What to buy to expand/upgrade my lenses?

Hey everyone, I'm sorry in advance if this type of question has already been done before but I need some ideas So I have used the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the standard kit lens with my two bodies for a while now, and I have roughly $400 to spend on another lens to expand/upgrade my lens repertoire.

At first I thought about getting the 85mm f/1.8 after viewing the lens sample photo thread here on POTN, but I tried out the FL and on the crop bodies that I have I pretty much discovered for myself that I wouldn't really use this FL all that often. I do shoot lots of wide shots (landscapes and urban spaces) as well as shots at the edge of my kit len's FL, so I figured that I should look at a UWA lens and the 50mm options.

So out of the 50mm lenses, and out of the affordable UWA lenses, which one would you recommend to buy for my style of shooting?

As you already have a 35mm f 1.4 the 50mm f1.4seems a bit pointless,look at one of the 10-20 (ish) mm UWA's-as to which one -take your pick,it all really comes down to what aperture you want/need

upgrade your 18-55 to a tamron 17-50 VC or non-VC. if will give you fixed 2.8

troutfisher is right.. as u already own an excellent prime lens and a tele zoom, the 10-20 will open a new world.. in fact the kit lens is not very sharp, you need good light and a little bit of work in CR.. when i switched to digital i was shoked by EF-S 10-22 and his superhuman prospective.. useful for both landscape and the city sadly still expensive.. the tokina 11-16 in your wish list is very bright.. otherwise there is the cheap tamron 10-24 or the sigma 10-20.. but i don't know your style.. yeah 50 f1.4 is GREAT, there are guys shooting live shows with it on 30D or even 400D. and now i'm in love with the 40mm pankake.. but are very similar to your sigma.

First of all thanks for the input so far! If I stretched my budget to $480 I could splurge for the Sigma 10-20, although it is for crop only. Would this be a sufficient alternative to the EF-S 10-22, because the 10-22 is fairly over my budget right now in addition to being a crop only lens. I'd like to get a lens that is compatible on FF just in case I go that route in 3-4 years time, and I will only be left with my 60D once the XS finally dies on me, and UWA lenses aren't exactly cheap either If I got a 50mm, then I would automatically be set for FF in the future which is convenient.

"Landscapes and urban spaces".... An ultrawide (UWA) lens would be my first recommendation, too. You don't need f2.8 for that type of photography, either, typically.

If you go this route, virtually all the lenses you'll be considering will be crop only, so don't worry about it, since you use crop cameras now. There is exactly one zoom lens that qualifies as truly wide on your crop camera now and is also FF, so would be usable in 3-4 years if/when you get a FF camera. It's the Sigma 12-24, sells for about double what you want to spend, and has relatively strong WA distortion effects.

Buy a crop only lens now, shoot with it for 3-4 years... then if you do happen to get a FF camera, sell this lens and buy a FF lens then. It would be foolish to limit your gear now, in order to accomodate some camera you might get in 3-4 years.

The Tokina 12-24/4 is a crop only lens, but is partially usable on full frame. You can pick up a used one for well within your budget. Or a new one currently sells for $449 (at B&H). It's a good lens, I'd rank it second only to the Canon 10-22 because it's not quite as good handling flare (the Canon is exceptionally good, the Toki is merely very good). Build quality, I'd rank it ahead of the Canon. It's almost "L-like".

The Sigma 10-20mm would be a decent alternative, a little wider. At the wide end, 2mm does make a difference. This lens is a newer version now, than one I tested a few years ago (when I bought the Tokina instead). Still, I'd rank it third in image quality, but ahead of the Canon in build quality.

There is also the Tamron 10-24mm. It's got the widest range of focal lengths in a single zoom, of any in this category. I found it a little soft at the 24mm setting, but pretty good at other focal lengths.

Both the Sigma and the Tamron copies I tested weren't as good handling flare as the Toki and Canon.

