Canon and the wide angle zooms...

I need your advices/experiences on wide angle zooms for canon.

I think canon's tele zoom range is far more extensive compared to their wide angle zoom range and this doesn't help me when I really need a good wide angle zoom that would complement my 70-200L.

Naturally I need sharpness, good contrast and good build quality. I am no longer interested in cheaper lenses that I would eventually sell as I caught the "L flu"

Unfortunately the only wide zooms I could find from canon are:
1) 17-40L which lacks IS and some people complain that it is not excellent in at all apertures
2) 17-55 IS which is made of some sort of plastic, IQ is known to be really good though, I think IS lacks panning mode and its APS-C so not future proof as I am sure I will upgrade to a full frame in the near future.
3) There is a tamron 2.8 which has a very long name and I can't remember it now I don't know much about it so any comments will be much appreciated. (EDIT: Found the name: Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] this is like joke! who could possibly remember this!)

If anybody could please comment and advice on the issue I will be VERY happy. My budget is not limitless however I am not afraid to spend 1000$ or around that price for a quality glass that would meet my demands.


Thanks in advance.

Emre

16-35II 2.8

JasonRussell wrote in post #6301904
16-35II 2.8

Thanks for the comment. I haven't considered that one has its really double my budget, however, still I have checked some reviews and I am not sure if its optical performance justifies its high price:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …ample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1

Of course one of these lenses tested is not a "II" version. I don't know if they've improved it.

Also, I am seeing in your signature that you own a 17-40L, are you happy with it? Do you find the lack of IS a problem? corner sharpness?

Honestly I have never used the 16-35 but have heard good things about it.

I love my 17-40. On a wide angle you usually wont be shooting down to f4 anyway so once you move to f5.6 - 9 it really shines.

Most of my shooting situations allow me plenty of light, flash or strobes so the IS isnt an issue for me. Im only 26 so Im a long way away from being old and shakey ...haha

You do notice a little fall off in the corners but nothing that makes me think twice. It is to be expected. Especially on a FF or 1.3 crop. I dont think you would have much if any problems with corner shapness on a 1.6 crop.

JasonRussell wrote in post #6302123
Honestly I have never used the 16-35 but have heard good things about it.

I love my 17-40. On a wide angle you usually wont be shooting down to f4 anyway so once you move to f5.6 - 9 it really shines.

Most of my shooting situations allow me plenty of light, flash or strobes so the IS isnt an issue for me. Im only 26 so Im a long way away from being old and shakey ...haha

You do notice a little fall off in the corners but nothing that makes me think twice. It is to be expected. Especially on a FF or 1.3 crop. I dont think you would have much if any problems with corner shapness on a 1.6 crop.

thanks

my Canon 17-55IS vs Tamron 17-50 comparison.
You decide what's of good value to you.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=521209

If you don't want to shell out for the 17-55IS pick up the Tamron. It will not disappoint - my wonderful workhorse lens for events and portraits and everything else under the sun.

emre2006 wrote in post #6301799
3) There is a tamron 2.8 which has a very long name and I can't remember it now I don't know much about it so any comments will be much appreciated. (EDIT: Found the name: Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] this is like joke! who could possibly remember this!)

How about shortening it to "Tamron 17-50 2.8"?
This too is crop lens - denoted by the "Di"
So should you want to go FF, it's not going to work very well.
Other than that, it is a great lens and really good value for money. Having the f2.8 makes it great for portraiture, but if your shooting landscape, it's not a necessity.
What do you intend to shot with this wide angle lens? Bear in mind there is and Ultra Wide Angle option that you can go down!

I have no optical issues with my 16-35 II. None that aren't my fault, anyway. It's an awesome lens.

The combination I use with my 20D is the (original) 16-35 f/2.8L, the 24-70 f/2.8L, and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I've used this setup for several years and have never felt a serious need to add any additional lenses. Of course, I may find a special need some day but this group of lenses is extremely versatile.

My set up is tamron 17-50 and 70-200 4L, cover all of my needs. I bought a tammy second hand and never look back.

FF capable wide angle lenses, only 3 come to mind:
1) Sigma 12-24
2) EF 17-40L F4
3) EF 16-35L II F2.8
Number 3 will be most expensive you can go. F2.8 does come in handy!

If you want wider angle, add a Tokina 11-16 F2.8 (APS-C only though) to complement

As long as you don't use your camera to hang pictures or install roofing you shouldn't worry about the build of the 17-55 2.8IS. It is plenty durable for most mortals aside from the real clumsy ones, and has the added benefit of being lightweight with a perfect walkaround range. But if you are definitely going to abandon crop cameras at some point, and upgrade to a FF, then maybe not a financially sound choice. For me, the quality, speed and lightweight of this lens made it worth the investment, and it's an easy sell down the road if that is what I need to do.

Get the 17-55 IS. The IQ on this lens is killer. As is having f/2.8 and IS. The build is not top notch, but I wouldn't let that be the deal breaker on such a great lens.

It's not full frame compatable, but if/when you switch to a FF system you can sell or trade the lens for a 24-105 or 24-70.

Hi,

I don't know why folks are pointing you toward the 17-55//2.8 IS, unless it's because you mentioned IS. You have an 18-200 OS that's covering that focal length already.

Not that the 17-55 is a bad lens in any way. If you are looking to replace, it makes sense. But, if you are primarily looking for a wider angle view, you are no better off.

1. IS is not particularly useful on a wide lens. You should be able to easily handhold a 17mm lens at 1/30 second even on your digital SLR.

2. 17mm isn't particularly wide on your digital SLR. It's roughly equivalent to a 28mm lens on your film SLR. Wide, but not very. It's only 1mm wider than the 18-200 you already have, at that zoom's wide end.

3. Do you want to use the lens on both cameras... Your film and digital? If so, and you want ultra wide, you are down to exactly one choice: Sigma 12-24 ($650). It can be used on both full frame and crop sensor. Very cool in that respect, however it compromises some on image quality and it ain't cheap.

4. If you are thinking to use the lens only on your digital SLR, then you have more choices: Canon 10-22 ($700) & Tokina 12-24 ($500) are the best image quality. The Tokina is better build quality and includes a lens hood in the price, which the Canon doesn't. The Canon is 2mm wider, which is significant at this extreme. However, the 12mm of the Tokina manages to be quite wide, too (it's roughly equivalent to a 19mm lens on a full frame/film camera).

The relatively new Tokina 11-16/2.8 is similar quality and a stop faster, but more expensive ($600?), hard to find right now, and it's a very narrow zoom range.

There are less expensive Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 10-20 or 10-22s. They're okay too, somewhat lower image quality than the Canon and Tokina.