24-105L not wide enough on a 1.6 crop?-- and other lens considerations..

I'm going on a little lens shopping spree for my 20D.

I'm considering either a Tamron 17-50 and later on a Sigma 50-150, or a 24-105L. I'm worried though that the 24 will not be wide enough. I plan on getting a 10-22 to complement either set anyway, but that wouldn't be right away, since both the 10-22 and 24-105 are pretty expensive. I do have the kit lens though, so i could use that for the wider end until then. alternatively is the 18-200 OS from sigma that lightrules suggested to me.

The reason I was thinking the 24-105 is that I like the IS, since I don't really shoot sports and I'm not very confident in my hand-holding ability (and the ability to shoot in fading light a bit stopped down and at low shutter speeds without a tripod sounds great), and the fact that I could potentially use it on a FF or film body (otherwise I'd get the 17-85 IS), and I'd rather have the constant f/4, which is why I'm not really considering the 28-135 (besides the fact it's even less wide than the 24).

Now price is a pretty major factor. I'd be paying with this lens with my savings (a couple hundred $), and birthday money. I could get the 24-105 with my birthday money, and be halfway towards a 10-22 (or spend it on a camera bag or other accessory), or I could just buy the Tammy 17-50 with my savings, and buy an hdtv for my room which I've been lusting for w/ the birthday money, but I think my parents would be more apt to support my passion/hobby than me having hd gaming. Ah choices... I think ultimately the lens wins out. I am potentially worried about taking such an expensive lens with me every day to school and back though, since I always want to have my camera with me (there are too many times when an opportunity for a photo is right there and I have no 20D on me...), so that could be a consideration too.

Opinions?

Why not the 17-55mm IS? That lens is way better than the 24-105mm for a walkaround.

if I'm spending that much I'd prefer to be able to use it full frame.
I couldn't justify the extra $ over the Tammy 17-50 for the EF-S 17-55, even if it does have IS.

I'm even a little concerned that the L is overkill. Of course I want good image quality, but I don't need crazy good build quality or anything. I don't do this for a living after all. I could just get the 10-22 and 17-50 for about the same price, right? Then if I felt like upgrading to FF at any point in the far future, I could just swap out the 17-50 for a 24-105, or keep it on my 20D as a backup. Does that work? the only problem is different filter sizes, but I could always buy the 77 of the 10-22 and buy a step up for the 17-50 I guess.

Greg, it seems like money is really tight and you are wanting a lot of lenses (now and the future). Don't get all crazy here.

If you are only looking at FF-capable lenses, then you have a much narrower field to choose from. If so, you should really look at the Sigma 24-60 F2.8 EX DG that is available through Cameta Camera at Amazon.com for $200. That's a steal. Of course the 24-105 L is a great lens, but it's very costly for you.

If you are open to APS-C lenses, then the choices really open up. I have no reservations recommending the Tamron 1750 or Sigma 1770 or 18200 OS. These are all very good options that have their respective strengths. Don't leave out the new 18-55 IS which is only about $180.

well the 18-55IS doesn't seem like a good choice for me since I have the kit already and it's just the same lens but with IS (correct me if I'm wrong). That 180 would be so much better going towards a 17-50. I figure with birthday and savings combined I have about 1000 dollars to work with. I could get the Tamron 17-50 and the 10-22 in this way ( I dunno if you read my last post since I edited it). I'd rather have the tamron than the sigma 17-70, soley for the 2.8. I could look into the 18-200OS, but I'm worried about the weight of that lens, as well at the f/6.3 at the long end. The 24-60 Sigma or a 28-75 Tamron was what I was looking at originally, but really wouldn't be good on a cropped body for walking around. A shift downward by 10mm would be a lot better, even if I'd have to rebuy lenses for full frame (since the 17-50 or 17-70 seem like excellent values). The only reason I wanted to go with say a 24-105L is the IS and the extra reach, but it kind of is out of my price range. If I had 1500 dollars to work with, well then I'd probably get the 24-105 and the 10-22, but I think the 24-105 is useless for me without the 10-22 (well not USELESS, but you get what I mean). Plus, I'd be constantly switching between the two. A little 5mm overlap never hurt anyone. As long as I get good optical quality I'm fine; I don't feel like I need the build quality of an L, it was just cause of the IS, but I can live without that too.

So it's either 18-200 OS or 17-50 and 10-22 at this point. I'd then add a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 later on in the latter case, but that's not important to me right now, since I want to focus on wide angle (and I happen to have a 135mm f/2.5 FD prime laying around (even if it doesn't work so well at infinity with the adapter). I certainly have no problem with 3rd party lenses. In fact, my friend who also has a 20D has told me time and again how much he loves his numerous Sigmas.

gregjp48 wrote in post #4881346
well the 18-55IS doesn't seem like a good choice for me since I have the kit already and it's just the same lens but with IS (correct me if I'm wrong)

The new IS version is better pretty much all around optically.

