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.
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
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 24 Aug 2012 (Friday) 00:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What UWA/WA should i get?

Senior Member
641 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Philippines ≥ U.S.A.
Aug 24, 2012 00:54 |  #1

I'm planning on getting a 7D and a 60D. And was planning on getting the 24-105, 70-200, and 17-40.

Is the 17-40 good enough on crop?

Panasonic HC-X1000 | Canon 600D Gripped | Canon 7D Gripped
Canon Rebel T2 | GoPro Hero 4 Black
EF-S 15-85mm || EF-S 18-135mm IS USM || EF-S 18-55mm IS II ||
EF 70-300mm L || Samyang 8mm Fish eye CS II

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
1,538 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Renton, WA
Aug 24, 2012 00:57 |  #2

I have owned the 11-16 and the 17-40. I really loved the build of the 11-16 but it was just wayy too wide. I didn't need a fast aperture so when I upgraded bodies I got a 17-40. I liked it and probably will get another some day or even a 16-35.

What do you plan on using it for?

-Brendan B.
Graphic Designer | Photographer
5D III | 5D III | Σ 35 1.4 Art | 35 1.4L | 85 1.8 | 100 2.8L | 135 2L
Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

Senior Member
641 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Philippines ≥ U.S.A.
Aug 24, 2012 01:08 |  #3

Event, food, and some landscapes.

And probably using it in low light and some video making, if the 24-105 is not wide enough.

Panasonic HC-X1000 | Canon 600D Gripped | Canon 7D Gripped
Canon Rebel T2 | GoPro Hero 4 Black
EF-S 15-85mm || EF-S 18-135mm IS USM || EF-S 18-55mm IS II ||
EF 70-300mm L || Samyang 8mm Fish eye CS II

58 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Perth, WA
Aug 24, 2012 01:09 |  #4

I'd definitely recommend the 16-35 over the 17-40. You're getting some nice gear, I don't know if I'd say to get a slow lens... f4 kinda sucks.

I'd say the same for the 24-105, go the 24-70 if you can. The first edition is GREAT, totally not worth upgrading to the new edition (when it finally comes out).

At least you're getting all EF though, as if you continue down this journey, it's only a matter of time until you jump to a full-frame

Wedding Photographer (external link) shooting Canon

Cream of the Crop
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
Aug 24, 2012 05:38 |  #5

Speedster159 wrote in post #14899741 (external link)
I'm planning on getting a 7D and a 60D. And was planning on getting the 24-105, 70-200, and 17-40.

I'd forget about the 17-40 and go for the 10-22.

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Bourbon, Indiana
Aug 24, 2012 08:08 |  #6
bannedPermanent ban

hollis_f wrote in post #14900165 (external link)
I'd forget about the 17-40 and go for the 10-22.

I second Mr. Hollis' call for the 10-22. I have an el-cheapo Tokina 19-35 that will do everything the 17-40 will do, for 10% of the price. The 19-35 is my wide FF (read: film - 5D3 coming next year) lens. The 10-22 is EXTREMELY wide at 10mm, and near-normal at 22mm on APS-c. It is a very versatile lens.

Gear List

2,534 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 133
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Aug 24, 2012 08:40 |  #7

You're going to get a lot of strong opinions about the 17-40 on a crop body - you have been warned. :)

I'm with the group that thinks that although there is nothing really wrong with the 17-40 on crop, there are just some much better choices for your money out there. That lens is slow-ish (even though I'm personally OK with f4 vs 2.8 zooms, ymmv), limited range, expensive for what you get and has no IS. Same goes for the 24-105 -the range just doesn't suit me or most well on a crop body and there are just better choices for your money.

If you're not into fast zooms (either you don't need thin DOF or you prefer to use primes for that), the 15-85 is a stellar choice with it's great range, IQ and 4 stop image stabilizer. It rivals the 24-105 in just about every way and even beats it in some areas.

If you prefer 2.8, the Tamron 17-50 non-VC, sigma 17-50 OS, sigma 17-70 OS, and Canon 17-55 offer far more bang for your buck. Back when there weren't many choices for APS-c standard zooms, the 17-40 filled in nicely but now I just feel like there are better choices and the 17-40 is better suited to being a UWA on full frame.

If you are truly after UWA and not a standard zoom, the 10-22 is my favorite due to IQ, range and flare control but the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16 are both stellar choices, too.

Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography (external link)
Buy & Sell Feedback
R6, EF16-35 f4 IS, EF 50 1.2, EF 100 2.8 IS Macro, 150-600C

happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
18,381 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3281
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Aug 24, 2012 10:34 |  #8

17-40L doesn't make sense on a crop when there are so many crop specific lenses that will allow you to do stick with one of the stabilized f2.8 17-5X zooms, or even the 15-85mm(although the overlap with the 24-105L would be too much imo)

an UWA like the 10-22mm would pair well with the 24-105L

although you mention low-lighting, and nothing in your list would be the best at that

Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

Cream of the Crop
10,256 posts
Likes: 86
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
Aug 24, 2012 11:22 |  #9

First a question... Why are you getting a 7D and a 60D? Why not two 60Ds or two 7Ds? Since the sensor and imaging capabilities of the two models are virtually identical, I see little reason to buy them both. But I do shoot with a pair of cameras a lot, and if shooting fast action I think it's much easier switching back and forth if they are the same model. That way you don't have to stop and think about the difference in controls, won't fumble pulling out the wrong type of memory card, etc. Maybe you have a good reason for wanting one of each, this is just something to think about.

