Wide Angle Lens Suggestions?

JSPhotography · November 21, 2010

I want to upgrade my wide angle lens, Canon 18-55 EFs. I have purchased a couple Sigma EX lens and have been happy with them. Suggestions?

Bryans12v · November 21, 2010

This question is prob better suited for the "gear" board.

TheCheesehead · November 21, 2010

what has better IQ, the 17-40 or the 16-35?

JSPhotography · November 21, 2010

I'm using a 40D currently but I allready upgraded from an XTi and my next move will probably be full frame. I will be using it for everything it is capable of doing

. Landscapes and some interesting sports shots. I don't think I want an EFs lens due to the potential upgrade.

ThatCanonGuy · November 21, 2010

There's the Tammy 17-50 2.8, but that's crop only... you CAN use 3rd party crop lenses on bigger sensors... I used to use a crop-only Tammy on my 1DII, it's fine except for some vignetting that can be removed. Kinda a pain though, I'll second Richy and say go for a 17-40... I'd like to get that lens soon, I think the 16-35 is overpriced for what you get... haven't used it though.

System · November 21, 2010

sigma 10-20...'nuff said.

JimKarczewski · November 21, 2010

I have both the 16-35 and 17-40. Granted, my 16-35 is in 2 pieces right now (tripod tip over, oops!) but I'd take the 16-35 over the 17-40, However, if you're using a cropped sensor, I'd really look at the 10-22's that are available... unless you plan on going to FF sometime soon.

catspaw · November 22, 2010

richy wrote: »

isn't that a crop lens?

Alas. The 10-20 Siggy is dx. Otherwise a GREAT lens... If you don't have a FF.

Photometric · November 22, 2010

I have the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on the Nikon mount, but the lens itself is awesome. Very straight and super sharp. Love it.

Urban Turban · November 22, 2010

I've the 16-35 but through lack of use couldn't give on honest opinion compared to others except to say the build quality is right up there.
Oh, and some say the 16-35 is soft at its widest but on both the 5D2 & 7D I've not had this at all, even with a Pro-1 glass filter screwed in for protection.
Haven't you a local pro shop where they'd let you play for an hour or so?

JSPhotography · November 22, 2010

Urban Turban wrote: »

I've the 16-35 but through lack of use couldn't give on honest opinion compared to others except to say the build quality is right up there.
Oh, and some say the 16-35 is soft at its widest but on both the 5D2 & 7D I've not had this at all, even with a Pro-1 glass filter screwed in for protection.
Haven't you a local pro shop where they'd let you play for an hour or so?

Yes, I can go to a local shop. I worry about them selling what they have vs the best glass out there. There are so many available that I wanted to narrow down the options by gathering information.

I'm thinking I want the F2.8 for indoor work.

JimKarczewski · November 22, 2010

Urban Turban wrote: »

I've the 16-35 but through lack of use couldn't give on honest opinion compared to others except to say the build quality is right up there.
Oh, and some say the 16-35 is soft at its widest but on both the 5D2 & 7D I've not had this at all, even with a Pro-1 glass filter screwed in for protection.
Haven't you a local pro shop where they'd let you play for an hour or so?

Maybe the 16-35I, but the new 16-35II is perfect. The only reason I went from the 17-40 -> 16-35 is the extra stop of light. I was shooting weddings and needed 2.8 and my Sigma 20/1.8 is crap. So I went with the 16-35II which helped a lot in low light v the 17-40.

JSPhotography · November 22, 2010

So there is a I and a II? Differance? This is what I mean about so many options available in lenses.

Are you glad you went to the 2.8 from the 17-40? You saw enough of a differance after the fact to still feel good about making the change?

Matthew Saville · November 22, 2010

JSPhotography wrote: »

So there is a I and a II? Differance? This is what I mean about so many options available in lenses.

Are you glad you went to the 2.8 from the 17-40? You saw enough of a differance after the fact to still feel good about making the change?

The Canon 16-35 mk1 is a HORRIBLE lens for any high-res landscape photographer. The mk2 is beastly and expensive, but much sharper. The 17-40, if you don't need the extra aperture, is also very sharp when stopped down for landscapes...

HOWEVER, I want to take a minute here and think about this- What camera will you be using for your landscapes / action? A 5D mk2 eventually?

Here's my point- honestly, while I love the 5D mk2 for low-light shooting, for portraits, etc, ...I just can't bring myself to deem it a good option for action, nor adventure. I'd MUCH rather have a 7D if I were an outdoor / adventure / landscape / action photographer. Crop sensor lens offerings are just so much better for Canon, unless you have the money for the 16-35 mk2, or care to adapt the Nikon 14-24. Or I guess you could go with the Zeiss 21mm and make us all cry, but now we're getting into manual focus and strictly landscape photography.

