Wide Angle lense for newbie (20D)

Canon 17-40mm f/4
I have played with my friends Canon 17-40mm f/4 and loved it. Never really worked with wide angle lenses. I've been reading about other wide angle lenses, like the Tokina and now looking at different mm. 17-40mm would be a good range for just taking shots around the city (San Francisco, CA). Yet, before I spend the money, would like to know your opinions on this. Would this be a good start and something I could be happy with for awhile?

What's your budget? The sharp and fast Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II is an excellent choice.

BTW, on a camera like that 20D, I'd call that a standard zoom rather than a wide angle lens.

Both the tamron and canon would be excellent choices. I might pick the tamron over the canon for shooting around San Fran since its faster (it can get overcast a lot there can't it?).

JackProton wrote in post #7653439
BTW, on a camera like that 20D, I'd call that a standard zoom rather than a wide angle lens.

I agree, with a 17mm on a crop camera you are starting at "28mm" on a full frame and many folks think "wide" starts there and goes to shorter focal lengths.

The 10-22 on your 20D gives you the function of a "16-35mm" on a full frame. That would be a wide to ultrawide view. Just keep your feet out of the photos if you get one.

I really don't have a budget but at the same token, not looking to spend money where it's not needed. If a lens by Tamron is as good or if not better than the canon, then I'm willing to go that route.

Jeff- the Tamron is faster you say? Yes, it can get overcast here fast, esp in the area I live and roam around.

Jack and Jim
What do you mean on a 20D, should call it a standard zoon than a wide angle lens? As well, since I'm still new to this, would you mind explain the 10-22 on my 20d giving me 16-35mm on a full frame?
Should I be looking for another size lens?

Yes, the tamron is constant f/2.8 while the canon is constant f/4. The tamron will allow for faster shutter speeds in lower light situations.

Save your $...get a 18-55IS. I had 17-40L and 18-55IS beat it in sharpness. Be careful with Tamron 17-50...many of them have FF and BF issues. You might have to go through several copies to get the best one.

To help guide your FL selection, here are conventional well established (for many decades) terms for different 'wide' FL, and the the APS-C focal length needed, and the FF/135 formal focal length needed...

special wide (fisheye): available? APS-C, 8-12mm FF/film
ultra wide: 10-11mm APS-C, 16-17mm FF/film
super wide: 12mm APS-C, 20mm FF/film
very wide: 15mm APS-C, 24mm FF/film
wide: 18mm APS-C, 28mm FF/film
moderate wide: 22mm APS-C, 35mm FF/film

...and as a frame of reference,
normal: 25-35 mm APS-C 40-58mm FF/film

WallyJr74 wrote in post #7659088
Save your $...get a 18-55IS. I had 17-40L and 18-55IS beat it in sharpness. Be careful with Tamron 17-50...many of them have FF and BF issues. You might have to go through several copies to get the best one.

Not sure I agree with that. Now, if you were looking for a sigma 30 or 50 I might, but I don't think you need to worry about getting a good copy of the 17-50. I think focusing issues with that lens are in the minority. An 18-55 IS is not a bad idea either. Its slower than the tamron, but it does have IS, so it would do well in low light situations with static subjects. Really though, if I were looking at lenses and I couldn't afford the canon 17-55, the tamron would be my choice.

I dont' feel 17mm is all that wide on a crop. I really like my Tokina 12-24 f/4. Excellent range. Can be found in the $400 range making it cheaper than the 17-40 or the 10-22 by a decent margin.

I actually bought it from Jeff81 in the post above mine.

00dahc wrote in post #7660017
I dont' feel 17mm is all that wide on a crop. I really like my Tokina 12-24 f/4. Excellent range. Can be found in the $400 range making it cheaper than the 17-40 or the 10-22 by a decent margin.

I actually bought it from Jeff81 in the post above mine.

Glad you're enjoying it...its a great lens! I decided to give UWA another try and have the tokina 11-16 on its way.

