Back with questions: Canon Wide Zoom Lenses

boulderNardo

Well, here I am, back and ready to get some new glass!
Got some *GREAT* advice here so far regarding what to buy a few weeks ago and ended up buying:

o Used Canon 20D in AWESOME condition - I love it!
o Used Canon 70-200 f/2.8L also in great condition
o Used Canon 30/2

Have been shooting lots of photos already, unfortunately since I'm back in Florida for a few months I'm not taking as many panoramic shots as I would like - I prefer Colorado panoramas than Florida!

Anyhow, I'm now looking to get one or two more pieces of glass between now and 2 weeks down the road as I am expanding my photography budget My focal-length-of-interest is super-wide to wide, anywhere between 10mm and 30mm, and my budget between 0 and ~$1k.

First off, what I'd like to know is whether the focal length cited on lenses that are only for crop bodies is an actual focal length (i.e. I have to apply the crop factor to it), or whether it's an effective focal length.

I'm looking at the following lenses:

o Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
o Tamron 11-18 f/4.5-5.6
o Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6
o Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 had been recommended here by some and it seems to be a good lens, despite being a crop-body lens. Any other lenses recommended!? I've been looking a lot on Adorama and B&H but can't find anything by Canon in the Super-Wide range?!

I'll be visiting home in December (christmas in Florence and Rome) and want to be shooting a lot of architectural photography, but I would also like lenses capable of great panoramic shots.

Thanks again everybody!

DJ-S1

The Canon EF-S 10-22 is a very nice lens, pricey but you can get a used one for $900+.

Yes, you have to multiply any lens' stated focal length by 1.6 for your camera.

sirsloop

900!!!??!? They are around $700-725 w/ a hood...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351542-GREY/Canon_9518A002_EF_S_10_22mm_f_3_5_4_5_USM.html

I use the Canon 10-22 and love it. Some say the Sigma is just as good... never used it so i cannot compare.

pathfinder

B&H sells the Canon 17-40 f4 "L" for $679 - great lens, and one of the cheaper of the "L" lenses. Not as wide as the 10-22, but useful for a full frame body someday also.

It retains its resale value well also.

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di is another great value - nice range, and great price.

DJ-S1

sirsloop wrote:

900!!!??!? They are around $700-725 w/ a hood...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351542-GREY/Canon_9518A002_EF_S_10_22mm_f_3_5_4_5_USM.html

Yep -mixing my lenses up - used is in the low $600's (at least mine was). My bad-

sirsloop

The difference between 10mm and 17mm us pretty amazing. Heck, difference between 10 and 12 is amazing. If you want ultrawide is pays to get one that goes to 10mm. That would be canon or sigma.

boulderNardo

I was looking at the EF-S 10-22 but was kinda afraid of a cheap EF-S plastic build. Not sure about image quality. Anyhow, the EF-S is for crop-bodies only - what can I get that I will be able to use on a full-frame body in the not-so-distant future? The Sigma 10-20 seems to be compatible with full-frame bodies - how does the image quality compare to the Canon EF-S 10/20?

I was also looking at the slightly longer Canon L lenses mentioned above, and am really tempted, but I do want the extra angle that I get from a Super-Wide like the 10-20s... Guess it's a different lens and I could get both.

Thanks again everybody, great help!

cmason

Putting my vote in for the Sigma 10-20...great lens, EX tank-like build quality, and it is HSM, so it is a silent, and fast focus. Really like this lens, and its about $200 less than the Canon, plus is capable of working on full-frame bodies.

Here is a sample, but unfortunately I added some vignetting for artistic purposes...




here is a photo that does not contain the vignetting

ziggy53

The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC may "mount" onto a full-frame camera, but it won't fill the frame. It is designed for crop cameras.

The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG is the only ultrawide designed for full-frame that I know of, and 12mm on full-frame is indeed extremely wide.

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10-20mmEX.htm
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/12-24mm.htm

The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC is considerably better for crop cameras than the 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG because the 12-24mm has some compromises in resolution in order to accomodate the larger format.

