Wider than 17mm

PapaBear2 wrote in post #16930657
Is this a Canon lens?

Yes, it is. And it will be available in June:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …10_18mm_f_4_5_5​_6_is.html

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …_10_18mm_f_4_5_​5_6_is_stm

PapaBear2 wrote in post #16930678
So we have the following votes,

6 x Canon 10-22
1 x Sigma 10-20 f3.5
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Samyang 10 f2.8

Seems pretty conclusive albeit the comment of the Canon 10-22 have a great affinity for flair.

Any last comments before I make a purchase?

The Canon 10-22 is the best on that list for controlling flare. This was shot straight into the morning sun, with the sun just out of the frame at the top. No hood.

PapaBear2 wrote in post #16930678
So we have the following votes,

6 x Canon 10-22
1 x Sigma 10-20 f3.5
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Samyang 10 f2.8

Seems pretty conclusive albeit the comment of the Canon 10-22 have a great affinity for flair.

Any last comments before I make a purchase?

People who have used both lenses agree that the Tokina 11-16 has more of a propensity to flare than does the 10-22. Flare on the Canon is greatly reduced (eliminated?) by using the hood. I know it looks stupid. It works. Mine always has the hood on.

Thank you all SO much. This has been a great result and I've learned so much.

All the best to a great forum!

melcat wrote in post #16930593
...
And if I do want to take a picture of 2 people sitting across the dining table, 35mm is the focal length I'd use on full frame. The iPhone's focal length, in full frame equivalent terms, is also around 32mm.

...

The thing is, if it turns out for the OP to be a little-used range (because they have that terrific 24-70), does it matter so much?

The first paragraph above makes no sense, on two grounds. First is that with a 35mm lens on full-frame you won't get two people in the frame unless you have them lean together, or have one of them at each side of the frame. The first option ruins any spontaneity, the second is just poor framing.

You'd use 35mm on full-frame? The OP is shooting a 7D. What is the equivalent focal length on APSc? 22mm, you say! The 10-22 does that quite nicely, and it goes wider if you need it, which in that situation, you will.

The 17-40 is already not wide enough for the OP. The 'terrific-ness' of the 24-70 is mostly irrelevant at focal lengths it does not do. And on crop that is equivalent to about 38mm at the wide end. Not very helpful. I also have a 15-85 for my 60D. I bought a 10-22 because the 15mm end (24mm FF equivalent) is simply not wide enough, sometimes. Just because I don't use my 10-22 frequently does not mean it isn't the right tool for the job when it is needed.

It may turn out that the new 16-35 f/4L IS USM is better than the 10-22. If so, I'll buy one. If not, I already own the best UWA zoom Canon makes, for my purposes anyway.

you can get the 10-22 for 395 right now (refurbished, but still has full warranty), which is a hell of a deal. or you could save 95 bucks and go with the (untested, but probably still very good) 10-18 and have IS as well.

A little bit more expensive, but wider and with great rectilinear performance is the Sigma 8-16

At 8 mm, cropped but no perspective correction:

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zpse98d96e​9.jpg.html

PapaBear2 wrote in post #16930395
Having had great advice yesterday, may I ask another question?

With my Canon 7D I want to go wider than my 17-40 allows but without going fish-eye.

Recommendations?

Sigma 8-16 HSM.

Very best,

Impressive, Gerry! Wow!