Flare is more likely an issue with a wide angle lens than other lens types, because all too often the lens' wider angle of view includes some bright light source. Also, UWA lenses are much harder to shade very effectively with a lens hood.

There are some other ultrawides, but they are all well over your budget. Besides thre fact that it's more than you wanted to spend, I would not recommend the Tokina 11-16/2.8 to you for three reasons... First is that for the type of photography you say you want to do, you'll normally be stopping down, won't need f2.8. Second, one of the trade-offs to get f2.8 is a very narrow range of focal lengths, only 6mm (a 1.45X zoom... most of the others are at least 2X). Third, another trade-off to get the big aperture is that this zoom is probably the most prone to flare, among all the UWA. If you need f2.8 for some reason, this lens is it and it is sharp... at least equal to the Canon. However, there are several big trade-offs to get f2.8.

I mentioned that the Tokina 12-24 will work on FF. Out of curiosity, I tested it on my 5DII and it works fine as wide as 18 or 19mm, with minimal vignetting. I wouldn't use it any wider (not only is it possible it will vignette, there's also risk of the rear of the lens hitting the mirror in the camera). I have not tested any of the other lenses mentioned, and I don't normally use it on FF anyway... I have an EF 20/2.8 that serves well as my wide lens on the 5DII. Nice to know the Toki can serve as a backup, anyway. It has more WA distortion than the 20mm, though.

sigma 10-20mm...if you're talking FF in 3/4 years...worry about it in 3/4 years...right now you've only got one lens that's FF compatible...and that's considered one of the worst lenses canon makes(75-300mm)...so...buy for what you have now...if you're worried about losing money...buy used

Good advice so far. I suggest looking at Tokina's 11-16 with 2.8 instead of the other UW lenses out there. You will be a lot happier at the end.

Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 is a great lens. You can't go wrong.

I was in the same boat - I know the Canon 10-22 is better image quality but here at the time it was double the price. The image quality of the Sigma is still very good. It will still out perform most of your lenses.

samsen wrote in post #15579032
Good advice so far. I suggest looking at Tokina's 11-16 with 2.8 instead of the other UW lenses out there. You will be a lot happier at the end.

If looking for a UWA maybe, but it really depending how one shoots.

I would not have been happier with the 11-16 over my 10-20. If I shot certain events, night skies, or possible certain urban style - maybe. When I used it, I used it for wide "scape" (land and urban). I wanted as much DOF as possible. The f/2.8 would not have helped (except for a brighter frame when focusing).

So for less money I got a lens with a bigger range, still sharp, and did all of what I needed (but not often needed). It was the best UWA choice for me at the time.

Thanks for the great suggestions everyone! The lunch break however got me thinking. If I went the prime(ish) lens and slightly cheaper route, what opinions do you all have if any on the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm? I know that its a manual focus and manual aperture lens, but from looking at images on flickr it seems like a good alternative and a nice balance between wide and ultra wide? Is it a good lens to have and is the build quality decent enough?

I don't think you'll see much difference between your kit lens at 17mm and Samyang's 14mm. Plus, Samyang is fully manual, meaning you'll have to manually set aperture to wide open when (manually) focusing and framing, and then manually switch aperture to the one you need, and only then you can meter and do the exposure. I heard it is spectacular on FF, but won't give you much on crop.

10mm, on the other hand, will produce a markedly different photos, compared to you current 17mm.

You could also consider the Samyang's crop-only fisheye lens 8mm f3.5, with a very pleasing type of distortion (unlike any other fisheye, which tend to overdistort near the edges). But this lens will see less use than an UWA would.

I'd get the Tokina or the Canon 10-22. Both are great. I'd get an UWA before a 50 if I were you.

I'd say its a pretty big difference between 18mm and 14mm...I view the 14mm lenses as more FF lenses...you can go wider on a crop, so I don't see why you'd bother

Here is the simple math: switch from 18mm to 14mm takes you 14/18~0.78, or ~22% wider, whereas the switch from 18mm to 10mm takes you 10/18=0.56 - 44% wider. It's a big difference.