So it's either 18-200 OS or 17-50 and 10-22 at this point. I'd then add a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 later on in the latter case

The 18200 OS and 1750 f2.8 are very different lenses. If you don't really need anything beyond 50mm, then the Tamron is a better bet. If you want an excellent all in one'r, the OS lens is phenomenal.

But if you are getting the 10-22, and will get the 50-150 (or maybe a 70-200?), then the Tamron 1750 fits really nicely in between.

The Tamron 17-50 is a nice lens. I have owned both it and the 18-200 OS and, minus the extra range and OS provided by the superzoom, I preferred the 17-50 in every way:

Image quality
Build feel in my hands
Autfocus speed
Medium/low light performance
Color/saturation
etc....

Also, when it comes to your UWA, don't forget to look at the Sigma 10-20mm...if you read the reviews, it compares favorably vs. the Canon and costs ALOT less. With the savings, you might be able to squeek in a decent flash (430ex can be had for $200'ish) or other accessory you may want/need.

17-50/10-22 it is then. Alternatively a sigma/tokina UW?
i can worry about the telephoto end later on. A sigma 70-200 f/2.8, a canon f/4L, or a 50-150 f/2.8 (probably the most ideal?) are my best bets for that

Should I get a 3rd party UW or just go for the Canon?
I've heard that the canon has less distortion than the others, I've seen pics from the Canon and they look phenominal. A savings of 100-150 dollars could be substantial though. I think I'd be more apt to buy the tokina than the sigma b/c of the constant f/4, rather than 4-5.6 (or 3.5-4.5 of the canon), all other factors aside. What are your opinions on UW? pros cons of tokina vs canon? the extra money would be helpful for camera bag purposes, or even pocket money (I am a teen after all)

the other thing I'm thinking is that I should buy the 17-50 first, and then try the UWs at b&h in manhattan to make sure I like the UW. I love the pictures, but for 450-600 dollars lets make sure I like the focal length first...

Might I also suggest that you consider he Sigma 10-20 along with the Canon 10-22. They are so close in performance, that it is hotly debated which is better and which to buy frequently. If money is tight, going with the Sigma saves about $200. I bought it and have been more than happy with it. Then you could get you Tammy if you want, or the Sigma.

gregjp48 wrote in post #4881406
Should I get a 3rd party UW or just go for the Canon?

You can get phenomenal images with any of the UWAs. It comes down to the photographer as the lenses themselves are superb. In your situation, I think looking at the 3rd party options is especially attractive. Both the Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20 are tremendous.

Another suggestion, do you have a flash? I don't see one in your sig. Great addition, and a 430ex will just about be paid for my getting the Sigma 10-20 instead of the Canon 10-22.

LightRules wrote in post #4881430
You can get phenomenal images with any of the UWAs. It comes down to the photographer as the lenses themselves are superb. In your situation, I think looking at the 3rd party options is especially attractive. Both the Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20 are tremendous.

I wasn't overjoyed with my Sigma 10-20, not very sharp and the colors seemed dull.....Maybe it wasn't a good copy, I tried to like it, but eventually offed it....So, you say the Tokina is tremendous too huh? I've thought about that lens......and it can be used on FF right?

no I don't have a flash, but to tell you the truth I never found the need for one, since I usually shoot at higher ISOs and with my 50 f/1.8 at lower light. Do you think a flash would be beneficial? Could I put it off for a little while since I'm not that much of an indoor shooter? I'd much rather use environmental or window lighting than diffused flash at this point, and I'd probably need a bag to cart all my gear around in first, a non-walmart tripod, and not to mention the fact that my ibook's battery is lasting about 45 minutes since it's 25months old...
It sure makes people move out of your way when you have a speedlite mounted on your camera though

and thatkatmat, I think it's the Sigma 12-24 that can be used on FF. If I'm not mistaken the tokina is digital only, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm in love with the shots from the UWs on the flickr groups and on the sample images thread. Must be some new odd perspectives to explore and learn how to use a lens that wide!

Ahhh, been a while since I looked at an UW...but this thread got me thinking...Thanks

thatkatmat wrote in post #4881445
I wasn't overjoyed with my Sigma 10-20, not very sharp and the colors seemed dull.....Maybe it wasn't a good copy, I tried to like it, but eventually offed it....So, you say the Tokina is tremendous too huh? I've thought about that lens......and it can be used on FF right?

Check out the Sigma 10-20 lens archive for pics; it can perform admirably. As for the Tokie, it's designed for APS-C only. It will mount on APS-H or FF, but it will vignette. But see its picture archive for images also.