How wide is wide ?... Your Lens

My widest is the 17-40, but I am using a full frame camera
If you're using a crop body the 10-22 is a great lens.

I thought when I got the 17-55 2.8 it was pretty wide, as the widest I had b4 was 28, but then I got the 10-22efs and all I can say is... viva la difference

awad wrote in post #2156494
the canon 10-22mm is metal right, i could have sworn mine was.

by metal, i mean the same kind of build as the 17-40.

It is almost completely plastic but it feels pretty solid and the zoom is smooth. The mounting plate is metal rather than the plastic used on the 18 55mm efs lens and the 50 f1.8.

Gerhard

Croesus wrote in post #2156484
I'm surprised no one has mentionned the Sigma 10-20 EX HSM.. I'm very pleased with mine and since the OP is partial to Sigma glass, I think it definitely belongs in the list.. it's cheaper than the 10-22 to boot!

I agree. I also own the Sigma 10-20mm and am very happy with it. If you the OP is looking to get as wide as he can get, then this lens is it.

LightRules wrote in post #2156396
It's more like $590 http://www.47stphoto.c​om …ky1=&subcatky2=​&subcatky3=

I got sigma from local store NEW completely with about $450, so cheap.

and my first order ever from B&H was 3 lenses: 16-35L, 10-22, 100-400L
I can't be happy more now, i don't worry about wide angle at all now because i have all possible UWA lenses for all my cameras even 1D or FF later.

Here are pics taken with Tokina 12-24 on 20D. As you can see, serious sun (no filter, just hood). Click on each to resize.

Honeybee

IMAGE LINK: http://i86.photobucket​.com …na%2012-24/IMG_104824.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://i86.photobucket​.com …na%2012-24/IMG_104218.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://i86.photobucket​.com …na%2012-24/IMG_105228.jpg

I have a 17-40 and a crop body and it's perfect for landscapes, I haven't needed to go wider.

It's wide enough without showing too much distortion.

I had a 17-40 and traded it for a 10-22. I find the build on the 10-22 is good enough - no loose parts and very good optics. They are both excellent lenses, the 17-40 has a slight edge on color, but with a bit of PP the 10-22 can match colors. On the long end the 17-40 is a bit soft IMO. For a general purpose lens, the 17-40L did not fit my needs at f/4, I ended up getting the 17-55 for general purpose. For most landscapes, I find the 10-22 too wide for most - but this really depends on your shooting style.

here's one from the 10-22:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Thanks to all for all the comments.

I have now narrowed it down to the Canon 10-22, or the Sigma 10-20.

My Worry about canon is an almost all plastic lens for a lot of money. Other than that, it looks to be the appropriate lens. (EF-S is a worry, but no FF Cameras on my plans for at least 6-8 months, and ironically enough, the wide angle lens would have to help pay for it, before hand).

Sigma, of course, is what I am used to shooting with. And I am pleased with the Build Quality of the EX Series, these lenses will chip but keep on shooting through almost anything. My worry with this one, is the mixed reviews.

Seems to be a toss up. At this point I must go with whatever lens makes me the happiest. And that may be the one that feels right on my camera, and in Photoshop once the photo was taken.

Thanks again to all, and if anyone has any other comments and suggestions, post away !!... (And another Thanks for the Samples posted).

The build quality of the ef-s 10-22 is far and beyond the kit lens. It may not be all metal but IMO the build quality is fantastic. Solid feel and nice heft without being too heavy.

The zoom ring is tight and smooth and the focusing ring is just as smooth and direct. Image quality is excellent (as has been noted) and the range is almost shocking at first its so wide. Great lens.

My point is, its a solidly made lens so I wouldn't worry too much about build quality.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141663

After seeing some of the images in here I like the 10-22 ef-s lense, and think it is going to be my next purchase.

mjgravina wrote in post #2157929
Thanks to all for all the comments.

I have now narrowed it down to the Canon 10-22, or the Sigma 10-20.

My Worry about canon is an almost all plastic lens for a lot of money.

The Canon has gotten rave IQ reviews from those who own it as being L quality without the L name (because of the EFS). I have a longtime Large Format shooter who still carries an 4x5 LF camera around a lot (in addition to his 20D) -- he teaches photography at the college level -- and even HE raves about its high performance!

Ask yourself this..."if I carry a dSLR around, why does a plastic lens exterior both me, when I have a plastic camera exterior, too!" The quality is high, it is not perceived as a 'cheap plastic' lens. I own one and love it!

mjgravina wrote in post #2157929
Thanks to all for all the comments.
My Worry about canon is an almost all plastic lens for a lot of money. Other than that, it looks to be the appropriate lens. (EF-S is a worry, but no FF Cameras on my plans for at least 6-8 months, and ironically enough, the wide angle lens would have to help pay for it, before hand).

I may be wrong but as far as I can make out most Canon lenses including the smaller L's seem to be mostly plastic.

The only obvious exceptions I have are the 300mm f4L IS and MP-E 65mm f2.8 macrophoto that both seem to have metal barrels like the all the old FD lenses do.

As far as I can see the 17-40 f4L, 200 f2.8L II et al are plastic barrels unless they have put some kind of plastic coating over the metal.

The main thing to worry about is if the mount is metal or not and the general construction quality. Plastics are used for high quality products these days and are often more robust than metal.

A good sign of build quality is smoothness and lack of slack and slip in the control rings.

Mario I thought the same thing about the 17-40 L lens when I first got it, was 17mm goin g to be wide enough for me? I went from the Tokina 12-24 lens to the Canon 17-40L lens and I have to say the little less wideness of the 17mm over the 12mm is not that great. Basically if I stepped back about a foot I would have the same frame with one good exception, no distortion like the Ultra Wide lenses do. A UW lens will sort of distort lines and stuff not making it appear exactly the same. Not that big of a difference but enough for me to notice.

If you buy the 17-40 L you will find it is pretty wide. Someday when you buy a FF camera you can use this lens on it perfectly and then discover how wide 17mm really is! It is a win-win lens!