wide angle for a 5d, under $600-700

any suggestions? i need a wide angle but am not desiring to spend more then $600-700 for one. what is wide on a 5d FF? i do portraits mostly (no landscapes or sports really). help! i would reeeally like to stay with canon. also, looking for a fast lens! i already have the 70-200 and 50mm, definitely looking for something in the 2.8 and wider range...

thanks in advance.

EF28 f/1.8.

Probably your best bet is a used 17-35 f/2.8L...should be in that price range. However, do know that the 17-40L is sharper. alternatively, look at the 24 f/2.8, or perhaps one of the Sigma zooms like the 24-60 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8 (non-HSM).

For some reason, when you mentioned wide angle, I immediately thought primes. Are you looking for primes, zooms or either.

I just saw this in the FS forum. I don't know anything about the lens, but you might be interested. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=694911

im interested in primes, but any will do really as long as the f stop is consistent. (ex: 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 as opposed to 70-200 f/4).

ngrohosky wrote in post #7940571
im interested in primes, but any will do really as long as the f stop is consistent. (ex: 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 as opposed to 70-200 f/4).

Both the 28 / 1.8:

http://www.slrgear.com …uct.php/product​/83/cat/10

and 35 / 2:

http://www.slrgear.com …ct.php/product/​147/cat/10

perform famously across the entire frame on FF by f/4, and do quite well in the central region wide open.

The 28 / 1.8 has USM, the 35 / 2 is smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

You mentioned you want to stay with Canon but I will suggest this anyway. You said you mostly shoot portraits.

My Tamron 28-75 is very good on my 40D and exceptional on my 5D.

Sigma 20 f/1.8. It's plenty wide on the 5D and costs under $500. Check out the lens archive for examples.

get a 17-40

i think adorama still has some refirbs,,last i checked they were 560.00

I think you are confusing some people with the term wide angle. Your only 2 lenses are a 70-200 and 50mm right now, so wide angle to you is probably more like standard zoom to the rest of us. You probably want something like a 24/28mm - 70/80mm zoom. For $600 there are a few options.

If you have to stay Canon, you won't get a very fast lens for under $600. You can get the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5, the 28-105mm f2.5-4.5 or the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS. All of those are reasonably sharp, have good build and USM for fast focusing. The ideal would be the 24-70 L, but you will be very lucky to find one under $1000.

If you want a faster f2.8 zoom in your budget, you will have to look at Tamron or Sigma. Sigma makes a good 24-70mm f2.8 Macro zoom and Tamron makes a great 28-75mm f2.8. Both rate pretty well.

And as to where wide angle starts, I would say about 30mm. ultra wide starts at about 24

Wait... if 24 is ultra wide angle... what is 16mm - ultra ultra wide?

I think 20-24 would be considered wide angle and anything less than that would be ultra wide (on FF of course).

tkbslc wrote in post #7942943
I think you are confusing some people with the term wide angle. Your only 2 lenses are a 70-200 and 50mm right now, so wide angle to you is probably more like standard zoom to the rest of us. You probably want something like a 24/28mm - 70/80mm zoom. For $600 there are a few options.

If you have to stay Canon, you won't get a very fast lens for under $600. You can get the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5, the 28-105mm f2.5-4.5 or the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS. All of those are reasonably sharp, have good build and USM for fast focusing. The ideal would be the 24-70 L, but you will be very lucky to find one under $1000.

If you want a faster f2.8 zoom in your budget, you will have to look at Tamron or Sigma. Sigma makes a good 24-70mm f2.8 Macro zoom and Tamron makes a great 28-75mm f2.8. Both rate pretty well.

And as to where wide angle starts, I would say about 30mm. ultra wide starts at about 24

shimmishim wrote in post #7942969
Wait... if 24 is ultra wide angle... what is 16mm - ultra ultra wide?

I think 20-24 would be considered wide angle and anything less than that would be ultra wide (on FF of course).

I said It STARTS at 24mm, 16-24mm is ultra wide in my book, 24-35 is wide, 35-70 is normal and 70-300 is telephoto, and 300+ is super telephoto. I am sure we can all make up our own definitions, though, based on our style of shooting.

tkbslc wrote in post #7942989
I said It STARTS at 24mm, 16-24mm is ultra wide in my book, 24-35 is wide, 35-70 is normal and 70-300 is telephoto, and 300+ is super telephoto. I am sure we can all make up our own definitions, though, based on our style of shooting.

it actually STARTS at 16 and ends at 24 (by your definition - but i agree it depends on each individual's definition).

It's weird to say that ultrawide starts at 24 and ends at 16... no wonder i was confused...

shimmishim wrote in post #7943409
it actually STARTS at 16 and ends at 24 (by your definition - but i agree it depends on each individual's definition).

It's weird to say that ultrawide starts at 24 and ends at 16... no wonder i was confused...

I don't think it is weird to phrase it that way. When you are talking about being that wide, 24 would be the least wide and 16 would be the most wide. So say you have a 16-35 and you are zooming out from 35mm to 16. . When you hit 24mm you will start hitting the super wide and gradually get more wide until you hit 16. Since we are talking about going wide, I think you define the range as starting from the least wide.

What are we arguing about, anyway??

tkbslc wrote in post #7943447
I don't think it is weird to phrase it that way. When you are talking about being that wide, 24 would be the least wide and 16 would be the most wide. So say you have a 16-35 and you are zooming out from 35mm to 16. . When you hit 24mm you will start hitting the super wide and gradually get more wide until you hit 16. Since we are talking about going wide, I think you define the range as starting from the least wide.

What are we arguing about, anyway??

LOL. we're not arguing. i'm trying to figure out you're backwards logic which makes sense... amazingly...