Wide angle zoom for my 40D?

The 16-35 is amazing, the colors are nice and it is very quick as far as auto focus goes.

The only down side is the cost of 82mm filters :/

Even on a crop body it is super wide, i cant wait untill i can afford a 5d to take full advantage of it!

you could probably beat the crap out of a 17-55 with a 16-35 like a rock

I vote for the 17-55 if you're going to be with a crop body for some time.

why will the 17-55 not work on a full frame camera? I'm soon to be new to Canon so apologize for the questions

JSJR4 wrote in post #5377576
why will the 17-55 not work on a full frame camera? I'm soon to be new to Canon so apologize for the questions

These reasons...

1) EF-S lens does not have an Image Circle which is large enough to cover 24x36mm sensor
2) EF-S lens may well protrude into the body of the camera, and the FF mirror may make a very expensive crash into the back of the lens

Also remember that if you mount the 16-35mm on a 40D, it is effectively equal to a 26-56mm lens on a full-frame body. If you mount the 16-35mm on a full-frame body, it will be 16-35mm, which will make it an ULTRA-wide angle lens.

Wide Angle and no mention of the 17-40L I will have to sell it now
or even the Tokina 12-24, Canon 10-22 ?

phantom_oz wrote in post #5378948
Wide Angle and no mention of the 17-40L I will have to sell it now
or even the Tokina 12-24, Canon 10-22 ?

good call on the the 17-40mm 4L not being listed, but i'm pretty sure the OP is fixated on a wide aperture as well (e.g. 2.8). so, that could be the reason could also apply to the rest of these lenses. seeing as the others do not even have a fixed aperture.

i'm also going to throw out the idea of waiting for the 11-16mm 2.8 from tokina as it just as promising to the APS-C sensor as the already mentioned 17-55mm 2.8 IS by canon.

although, with that being said, i personally can attest for the incredible quality of the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. heck, phantom_oz, i sold my 17-40mm 4L and went 1.6x crop from full-frame [5D] based on it's performance!

so, i guess it really boils down onto whether you want a WA or UWA lens.

i'm gonna pick up a 11-16mm 2.8 myself, even though i already own the 10-17mm 3.5-4.5 FE

here's hoping tokina has finally gotten down fast focus.

Before spending $1600 on a 16-35, think hard about the range. 35mm on 1.6X has just reached normal. All of the Canon high quality telephoto zoom lenses start at 70mm.

A lot of people can live just fine with 17-55 and 70-200 ranges covered, but 35mm to 70mm is too much of a gap.

Finally, while the 16-35 is FF compatible, if you think you will really need one on FF then you should be looking at a lens like the EF-S 10-22 today.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

He says he has the 50mm covered by a prime.
If you don't mind about having fast glass, then I'd recommend the 17-40L since it's FF compatible, very wide, and has very tough build.

If you don't mind selling the lens later when swapping to FF, the tokina 12-24 f/4 or the canon 10-22mm are great ultra wides

Why not looking for 10-22 ?

This is ultra wide angle !

Tokina 10-17 will work WELL on full frame or crop----

for a 40D -> wide angle 17-55 f/2.8 IS (all around lens)
for a ultra wide angle Canon 10-22
an if you switch for a full frame -> 16-35L will be the equivalent of the 10-22

JimLittle wrote in post #5381742
Tokina 10-17 will work WELL on full frame or crop----

the distortion and additional time in post-processing cleaning up the verticals could be deterrents onto why this lens is not being considered.

that, and because it's a diagonal fisheye.

i personally love mine (depite poor CA control), but still look forward to the release of the 11-16mm 2.8 in the states.