But you asked about lenses and I'd recommend the following...

First, step back and consider the lenses as a set, as a system to use with your camera(s). There are various ways to set up a system that works well for you.

IMO, forget about the 17-40 and the 24-105.

1. Standard zoom (usually you should pick this first, then work the other lenses around it):

The 24-105... Well f4 is fine for an ultrawide or a tele... but in my opinion typically is not fast enough for a mid-range zoom, unless you have faster primes to supplement it. The 24-105 is a well made lens, like any L... but for image quality you can come darned close to the same IQ with a much less expensive lens (EF 28-135), or you can get better IQ and a faster f2.8 lens such as the 17-55 or 24-70.

So, the first I'd suggest to consider the 17-55/2.8 instead of the 24-105. That and the 70-200 you plan to get will make for a nice pairing and the small gap in focal lengths between them is relatively meaningless.

A premium alternative to the 17-55 that I'd recommend is the 24-70/2.8L. It's a big lens, and rather pricey. But on the mid-range zoom it's sure nice to have f2.8, especially if you don't have any fast prime lenses to augment the zoom (such as 28/1.8, 30/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.4 or 1/8, etc.). The Mark II version of the 24-70 is due out any day now, but is going to be a lot more expensive. The original version is still and excellent lens. But, again, it's relatively large (it's nicknamed "the brick" for a reason). I'd recommend the 24-70 over the 17-55 especially for anyone planning to use a full frame camera alongside a crop camera, or planning to add a full frame camera in the near future, since the 17-55 is an EF-S lens that's not usable on FF Canon. Some might try to tell you that 24-70 (or 24-105, or 28-135) is a full frame lens and "is not good" on a crop camera. That's bull. It's a nice "standard to short tele" range that's quite usable as a standard, walk-around lens.

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC is a popular less expensive alternative to the Canon 17-55/2.8. It has good image quality, but focus will be slower and less consistent (it doesn't have USM-type focus drive).

Some also like the Sigma 17-50/2.8, which is a bit more expensive than the Tamron, but not as expensive as the Canon. The Sigma 17-70 is a variable aperture lens, f2.8 at 17mm, but f4 at 70mm (where you might really want f2.8).

Sigma and Tamron also offer 24-70/2.8 lenses. The Tamron is new and the first in these focal lengths to have stabilization. It's got a new USD focus system, that's supposed to be similar to Canon USM and Sigma HSM in speed and accuracy.

Finally, another mid-range zoom that you might want to consider is the Canon EF-S 15-85mm. It offers wider 15mm, which might be wide enough that you don't need an UWA zoom... and mage quality is great, but this is a lens is not inexpensive and is designed to be very compact so uses a variable aperture f3.5 to 5.6.

2. Wide or ultrawide zoom (which you choose can depend a lot on what mid-range you chose):

Only you can say what's wide enough for you. Since you mention landscapes, I suspect 17mm will not be wide enough... It wasn't for me. But only you can say what you need.

If you need wider, there are a number of options.... mostly zooms.

The Canon 10-22 is a great lens, no doubt about it... It's also one of the most expensive UWA optioins. I ended up with the Tokina 12-24/4, which I consider nearly as good in terms of image quality as the 10-22 (the Canon is a wee bit better controlling flare), and possibly better than the Canon in build quality, though it's considerably less expensive.

The Sigma 10-20 is another popular option... actually there are two versions, a cheaper one with variable aperture and a more expensive f3.5 model. There is also a Tamron 10-24, which has the widest range of focal lengths on an UWA zoom. Any of these might combine very nicely with a 24-105 or 24-70 mid-range zoom (and a 70-200 telezoom).

If you chose the 17-55/2.8 as your mid-range zoom instead, you could use one of the UWAs above, but may prefer to match it up with a different UWA zoom. The Tokina 11-16/2.8 might be a good choice... It's one of the more expensive models, but is the only option if you need f2.8 on an UWA lens (most really don't, IMO). The Toki 11-16mm is more prone to flare than most of the other UWA lenses... that's just a trade-off to get f2.8. It's also a trade-off to get f2.8 that it has such a narrow (6mm) range of focal lengths. Finally, there is also a Sigma 8-16mm UWA... that is the widest lens available aside from a fisheye.

Overlapping focal lengths, such as using a Canon 10-22 along with a 17-55, isn't a big deal. But I'd think twice about the gap between, say, an 11-16mm and a 24-70mm.... That leaves a lot of important focal lengths unavailable.

On the other hand, it's not much of a concern the gap in focal lengths between a 50mm or 55mm and 70mm, such as combining a 17-55 with a 70-200.

