help me get my first upgrade of wide angle lens

so far using the kit lens 18-55
planning to upgrade it now.
i have a budget of either 17-40 f4 or 10-22mm
gonna use it on my 60D
i'm a learner. Started learning landscape photography.
personally i think 18mm on 60D is wide enough for most of my landscape needs. but haing 10-22mm of wide range wud be great as well. 17-40 cud be my first L lens as well.
confused big time.
Please help

10-22 - no possible reason to put a 17-40 on a crop camera unless you plan to upgrade to a FF in the next few months.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #16153779
10-22 - no possible reason to put a 17-40 on a crop camera unless you plan to upgrade to a FF in the next few months.

agreed. i didnt like the 17-40 on a crop, and it only gives you an extra 1 mm. definitely not worth the upgrade IMO.

the 10-22 is great on a crop body. you can also look at the tokina 11-16 if you want f2.8.

17-40 on crop can be a good walkaround lens but not a UWA. 10-22 is better. i'd also suggest 15-85, which has improved IQ over kit lens and better range than any other lens for crop family. Its also got stellar IS and superb AF. Can be had for around $600 which is a bargain IMO.

If you are searching for a wide angle zoom, your options are

Canon 10-22
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Sigma 8-16

It is easy to resell lenses, so for now I would stick to lenses built for the cropped sensor.

Pros of the Canon are that as it is name brand, and as such, no issues with future compatibility, and Canon lenses are always easier to sell than 3rd party lenses.

Pros of the Tokina are the larger aperture, which is probably only useful if you plan to do astrophotography for the extra stop of light

Pros of the Sigma are that there is no other cropped sensor ultra wide angle that goes to 8mm. Cons are the bulbous front end that does not allow filters.

The 17-40L is an UWA designed for FF Bodies.
If you want to go wide consider the following lenses:
Sigma 10-20
Tokina 11-16
Canon 10-22

My vote is for the 10-22mm. Used ones pop up from time to time on the for sale section as some great prices.

thanks alot guys.
you guys rock
so i'm on canon 10-22mm or a Tokina 11-16 f2.8
confused
One lens is 2.8 and the other is from Canon

I wouldn't worry so much about a fast lens for an ultra-wide. Much of the time will be spent between f/8-f/16 if you are shooting landscapes.

For years I had a Sigma 10-20mm lens and couldn't speak more highly of it. The only reason I sold it was because I went over to full frame.

A few example shots with the lens in this flickr set: http://www.flickr.com …y/sets/72157626​282089084/

f/2.8 is not typically an aperture you would utilize for landscape. If you have the budget for Canon's EF-S 10-22 you will not be disappointed. Suggest keeping an eye on the sale board as nice copies come up all the time.

Ek.
On a crop body, the 17-40 is like standard zoom lens, (17-55) and the 10-22 is an Ultra Wide Angle lens. Basically comparing two different needs, which is fine.
If looking to upgrade lens with focal length of your 18-55, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great Standard lens.
If looking to add more coverage and keeping your 18-55, the Canon 10-22 is superb.
Hope this helps.

I agree... forget the 17-40mm. It will not be any improvement over your kit lens, other than build quality and USM focus drive. It is an ultrawide designed for full frame, would just be a "standard" zoom on a crop camera, and has a fairly narrow range of focal lengths too.

ekfaysal wrote in post #16155195
thanks alot guys.
you guys rock
so i'm on canon 10-22mm or a Tokina 11-16 f2.8
confused
One lens is 2.8 and the other is from Canon

Both lenses are quite sharp.

The Canon 10-22mm has a variable aperture (f3.5-5.6). It's reasonably well made (Canon mid-grade quality) with fast, accurate, quiet USM. It's extremely resistant to flare, which can be a problem with ultrawides simply because they encompass such a wide view. The lens hood (sold separately) is large, but recommended. It works. (Note: all the third party lenses include a matched lens hood.)

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 gives f2.8 for those who really, really need it (most really don't, they just think they do). The trade-off to get f2.8 is that the range of focal lengths offered is the narrowest of any UWA zoom. Also, it's more susceptible to flare and one of the pricier models.

There are also...

Tokina 12-24/4 which has good image quality, is considerably less susceptible to flare than the 11-16 but not quite as good as the 10-22, and costs less than either of them. Non-variable f4 aperture and still very wide, though it's not quite as wide as the other lenses.

Sigma 8-16mm is the widest of the wide. Fairly expensive and has rather strong, inherent wide angle distortion effects.

Sigma 10-20mm... there are actually two of them. One has a variable aperture and the more expensive (and larger/heavier) has a non-variable f3.5 aperture. The old 10-20mm Siggy with the variable aperture wasn't as sharp as the Canon or the Tokinas. It also wasn't as flare resistant as the Canon or the Toki 12-24mm. However, it has been replaced with a newer version now and might be better in these respects.

Sigma 12-24mm is actually a full frame capable lens and is quite pricey with heavy wide angle distortions. Aside from fisheyes, it's the widest lens available for full frame, but sort of a waste of money to use it on a crop sensor camera such as the 60D.

Tamron 10-24mm has the widest range of focal lengths in a single lens. It's one of the more affordable ultrawides, but is a little soft at the 24mm end (improves when stopped down).

Have fun shopping!

IMO the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is almost as sharp (real close) to the Canon 10-22mm and it is cheaper. Yes, the Canon is slightly better.

The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 other than a faster constant zoom, is usually not regarded as well (less sharpness) as the f/4-5.6 model.

If you need f/2.8, you have one choice. If you want the best get the Canon. If you want close for less money get the Sigma (f/4-5.6).

Remember, landscapes can be shot with any focal length and UWA can be used for more than landscapes.

Another vote for the Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6

Sharp, and as mentioned above, you don't need a fast UWA. Landscapes and other typical subjects for these lenses can be shot just fine at f/4 and greater.

Not really sure when you would need f/2.8 under normal circumstances with a UWA, except may astrophotography, or crazy natural; light nighttime street shots. I'm sure someone will tell when the f/2.8 was necessary.

ekfaysal wrote in post #16155195
thanks alot guys.
you guys rock
so i'm on canon 10-22mm or a Tokina 11-16 f2.8
confused
One lens is 2.8 and the other is from Canon

Money plays a big role in my decision making. I too narrowed down my choice to Canon and Tokina UWA and went for Tokina (approximately $100 cheaper). No regret.