1,319 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2009
     
Apr 18, 2011 07:58 |  #8

Depends on how wide you want to go. I now use an EF-S 15-85 as a walkaround for outdoor situations where I might want moderately wide (24mm FF equivalent). I find I rarely want wider than that, and for landscapes, I would never shoot at a small f stop anyway, so the slow speed is not an issue.

The difference between 15 and 17mm is quite noticeable.


Check out my photos at http://dkoretz.smugmug​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike
ugly when I'm sober
Avatar
15,397 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 381
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Canterbury/Ramsgate, UK
     
Apr 18, 2011 08:06 |  #9

Sigma 10-20 on a crop is a winner. I had one for years and only sold to get my lenses somewhere near full frame friendly.

Here are some shots I took with mine: http://www.flickr.com …y/sets/72157626​156752683/ (external link)


www.mikegreenphotograp​hy.co.uk (external link)
Gear
UK South Easterners
flickr (external link) Insta1 (external link) Insta2 (external link)

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wissigle
Member
Avatar
204 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Brooklyn
     
Apr 18, 2011 08:07 |  #10

Why not get a 5D or 5DII instead? You're lenses are ideally suited for FF...
5D would cost approx same amount as 17-55 (or even less expensive)...


Wissigle
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike
ugly when I'm sober
Avatar
15,397 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 381
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Canterbury/Ramsgate, UK
     
Apr 18, 2011 08:09 |  #11

Wissigle wrote in post #12244430 (external link)
Why not get a 5D or 5DII instead? You're lenses are ideally suited for FF...
5D would cost approx same amount as 17-55 (or even less expensive)...

Did you read the posts before you answered?

Ross_Curtis wrote in post #12244038 (external link)
I didn't really want to spend out too much on a lens so I've ruled out the 17-55 for this reason.


www.mikegreenphotograp​hy.co.uk (external link)
Gear
UK South Easterners
flickr (external link) Insta1 (external link) Insta2 (external link)

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Apr 18, 2011 08:20 |  #12

I got a 17-40 L that I use mostly on my 40D. Works very well.

I also have a Sigma 15-30 but it's really a class below the L and probably gets sold soon. I found the L to be worth the money.


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Monito
Senior Member
Avatar
460 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Halifax, NS, ex-California
     
Apr 18, 2011 08:23 |  #13

Canon 10-22 beats 17-40 optically and range-wise on crop


Canon System: fullframe DSLRs, lenses. Tripods, Alien Bees.
Always learning and striving to make better photographs.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CosmoKid
Goldmember
Avatar
4,235 posts
Likes: 10
Joined May 2009
Location: NJ
     
Apr 18, 2011 08:31 |  #14

The new 14mm manual focus lenses that are sold under a bunch of names. Rokinon, Vivitar, etc...I cant keep up.....

Cheap, sharp, great colors and contrast.


Joe- 2 bodies, L 2.8 zoom trilogy and a couple of primes
iRocktheShot.com (external link) - Portfolio (external link)

Gear/Feedback
Facebook "Fan" Page (external link) -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Apr 18, 2011 08:50 |  #15

Monito wrote in post #12244493 (external link)
Canon 10-22 beats 17-40 optically and range-wise on crop

Well I didn't own a 10-22 so that might be. And the OP has a 24L so there would be overlap with the 17-40.

Still, if a travel lens is desired the 17-40L does very well. With the 10-22 you'd have to change lenses constantly and the next longer lens the OP has is the 50mm. And I doubt all lenses go into the travel bag.


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,533 views & 0 likes for this thread
Going wide on APS-C.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is LaurensW
661 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.