Wilt wrote in post #7659202
special wide (fisheye): available? APS-C, 8-12mm FF/film

Sigma has a 4.5mm circular fisheye for APS-C cameras.

And to the OP, if you like the 17-40, you can get a bit more range out of the Tamron 17-50, the Sigma 18-50, or the Canon 18-55mm IS for much less money (while keeping the IQ high). The 17-40 is mainly meant for a Full Frame type of camera (which you don't have with the 20D) as an ultra wide angle lens. I think you'll get much more versatility out of one of the above lenses than you will with the 17-40.

hth

crzysurf wrote in post #7658979
What do you mean on a 20D, should call it a standard zoon than a wide angle lens? As well, since I'm still new to this, would you mind explain the 10-22 on my 20d giving me 16-35mm on a full frame?

Well, on a 20D, a 30mm lens (give or take) will take in roughly the same amount of a scene as the human eye and is sometimes called a normal lens. Focal lengths below that are wide angle and focal lengths above that are telephoto. A "standard zoom" goes from mild/moderate wide angle to normal to mild telephoto. This is something of a general purpose lens. I think of a "wide angle lens" as being more specialized and not having any telephoto range.

You probably shouldn't worry too much about the difference between full frame and smaller snesor crop cameras like the 20D except to note that a wide angle lens on a FF camera may not be wide angle on a 20D. The 20D has a smaller sensor than 35mm film so it looks at a smaller section of the image produced by a lens.

That depends on what you're trying to do. If, for example, you looked at some photos made from a full frame or 35mm film camera and noted the focal lengths used to take those shots then you'll need a different lens to get the same effect with a 20D. If you just wanted something for general purpose photography then the lenses already mentioned are fine.

crzysurf wrote in post #7652679
Canon 17-40mm f/4
I have played with my friends Canon 17-40mm f/4 and loved it. Never really worked with wide angle lenses. I've been reading about other wide angle lenses, like the Tokina and now looking at different mm. 17-40mm would be a good range for just taking shots around the city (San Francisco, CA). Yet, before I spend the money, would like to know your opinions on this. Would this be a good start and something I could be happy with for awhile?

If you are using the standard 18-55mm kit lens, you already have a wide angle lens.

Which lens are you using now?

JackProton wrote in post #7660404
Well, on a 20D, a 30mm lens (give or take) will take in roughly the same amount of a scene as the human eye and is sometimes called a normal lens. Focal lengths below that are wide angle and focal lengths above that are telephoto. A "standard zoom" goes from mild/moderate wide angle to normal to mild telephoto. This is something of a general purpose lens. I think of a "wide angle lens" as being more specialized and not having any telephoto range.

You probably shouldn't worry too much about the difference between full frame and smaller snesor crop cameras like the 20D except to note that a wide angle lens on a FF camera may not be wide angle on a 20D. The 20D has a smaller sensor than 35mm film so it looks at a smaller section of the image produced by a lens.

That depends on what you're trying to do. If, for example, you looked at some photos made from a full frame or 35mm film camera and noted the focal lengths used to take those shots then you'll need a different lens to get the same effect with a 20D. If you just wanted something for general purpose photography then the lenses already mentioned are fine.

I agree with your post, except for the urban legend in red!

A 'normal' lens by convention is (about) the diagonal measure of the frame. 135 film format, being 24x36mm has a diagonal of 42mm, but the convention of 'about 50mm' was adopted decades ago, and we see 135 film cameras with 40-58mm normal lenses as delivered from the factories, between the 60's and 90's.

The 'like a human eye' is totally bogus. An ophthamologist will confirm that the acuity for the human eye is in a VERY NARROW cone of vision. The peripheral vision is very wide, yet it is horrible for detail, and mostly good for detection of motion (so that nature protects you from predatory animals surprising you!) The only reason you think you have a wide, sharp field of vision is that your eye constantly MOVES and your brain constantly INTEGRATES all of it into a single scene!