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is one of those lenses that does not test quite as well for resolution as the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC in many tests, but it still produces images that appear to be as good, so those two seem equivalent. The Canon does appear to be more consistant in quality control than the Sigma.

claudermilk

I have to say that's an unusual lineup of lenses to consider for UWA zooms. The big dogs, and constant opponents there are the Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5 and Tokina 12-24/4. Pretty much all the web reviews put those two at the top of the heap. Optics are equal, it's just price, focal range, and build that differentiates them. Run a search for many enthusiastic discussions. :uhoh I prefer the Tokina & that's what is in my bag.

Ah, just noticed the "I'm moving to Full Frame someday" requirement. In that case, your choice is easy as there isn't a choice. The Sigma 12-24 is it.

sirsloop

lol... the good ol moving to FF "someday" requirement

If thats really the case you'll want stop monkeying around with plastic 10-22s and tokina whatchamacallits and just put a 16-35L II in your bag...

boulderNardo

very true ... I have to reconsider how much I truly want to move to FF and how soon it can happen.

In any case, I like the 16-35 f/2.8L! Might just as well get that one... little on the pricey side though. Thanks again!

System

claudermilk wrote:

I have to say that's an unusual lineup of lenses to consider for UWA zooms. The big dogs, and constant opponents there are the Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5 and Tokina 12-24/4. Pretty much all the web reviews put those two at the top of the heap. Optics are equal, it's just price, focal range, and build that differentiates them. Run a search for many enthusiastic discussions. :uhoh I prefer the Tokina & that's what is in my bag.

There's a pretty extensive comparison here:
http://www.e-fotografija.si/templates/?a=1049&z=93

And you're right, they are pretty similar.

TristanP

For all crop-sensor-specific lenses, the FL listed is the actual in 35mm terms, but your effective FL is that times 1.6 (for Canons) on a crop-sensor body. Yes, the 10-22 on a 20/30/40D is about the same as a 16-35 on a 5D. I don't really worry about 35mm equivalence anymore, I just know how the FL relate to each other. UWA is 10/12 to 20-ish. Wide is 16-ish to 50-ish. Each has type has its' use. The 100-400 is longer than the 70-300, but I don't do any calculations in my head to think that "ok, this lens will actually be a 160-640" when I point it at motorcycles. Maybe that's because I haven't touched a 35mm SLR since early college. You do what works for you.

I've said this before, but worry about the future in the future. Get now what you'll use now. Sell it in the future if there are compatibility issues. Or, rent several and find out if that's really what you need/want. I had the 10-22 for a week on my 20D and loved it. Can I afford it? Not really, but I can rent it any time I know I'll need it for just a fraction.

boulderNardo

... I'm ready to buy, but undecided between a few choices. I don't want to spend $1.5k for a 16-35 MkII right now, so I'm lost between the

canon EF-S 10-22
canon EF 17-40 f/4 L

I know they're different lenses with different purposes. I mostly want to photograph architecture (in Rome and Florence soon!!!) and landscapes, and I don't know how much difference there is betwen 10mm and 17mm on a crop-body. And I guess it's just something I have to feel myself, maybe try both lenses out somehow.

Thanks,
B

ziggy53

I suggest you forget about the full-frame lenses for now, and concentrate on the job at hand, which is to prepare for the trip abroad.

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro is a very decent wide to moderate telephoto. I have the non-Macro version and I have no intentions of replacing it just yet. Yes I'm pretty picky and yes, I use it for paying events. It's that good. The "macro" version adds close focus to around 8 inches (not a true macro, but they claim around 1/3 life size which is pretty good.) You should be able to pick up a copy for under $400 USD.

The Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD is similar, with potentially better quality control, but can't focus quite as close as the Sigma. Still it is a bargain lens compared to the Canon equivalent.

Likewise the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM is a bargain superwide lens. The tests on this lens show that good ones do present a value option to the Canon superwide.

