Having trouble picking out a wide angle lens.

16-35mm f/2.8L II USM $1,420.00

17-40mm f/4L USM Lens $700.00
Not 2.8

17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM $1,099.00
No seals not L glass but costs more than L glass. I under stand the aperture is 2.8, but why not spend the extra $320 for the 16-35mm, or spend $400 less for the 17-40mm ?

Am I missing any other options?

I am just confused by these options.

Which camera are you putting this lens on? If it isn't a 1.6x crop camera then you can rule out the 17-55 as it is EF-S. Otherwise that is a good option as it offers f/2.8 and IS.

Do you need f/2.8? Are you going to be mostly using it for landscapes with small apertures? If so I'd strongly consider the 17-40L.

sigma pi wrote in post #10207905
17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM $1,099.00
No seals not L glass but costs more than L glass. I under stand the aperture is 2.8, but why not spend the extra $320 for the 16-35mm,.

Because the $320 will "cost" you IS, and 20mm of length. If you want to pay $320 to lose those features, go ahead!

photoPanda wrote in post #10208092
Which camera are you putting this lens on? If it isn't a 1.6x crop camera then you can rule out the 17-55 as it is EF-S. Otherwise that is a good option as it offers f/2.8 and IS.

Do you need f/2.8? Are you going to be mostly using it for landscapes with small apertures? If so I'd strongly consider the 17-40L.

CRAP! sorry I totally spaced out on that. Its going on a 7D (1.6x)

walk around / some landscape. I honestly don't know if am going to need a f/2.8. Hmmm maybe rent each before i buy?

egordon99 wrote in post #10208749
Because the $320 will "cost" you IS, and 20mm of length. If you want to pay $320 to lose those features, go ahead!

Is IS really important to a wide angle? I would think a telephoto lens would need it more. Which way did you go?

Thank you both for your responses. I see the small things and see L and see the non L, the ranges are similar.

sigma pi wrote in post #10209468
Is IS really important to a wide angle? I would think a telephoto lens would need it more. Which way did you go?

I went with the 24-70L. Prior, I was shooting people with my 30/85 primes, so 24mm was already "wide" compared to 30mm, and I already had the really wide end covered with my Sigma 10-20.

As for needing IS at wider angles, it's nice to have, but if you don't want it, you can spend $300 more for Canon to remove it and paint a red ring on the lens (and remove 20mm from the long end)

But seriously, the 16-35 is a great ultra-wide-angle on full-frame bodies, but there are better options for crop cameras.

None of those lenses will be wide enough on a 7D. On my old 7D, I was using a 17-40L and it was more of a general purpose/walk around.

If you want a truly wide lens, you would have to go with a Canon 10-22 or maybe a Tokina 11-16 if you want f/2.8

Mr Sigma

What do you already have if I may ask please?

As Wes suggested, none of the above are wide enough on a 1.6x body especially if you do landscape. For walkaround purposes on your 7D, the 17-55 would be near perfect and IS can come in handy for walkaround type of shots, events and the like. If you may already have the 18-55 IS then I would consider the 10-22 as an option for landscapes and your wide needs.


My 2c

Cheers

I agree with the previous statement. Go with the tokina 10-16 or the sigma 8-16. On the cropped sensor the 17mm is more like 25mm.

I bought the sigma 8-16 and love it!

Canon 17-55 Ef-S and add the Canon 10-22 later.

You can get a good used copy from the classifieds here on POTN ($830-$900).

sigma pi wrote in post #10209468
CRAP! sorry I totally spaced out on that. Its going on a 7D (1.6x)

walk around / some landscape. I honestly don't know if am going to need a f/2.8. Hmmm maybe rent each before i buy?

Is IS really important to a wide angle? I would think a telephoto lens would need it more. Which way did you go?

Thank you both for your responses. I see the small things and see L and see the non L, the ranges are similar.

Go for the EF-S 17-55 then. I had one on my old 30D and I thought it was the perfect walkaround lens for 1.6x bodies. It's wide enough for landscape duty, and long enough for portrait work. The IS is extremely useful indoors or in low-light situations. It's the one lens I wish canon would make an EF version of...

egordon99 wrote in post #10209498
I went with the 24-70L. Prior, I was shooting people with my 30/85 primes, so 24mm was already "wide" compared to 30mm, and I already had the really wide end covered with my Sigma 10-20.

