I need a wider buddy for the 24-105

The 24-105 is on my camera 80% of the time. To get wider I use my Sigma 17-70, but the problem I have is I want a lens that is 2.8 throughout and wide. Possibly like the Canon 17-55 IS.

Money isnt a factor, research is....(my internet here is so slow).
Can someone reccomend a lens to me?
I dont care if its a Sigma or Tammy or whatever.
Thanks in advance.

well if money isn't a factor I would factor in a 5D...24 is pretty wide

Yes, either a 5D full frame sensor which increases your angle, or alternatively consider the Sigma 10-20mm. It's gorgeous:

how bout an EF 16-35 2.8 L? its a little bit short on reach but 2.8...

there is the tamron 17-50 2.8...

why dont you want the 17-55 2.8 IS?

im yearning for an "EF 17-70 2.8 IS L".

5D is your quickest solution. Then get a 24-70 2.8

nordstern1 wrote in post #5729470
im yearning for an "EF 17-70 2.8 IS L".

that lens would be so huge....beyond stupid!

Im not getting a 5D. Im interested in a wide Lens for the camera's I currently own. That shot with the siggy 10-20 looks great! How is the bokeh on close ups?
Im coming to the states in 3 weeks and plan to make a decision by then.

I personally use and love the sigma 10-20mm lens
its not the fastest one but its OH SO WIDE

I have the 24-105 (cameras, 20D & 30D). I'm planning to get a Tokina 12-24. However, it's not 2.8. But then, neither is the Sigma.

If you want a constant 2.8 UWA, you can look at the Tokina 11-16mm, but it is hard to get ahold of one.
For more versatility, the 17-55mm f/2.8 is an excellent lens for your 40d.
Hope that helps.

Considering you want f/2.8...

Need an ultrawide? - Tokina 11-16 is your only option.

Don't want to spend a lot of money? - Sigma 18-50 Macro or Tamron 17-50

Want USM and IS? - Canon EF-S 17-55

Money to burn, don't need a lot of range? - Canon EF 16-35

This is a hard one... from the canon side theres not alot of choice for wide and 2.8 - theres the EF-s 17-55 2.8IS as you mentioned - this would almost negate the need for your 24-105 as the range overlaps a fair bit - and the fact that it isnt really that wide (27.2mm) - $960 at the moment with instant rebates from B&H

Then theres the 16-35 2.8L not a bad choice but a bit of overlap and again not exactly true wide.

At most these 2 only add 8mm to your wide end. Not exactly earth shattering addition. That is under the assumption that you want to keep your 24-105 as you mentioned in your subject header.

Makes most sense to me that to go true wide and not overlap would be a 10-22 canon or 10-20 siggy and not go to this lens for bokeh on people - which may not be as bad as it sounds as there is distortion this wide anyways. Plus getting nice and close could add the bokeh you want anyways.

The only other thing is use your "new" 10-2x" for real wide and other landscape/ interesting shots - possibly not for action - use your 24-105 for walkaround and your 50 1.8 for true low light.

Another option - use 10-2x as above - and swap out your 24-105 for a 24-70 if the 2.8 is that important - and much more usable for a variety of things in this range.

The last thing is to add a good prime at your most desired focal length which could negate the need for 2.8 which can be less useful anyways when you are carrying something that can do f1.4 or f1.8 like a USM 50 or 85 or something wider - 30mm or something like that....

Just trying to come up with some options... might be way off... have you a list of ideas you were thinking of... im less knowlegable with non canon stuff but the ideas are the same... as most vendors have a similar lens to suit....

You could also search "canon 10-22 archive" and "sigma 10-20" archive and see if any shots suit your way of shooting....

Let us know what you like to shoot wide... if its skaters at night in a skate park while being under them - id recommend differently to - i just like to wander and opportunity shoot, mainly my kids in and around the house and park.

Let us know if any of that helps!!

There is some very food information in this thread....exactly the push I needed. Now I have a great starting point.Thanks guys.

I took this shot 2 weeks ago with the Siggy 17-70. What a great little lens, unfortunetly my wife is hogging it.
I dont really plan on portraits, mainly a landscape and random closeup of still life.
The 10-20 "seems" like a good fit so far( edit: I just learned this is not 2.8 --damn). The 17-55 does have IS though....and that is very appealing to me. Which now I wonder which canon lens is sharper the 16-35 or the 17-55?
I will do a search for the Tokina (have NO clue about that company).

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

f/2.8 ALL THE TIME: Tokina 11-16

Just release and sold out everywhere and you might not be able to order one yet. Keep checking back with BH.

For f2.8 constant zooms for a 40D. Going from widest.
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8: Very sharp and ultrawide, good luck finding one though.
Canon 16-35mm f2.8. Still some corner softness, made for FF though and really expensive.
Canon 17-55mm IS f2.8, very nice but expensive lens.
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, nice optics but so so build and AF
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro, not as wide but has "macro" more like close focusing feature which may be handy.

My advice, if money is no object and you want the widest, tokina, if 17mm is fine, the Canon 17-55, if you want an occassional lens for good price, Tamron 17-50.