The Tamron SP AF 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di-II LD IF and Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4 PRO DX are also value priced compared to the Canon equivalent.

You should be able to get a superwide zoom for less than $500 USD.

I am only suggesting that if you chose wisely, you can fulfill a tremendous breadth of focal lengths without breaking the bank.

All of these lenses hold their value pretty well so you should not see too much loss if you decide to go full-frame, plus you will have had the use of the lenses in between and, hopefully, some incedible images as well. Isn't that the point?

boulderNardo

Great post Ziggy, thank you very much for setting me straight.
You're absolutely right, the point it to have a lens that I can use NOW with my current setup to take great pictures.

I've considered all of the lenses you have listed and will reconsider them again. I see you don't recommend the Canon 10-20 over the much cheaper Sigma or Tamron... I will strongly consider the first two lenses you mention, and buy either one if I find a good used one.

thanks again.
bernardo

rpcrowe

I also prefer the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 ATX
I use this lens in conjunction with a 24-70mm f/2.8L and a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens, so the Tokina is in some pretty exclusive company and is able to more than hold its own against the IQ of the two "L" lenses.

Like all Tokina lenses, the 12-24mm is built like a tank!

This isn't a good lens for the price, it is a great lens period! However, the fact that you can get this lens with a really nice hood included for about $500 makes it IMO a pretty nice bargain.

BTW 10mm is quite a bit wider than 12mm but:
1. 12mm seems plenty wide enough for me
2. there seems to be less distortion at 12mm than at 10mm
3. the constant f/4 aperture of the Tokina is nice also

Roman Johnson has some spectacular images, many of them shot with the 12-24mm Tokina, in his galleries at:

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos

Roman's work sold me on the Tokina and I have been happy with it ever since...

ShebaJo

I also have a 20d. I was shooting in the mountains yesterday, came home knowing I need to get either the Canon 10-20, or the Sigma 10-22. Shooting landscapes with 17 is just not wide enough.

I also want to get a 5d (or what follows it), but will keep my 20d as backup, so having a wide lens specific to it will be good... imo.

jdryan3

If you could, look at your shots from out west or borrow an UWA and just go out shooting. Why? When your done look at the EXIF and see just how wide the 'typical shots' were.

I was in Phoenix about 9 months ago, Santa Fe 6 months ago and Zion/NR Grand Canyon 3 months ago. Lottsa great vistas and landscapes. And it was amazing how often my shots were in the 24/28mm, occasionally 20mm range. Even with extra space all the way around to allow for cropping if necesary.

I did have a few below 20 where I was way up close to a rock edge and shooting down along the edge. Like 10 out of 1400 images. More often than not, if I wanted REALLY wide, I had the camera on a tripod and did multi-shot panos.

YMMV but see if your style of shooting requires an UWA (or do you just want it in your bag). By the way I use a FF 5D so 24mm=24mm. The worse part is literally a week or so after I discovered this, Andy started his modified 24mm T/S is the greatest lens ever thread. His pix seem to back him up.
And I thought I was done with lenses for a while but.... :lol :lol

rpcrowe

W/A Shots Vs. Stitched Pano's
IMO often wide angle shots of our Western vistas (CA, AZ, NM, UT and CO for example) are pretty darn boring... Far too much sky and uninteresting foreground. I do however, like shots with W/A lenses that include a significant and interesting object/subject in the foreground.

I often prefer stitched pano's using longer focal lengths for this type of shooting.

Here is a thread with a very good example of the improvement that a stitched pano can give over a single W/A shot (although this is not the Western USA).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=17572474

Here is a link to Max Lyons' galleries with some very excellent pano's, many of which are of my Western U.S.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html

Additionally, shooting with a longer lens will compress distances in the image, often resulting in a more interesting picture.

boulderNardo

Reading too much is bad!!! Looking at reviews of various lenses I've now brought two more into the list of choices and am swamped again.

Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

The L lens is not exactly ultra-wide or even average wide when used on a crop body, but I guess at 24mm it's already much wider than the widest lens I own and it is (according to many reviews) a great walk-around all-day lens. I absolutely love the 2.8 aperture of my 70-200 and that's a factor I now have to consider.

The EF-S 17-55 seems to be a very interesting lens - according to many reviews also an excellent walk-around lens, it's just as fast as the L lens, plus it has IS, AND it get really wide, even on a crop-body.

I'm now going to waste some more time comparing the two, but I'm *somewhat* leaning towards buying the 24-70 2.8L and the EF-S 10-22 in two successive steps.

Bernardo

cmason

You may wish to hold these in person...the 24-70 is a wonderful lens, but it is HUGE. The EF-S lens is , much smaller and more 'totable', IMHO.

boulderNardo

cmason wrote:

You may wish to hold these in person...the 24-70 is a wonderful lens, but it is HUGE. The EF-S lens is , much smaller and more 'totable', IMHO.

thanks for the hint, but I don't mind huge lenses. I have no problems holding my 70-200 2.8 for seriously extended periods of time, and I can't imagine the 24-70 to be heavier. I'm a strong guy

nonetheless, I would love to hold it in my hands first - the problem is, there's but one good camera store in the area with really odd hours.

Oh and since I'm here already... was wondering, if I do get the 24-70. Would it make sense to have the 35/2 and/or the 50 1.8, does the L lens' quality surpass that of a non-L prime, or do the primes still have the upper hand (I *know*, they're faster...).

claudermilk

You are now looking at different tools for a different job. I have both the Tokina 12-24 and Canon 24-70. Their use really doesn't overlap--which is why I have both. Oh, and they share bag space with the 70-200/2.8, makes a very nice versatile trilogy.

The 24-70 is no heavier than the 70-200/2.8, so you will have no trouble with it. I use mine as a walk-around with no issues. I also keep my 50/1.8; it's a nice lightweight lens, so is easy to toss in the bag. It has a different look to it, and has that 1 1/3 stop advantage for really dark shots. I'm looking at adding the 35/2 in the future. Just looked at photozone, and surprisingly the resolution results are within 5% at f4 and over (it's 11% at f2.8--the zoom suffers there). So for all intents the 24-70 is at prime sharpness.

boulderNardo

clauder, as usual great comments, thanks again!
I'm pretty much decided to go with the 24-70 2.8L and then get one of the cheaper (as compared to Canon EF-S 10-22) UWA's by Sigma or Tokina.

I'm definitely going to keep my 50/1.8 and 35/2 - I've shot several portaits with the 50 and a few close-ups with the 35 and I love the IQ of those lenses. Cheap and light they will barely make a difference in the camera bag, but will make a big difference in the photographs I take.

thanks again!

boulderNardo

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!

I tried the 24-70 yesterday at a local photo store. B-E-A-utiful lens, simply amazed by its resolving ability, great feel, great handling, great quality, GREAT PRICE for what it is honestly.

BUT - as a walkaround, all-purpose lens, the 24-70 on my crop-body seems just a tiny bit too 'normal' on the wide end. So I'm back, strongly considering the 17-55 2.8 IS again! Especially now since B&H has a $75-Off coupon for that lens. MHHHHHH very tempting. Only problem, I didn't get to try the 17-55 since they were out of stock at the local store.

What's you guys' feeling? I'm sure some of you have used both lenses - which one is the better walkaround lens on a crop body. Walkaround including: family group portraits, some architecture, some flora macro closeups, (candid) street photography...

Ahh, decisions, decisions... Maybe I'll just rent the 17-55 for a weekend and try it out for myself. My only concern with that one is the still long'ish wide-end, and the overlap in focal lengths if paired with a 10-22 to get the full UWA range. Love the idea of f/2.8 WITH IS though

ziggy53

17-55mm is a wonderful range for general photography and my most used range on a crop 1.6x camera.

Macro, not so much. If you want a true macro, you need another lens, or a digicam P&S. They make great devices for field work close focus imaging.