As for needing IS at wider angles, it's nice to have, but if you don't want it, you can spend $300 more for Canon to remove it and paint a red ring on the lens (and remove 20mm from the long end)

But seriously, the 16-35 is a great ultra-wide-angle on full-frame bodies, but there are better options for crop cameras.

AH thanks ill trow the 16-35 out of the running, Thanks!

WesM wrote in post #10209529
None of those lenses will be wide enough on a 7D. On my old 7D, I was using a 17-40L and it was more of a general purpose/walk around.

If you want a truly wide lens, you would have to go with a Canon 10-22 or maybe a Tokina 11-16 if you want f/2.8

I was looking at the 10-22 and thought that might be too wide for me (forgot about the cropped factor and just got scared by the numbers). I was also thinking it might distort too much for a walk around and would be a landscape type lens.

Houston1863 wrote in post #10209947
Mr Sigma

What do you already have if I may ask please?

As Wes suggested, none of the above are wide enough on a 1.6x body especially if you do landscape. For walkaround purposes on your 7D, the 17-55 would be near perfect and IS can come in handy for walkaround type of shots, events and the like. If you may already have the 18-55 IS then I would consider the 10-22 as an option for landscapes and your wide needs.


My 2c

Cheers

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

H

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

Right now i got this high roller lens 28-135mm

Yeah, it looks like what i posted up is going to be a walk around and less of a wide lens with the body I have

KRUSH wrote in post #10210020
Canon 17-55 Ef-S and add the Canon 10-22 later.

You can get a good used copy from the classifieds here on POTN ($830-$900).

I think this is the route im going to have to take, and get a real wide angle lens down the road.

Yeah I've been keeping an eye out here. I just put the B&H prices for reference.

jujew wrote in post #10209973
I agree with the previous statement. Go with the tokina 10-16 or the sigma 8-16. On the cropped sensor the 17mm is more like 25mm.

I bought the sigma 8-16 and love it!

8mm just sounds crazy to me haha. I am afraid of the distortion fish eye effect. How far does the subject have to be to not have that?

diabolus wrote in post #10210180
Go for the EF-S 17-55 then. I had one on my old 30D and I thought it was the perfect walkaround lens for 1.6x bodies. It's wide enough for landscape duty, and long enough for portrait work. The IS is extremely useful indoors or in low-light situations. It's the one lens I wish canon would make an EF version of...

Dang you are right IS would be nice for low light indoors. Any problems with dust? out of the three choices this was the only one with out the seals (from what i read)

Some of the reviews I read on amazon and they said they were getting dust on the inside.

I too have one of the Sigma 8-16mm WA and am just starting to use it but I haven't noticed much fish eye effect so far. I bought it for landscapes with few perfectly straight lines naturally occuring. I took a few indoors at my daughters and didn't see obvious distortion of lines like picture frames. I wanted a wide angle lens without the fish eye distortion and I feel it delivers a crisp image at its intended purpose.

The Sigma 8-16 is a rectinlinear UWA (as are the Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24 and 11-16). The Tokina 10-17 is a fisheye UWA. Hence the 8-16 will not have a "fisheye effect", although the persepctive distortion at such wide focal lengths is um...interesting

17-55 IS as an all-purpose lens plus 10-22 as an UWA lens for 7D. 17-40 and 16-35 are UWA for FF cameras. Unless you want to upgrade to FF in the future, otherwise it doesn't make sense to use 17-40 and 16-35 on crop bodies because the UW function is gong.

I would seriously consider this lense as well:

17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM

http://www.ephotozine.​com …w-lenses-from-Sigma-13022

Second lense in the article.

It is not actually out yet, but should be in the next month or two.

Sounds like it will be priced a tad below the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and since it is using Sigmas newest "nearly-Canon-L" glass it has a shot at being a better lense for a lower price. Obviously wait on the reviews and such, but if you are not buying today then it might be worth waiting for this.