3. Tele zoom:

Among the choices of 70-200, it's hard to go wrong with any of the Canon. If you are mostly concerned about cost, size and weight, the 70-200/4 without IS is high quality build and image. It's sure nice to have IS on this focal length range, though... so if budget allows, I'd recommend it. The f2.8 versions of 70-200 are great, too... but are larger and heavier.

Someone who uses a telezoom a lot, who needs a much longer lens - such as for wildlife, birds, sports - might opt for a different mid-range zoom to complement it. For example, if using the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 120-400 or 150-500, then a 24-105 or 28-135 might be a better mid-range choice. Even a 15-85 might be good, if 15mm is wide enough one might even end up with a two-lens kit that's especially easy to travel with (perhaps supplemented with a couple small but fast primes).

Personally I use the Tokina 12-24/4, Canon 24-70/2.8 and Canon 70-200/2.8 IS as my "core" group of zooms. I also use a 28-135 IS as a lightweight "hiking" lens that lets me leave both the 24-70 and 70-200 at home, when I'm going some distance on foot hauling a backpack with a hefty 300mm or 500mm, tripod or monopod, etc.

Others choose a somewhat different line-up that better meets their particular needs. There's no single "ideal" setup. It's a matter of what works for you, not what works for someone else. So while it's great to get advice here, keep in mind that we all have our own needs and opinions. What's "way too wide" for someone else might not be wide enough for you, etc.

Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
23,414 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4589
Joined Dec 2008
Aug 24, 2012 11:27 as a reply to  @ amfoto1's post |  #10

Another vote for the 10-22; love it.


Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
12,201 posts
Gallery: 37 photos
Likes: 9833
Joined Aug 2010
Location: AL | GA Stateline
Aug 24, 2012 12:02 |  #11

Crop frame solution for a UWA/WA lens? Very easy: 10-22mm.

David | Flickr (external link)
Sony: α7R II | Sony: 24GM, 12-24G, 24-105G, 200-600G | Sigma Art: 14-24, 35 F1.2, 105 Macro | Zeiss Batis: 85, 135 | Zeiss Loxia: 21, 35, 85 | Voigtländer: 12

2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Bourbon, Indiana
Aug 24, 2012 12:42 |  #12
bannedPermanent ban

Amfoto1 has a lot of good information in his post. The only exception I would take to it is the suggestion of the 28-135 IS USM as a mid-range walk-around lens. The older (not STM) 18-135 gives you relatively the same aperture, significantly wider wide end, and significantly better IQ at the long end. Do a web search for 18-135 vs. 28-135. There are lots of reviews saying it is not real good - at the 135 end. I use the 18-135 as my general purpose lens. It could be better at the wide end, but it is a bit better than the 18-55. At the long end it really shines. It is very good, even wide-open, at 135mm. Both lenses are IS.

Gear List

92 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2011
Location: SE Texas
Aug 24, 2012 15:30 |  #13

I have to agree with hollis_f.
If you stay with crop sensor, that's pretty much a 16-35 on a full frame.

Cream of the Crop
8,273 posts
Likes: 2115
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
Aug 24, 2012 19:29 as a reply to  @ Skul's post |  #14

I owned a 17-40mm f/4L but was disatisfied with this lens. It is NOT really a wide focal length on a crop camera but, more of a mid-range zoom. As a mid-range zoom, it lacks a fast enough aperture (f/4 without IS just won't cut it for me) and it lacks a decent long side. The 64mm equivalent is really luke warm.

I used the 17-40L along with a 70-200mm f/4L on a pair of 1.6x cameras and I hated the 40mm to 70mm gap.

My present setup is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on a 7D and a 40D. I love the combination. I don't miss the 55-70mm gap like I missed the 40-70mm gap...

I also have a 12-24mm f/4 Tokina for the few times when the 17mm side of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is not wide enough.

See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

my very own Lightrules moment
19,167 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Likes: 3842
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Aug 24, 2012 19:39 |  #15

I love my 10-22 on the 7D; but if you're planning to do video and/or low-light (without a tripod), I'd consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.

The 17-40 isn't going to give you really wide, using the cropper. I've found that when I *do* need something wider than the 24-105, I really want WIDER; which means somewhere in the 12 to 16 range. 17 just cut it in those cases.

My personal lineup is pretty much what you're talking about, with the 10-22 substituted for the 17-40 and adding the 100-400 for my primary shooting. The only place I disagree with Allan on is that I find the 24-105 to be just about the perfect, mid-range zoom for the crop cameras and is plenty fast enough for most shooting I've done in that range; although, the suggestion of the 24-70 for filling that gap is a good one, too, if IS isn't a 'must have' for you.

My experience with the 17-5x range of lenses has been that they just wind up too short, too much of the time for my style of shooting, as I don't like shooting "loose". YMMV.

Whatever you go with, you're looking at a great kit and fun time using it.

- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

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

2,490 views & 0 likes for this thread
What UWA/WA should i get?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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 ©

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
870 guests, 268 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 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.