Ultra wide vs wide angle

Looking at this lens for landscapes, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide, but not sure of the difference between a wide angle vs ultra wide. I want to avoid any fisheye type distortion. Amazon has it for about $700, I will be upgrading from the kit lens.

It's not a Fisheye, it's rectilinear. What that means is that it is corrected so that straight lines will appear straight. With a fisheye, any straight line that does not run through the center of the frame will appear curved.

All that said, on a FF (35mm format) camera the wide end of the 17mm lens will indeed be ultra wide. In my mind this range (UWA) is basically anything wider than 24mm. People think of this as 'ultra wide' mainly because it's the kind of focal length that really shows such a wide field of view that you can really see it in the pictures. But other than that (ultra wide), yes, it is just like any other rectilinear lens and is not a fisheye.

Acetoolguy wrote in post #17835510
I will be upgrading from the kit lens.

I also just noticed this comment. What 'kit lens' are you referring to? Would this be an 18-55 lens on a 1.6X format body?

If yes on that kit lens, it's worth a note that the 17-40 isn't 'ultra wide' when used on 1.6X format. That description of the lens is Canon assuming that you are using the lens on FF (35mm format) cameras.

But the lens works just fine on the smaller 1.6X as well, it just isn't ultra wide. As a matter of fact the lens is just a tiny bit wider (17mm vs. 18mm) on the wide end and a bit shorter (40mm vs 55mm) on the long end as compared to the 18-55 kit lenses.

I'm not sure the 17-40 is as much of an 'upgrade' over the very latest 18-55 IS STM lens as it used to be over the original 18-55 versions that were kitted with 1.6X bodies a decade ago.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17835534
It's not a Fisheye, it's rectilinear. What that means is that it is corrected so that straight lines will appear straight.

yes and no. i agree that fisheye is a huge difference, but wide angles show different degrees or correctness for rectilinear distortion.

wide angle vs ultra wide is an essentially meaningless distinction. 700 bucks it too much for the 17-40. I think I saw one here for 500 bucks..

If you mention the kit lens, are you shooting crop sensor? If so, I would go with a 10-18 or 10-22 type EF-S lens.

I have a 18-55 that came with my XS-I. I bought a screw on filter that calls itself an .7x auxiliary wide and I found myself using it a lot along the coast of Maine trying to get more in the image.

Acetoolguy wrote in post #17835562
I have a 18-55 that came with my XS-I. I bought a screw on filter that calls itself an .7x auxiliary wide and I found myself using it a lot along the coast of Maine trying to get more in the image.

So if I understand you, you are really looking to gain a wide field of view than what you have with the 18-55. Here is what I suggest:

First - keep the 18-55. It's an OK lens and you are better off adding lenses that extend your range.

Second - Forget about the 17-40L. This lens is pretty much going to seem like about the same range as the 18-55 you have.

Third - Get a wider lens. I think LHB's suggesting of the Canon EF-S 10-18 lens is an excellent one. The lens is not especially expensive and is regarded as a great value in an ultra-wide angle lens for 1.6X format.

Acetoolguy wrote in post #17835562
I have a 18-55 that came with my XS-I. I bought a screw on filter that calls itself an .7x auxiliary wide and I found myself using it a lot along the coast of Maine trying to get more in the image.

The sensor size is all-important when discussing lenses.

For your camera, the 17-40 would be an expensive mistake. Get the 10-18 mm STM, an excellent ultrawide zoom for crop-frame cameras.

If I did the math correctly (never a given with me), you 18-55 becomes a 12.5mm - 38.5mm lens with that filter. Also, almost without a doubt, it becomes a mediocre 12.5-38.5 lens. Those types of filters can be counted on to degrade image quality significantly.

The 17-40 will not meet your need. You do not need to "upgrade" to a wide angle zoom, you need to add one to your kit lens. You will still need the kit lens for the longer focal lengths.

Canon makes two lenses that will meet your need - the 10-18 STM and the EF-S 10-22. The 10-18 is the cheaper lens and is, by all reports a very good lens for the price. The 10-22 is a better lens in several ways but also more money. I would not recommend any of the Tamron or Sigma lenses in this range over the two Canons.

Hope this helps.

You guys are awesome, thank you.
I found a Canon 10-18 that comes with neoprene pouch, lens hood and three filters for half of what I was looking at.
I'll paint my own red ring on it.

Acetoolguy wrote in post #17835581
You guys are awesome, thank you.
I found a Canon 10-18 that comes with neoprene pouch, lens hood and three filters for half of what I was looking at.
I'll paint my own red ring on it.

Good for you. But avoid those filters. Good filters can cost $100+ and do not get bundled with a lens. The ones you will get are guaranteed to degrade image quality. Don't use them!

some car pin stripe works well.

Acetoolguy wrote in post #17835581
I'll paint my own red ring on it.

...WHY? it's not going to help you in anyway?

I think it was a joke.

the only people who care about red rings are amateur canon photographers.

? Most pro's I see using Canon gear have L glass attached to the bodies.