If you shoot BOTH landscapes and action, the 7D won't let you down. It's got the resolution, and the lenses have got the sharpness. I'd take a 7D and a Tokina 11-16 ANY DAY over a 5D mk2 and a 16-35 mk2. I could make a huge landscape photo roadtrip with the money I save!

But I don't want to drag this out, I just want to make a point- Consider each cameras's strengths and weaknesses. The 7D has got speed and versatility. The 5D mk2 has got a bit of resolution and shallow depth / high ISO, but not much else. If I were a high-end portrait or wedding photographer, I'd buy a 5D mk2 in a heartbeat. (If I had to shoot Canon) But if I were an action, adventure, or nature photographer, I'd go with the 7D without hesitation.

Oh, and BTW, the Tokina 11-16 2.8 works GREAT on the 5D mk2 at 16mm. Since it's not a Canon EF-S lens, there's no problem in the mounting. I just met another photographer who does this with great results. Stopped down even the extreme corners are pretty decent, much better than the 16-35 mk1 at least. SO as long as you're cool with having a 16mm "prime" lens on full-frame, when you absolutely need it, I'd say the 7D+5D mk2 + Tokina 11-16 is by far the best wide-angle setup that you can get for Canon. 8 FPS and 11mm when you need it, or 16mm and high ISO etc. when you need it.

Good luck deciding!
=Matt=

JSPhotography · November 22, 2010

OK, did some checking now that I'm informed about the 16-35 I and II. The II is not going to happen. Out of my price range. Last post says the I is no good. Now where do we go from here with the II off the table.

ziggy53 · November 22, 2010

The Canon EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM MK-I is not that abysmal. The center is pretty good even wide open but the edges are a little soft and especially corners are soft on a FF camera. It is better at f4 and extremely nice at f5.6. On a crop camera it is just dandy.

Best review and image samples here (including resolution samples):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The model II review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM is similar to the 16-35mm at the same apertures.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I wound up purchasing the 17-40L because I rarely use the lens wide open and I never use it in circumstances where the f4 aperture is a problem (or where f2.8 would be a solution).

You have a crop 1.6x/APS-C body and you wish to replace the kit lens. The Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is a fantastic standard zoom for your 40D body. If/when you do decide to go FF you can recoup most of your investment selling the lens, but in the meantime you would have use of one of the finest standard zooms available. This lens would be my recommendation and I have this same combination of 40D camera and 17-55mm, f2.8 lens and I love it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

ThatCanonGuy · November 22, 2010

OK, you CAN use 3rd party crop lenses on 1.3x, probly FF too. At least with Tamron. I've got a bunch of suggestions that you can afford:
crop lenses:
Sigma 10-20
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Canon 10-22 (can only use on 1.6x)

FF lenses:
Canon 17-40
Canon 17-35 2.8. Anybody looked at this? It can be had for about the price of a 17-40 f/4. Don't know much about it.

catspaw · November 23, 2010

I *will* state that the Sigma 10-20 holds it value very well - I have consistently seen them in the $400-450 range used for the last TWO years. Which means it's easy to buy one ( when you can find one ) and sell it when you move to full frame. Little cost to you, presuming you can keep the condition ++

considering it will probably be a year or so before you go to a full frame? (not certain, just guestimating) I really would encourage you in that direction. It's easily one of the easiest lenses to re-sell. It's popular because it IS good. Just DX.

JSPhotography · January 10, 2011

Just ran across a Canon 20-35 2.8 L and a Sigma 10-20 f2.8 DC HSM EX series . Comments?

Oh, and in regards to the camera upgrade, I stuck with a crop and picked me up a 7D, love it so far.

denisegoldberg · January 10, 2011

JSPhotography wrote: »

Just ran across a Canon 20-35 2.8 L and a Sigma 10-20 f2.8 DC HSM EX series . Comments?

I wouldn't be happy with 20 as the low end of a wide-angle lens on a crop body camera.

Can't speak to the Sigma, but I've been very happy with my Canon 10-22. I know that lens isn't in your list, but just for comparison. (I'm also shooting a 7D.)

--- Denise

piolet_rampe · January 10, 2011

I recently bought the Tokina 11-16mm for Canon APS-C. I think I got a deal for about $580 or so a couple months ago. It is a nice fast lens at f2.8. So far no complaints.