Which wide angle to get? Poll

Ok cost is an issue for me considering im only 15 and im not loaded. I have a 30D and want to now which wide angle you think I should buy. The choices the Canon 14-40 f4L, Sigma 17-70 f2.8 macro, Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I know the sigma and tamron are much cheaper so already im leaning that way, but if you think I should wait and save up for the canon thats a possibility. I was wondering if anyone has tried any and what they thought of it I look through the sample gallery for each lens and all the picture look awesome. I'm not a big pixel peeper but I do want high image quality sharp pictures. The final question which will give the most bang for the buck? Thanks for reading and look foward to your reponses.

I'll throw my vote for the only constant f2.8 of the bunch for your 30D.

Depends what, when, how and where you shoot. For general day to day walkaround the SIgma is best bang at the moment. If you tend to shoot under lower light then the Tamron. The L is a very fine lens, I had one, but lacks the light ability of the Tammy and lacks the range of the Siggie. However, it is an exceptionally nice lens to use and USM is a bonus ... but you pay for it! I swapped the L for the Sigma and I knew the range of the Tammy wasn't enough for me.

If you don't have much cash, then the best bang for buck is the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5

So i voted for that one. It will be the most versatile lens for the money. and IMO the best value too.

Personally I'd go for the 17-40 ( in fact I did, and have no regrets)

I voted for the Tamron as it's relatively inexpensive, has great image quality, and can shoot in lower light than the other two. The Sigma is a nice lens but it has a variable aperture.

At the moment I am in fovor of the Tamron because I do shoot indoor a lot in lower light conditions. The constant 2.8 would also be a very nice feature. I also shoot a lot of skateboarding the extra 10mm I think would just b giving a little more freedom. At th moment I decided the tamron. Yes if I had the money I would get the Canon but I don't. I'm 15 and only get 20 a week for doing some jobs around the house, and I've already sold everything I own to buy my 30D.

As of note, generally-speaking, polls are more fun/interesting than they are helpful/useful. Most of the time, Canon lenses will "win" since most Canon shooters use Canon lenses, and they just come onto these "polls" and vote what they have or would like to have --- irrespective of the OP's needs. Sort of a popularity contest, if you will, and most often doesn't mean a whole lot for the OP's needs.

My son just bought the tamron...I own the canon 17-40....I borrowed his cam (30D and the tamron to test shoot it...it wouldn't fit on my camera) and I found the IQ to be very good + ! It is a great lens. I just picked up a 30D to compliment my 5D and am seriously considering picking up the tamron. I love the constant 2.8, it's sharp, much lighter than the 17-40 (which really isn't very heavy either). The colors are very good to. Personally I think it's the best option for the money. (I haven't used the sigma personally)

8 replies, saying buy the Tamron/Sigma yet people have just opened this up, not read it properly and voted for the L without a second thought. lol!

I'd go Tamron personally...

The most bang for buck is definately the Sigma 17-70. It's cheaper, equally performer, and has macro ability + extra reach (50-70mm).

In terms of speed, Tamron is a bit better at constant f2.8, but the Sigma is very close in the 17-24 mm range. Neither of them are considered "wide angle lens", but are able to go down to wide angle reach at 17mm.

The Canon 17-40 f4 is equally good, but more expensive and slower than any of the Tamron and Sigma in its reach zone (17-40mm). It is an EF lens, a true ultrawide lens if used with full frame sensor cameras such as the Canon 5D. Otherwise, I would less recommend this lens because of its relatively slower ability at f4 and higher price, making it the worse bang for buck of the three lenses.

Tokina 12-24mm F4.

17-40.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The 17-40 has better color, contrast, and is very sharp. The build is better. It has USM so you can confidently shoot moving subjects and have then be in focus.

I have a sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (an excellent lens) but it doesn't have USM and its color and contrast are slightly less than the 17-40. It is more of a compromise than the 17-40.

The 17-40 will also hold its value better than the others so if you want to sell it you will retrieve more of your hard earned $$'s.

J.

I think the 17-40 is getting most of the votes just because a lot of people own it and don't want to consider that the tamron or the sigma are equaly good. They probly ahve only tried the 17-40 and vote for it just because they own it or want it. For me I don't have enough money to afford the 17-40 so for the moment its the tamron, and if not the tamron the sigma. Sorry folks who want em to buy the canon i just cannot afford it.

I like it ... good wisdom in a 15 year old

Trust me i've done the same thing i'll buy something and a friend will buy the same thing but different brand I will argue with him that he should have bought the brand I have even though I know the brand he bought is equally as good or better.