Best wide angle for Rebel XTI?

Dogdots

I've been wondering whats the best wide angle lens for my XTI. I do want the lens to be able to be used on a 5D as I'm hoping that will be my next camera

I have looked at the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L. I'm not a math person on figuring out how that crops to my camera. Maybe someone can help me out.

Its spendie, but I have the 24-105L and I'm in love with the L's. Not good

Also on my camera what does the crop factor come out to with the 24-105?

Any suggestions would be helpful in my decision making since my hubby is looking for something to get me for the holidays

Dogdots/Mary

TylerW

The 17-40mm f/4L and 16-35mm f/2.8L are both great lenses, but aren't extremely wide angle like you may be looking for. I live my 17-40 and its a fantastic walkaround on a crop body, but you may be looking for something a little more extreme.

On another note, Sigma has a 12-40mm f/4.5-5.6 lens which does work on full frame bodies as well as crops. it is quite wide even on a crop body and on a full frame, its almost delirium-inducing. I swore I could see my ears through the viewfinder.

cmason

I have been very happy with the Sigma 10-20 EX HSM.

B&H linky

noced

Dogdots wrote:

I have looked at the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L. I'm not a math person on figuring out how that crops to my camera. Maybe someone can help me out.

25.6mm-56mm

Dogdots wrote:

Also on my camera what does the crop factor come out to with the 24-105?

38.4mm-168mm


Another option, though not an L series, is the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 (effective 16mm-35.2mm):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

denisegoldberg

cmason wrote:

I have been very happy with the Sigma 10-20 EX HSM.

B&H linky

Careful, this lens won't work on a full frame body. I really like my Canon 10-20 lens too, so I agree with you that the 10-20 is a great option - but Dogdots said she wants to be able to use the lens on a 5D.

--- Denise

cmason

denisegoldberg wrote:

Careful, this lens won't work on a full frame body. I really like my Canon 10-20 lens too, so I agree with you that the 10-20 is a great option - but Dogdots said she wants to be able to use the lens on a 5D.

--- Denise

I understand that fully. BUT....wide is VERY different on an XTI vs a 5D. You either give up the wide on the XTI for the ability to use on your 5D, or you get a lens that meets today's needs.

If you go with a lens for the 5D, you will not enjoy very wide capabilities on your XTI. Buy a used 10-20, and sell it when you get your 5D

So:
10mm on a 5D is 10mm, but it is 16mm on a XTI
16mm on a 5D, but it is 26mm on the XTI
24mm on a 5D is 38mm on the XTI

Tommyboy

The 10-22 Canon is a great lens and is pretty affordable, relatively speaking. Think about getting this for your XTi and leaving it on there when you get a 5D. Then you can just use your 24-105 on a 5D or whatever.

You're not going to get anything substantially wider than the 24-105 that will work on the 5D without spending $$$$. If you are going to buy a lens and a 5d anyway, the above scenario is fairly affordable, unless you were planning to dump the XTi.

Just my 0.02, and the way I would go. Good luck!

denisegoldberg

cmason wrote:

I understand that fully. BUT....wide is VERY different on an XTI vs a 5D. You either give up the wide on the XTI for the ability to use on your 5D, or you get a lens that meets today's needs.

If you go with a lens for the 5D, you will not enjoy very wide capabilities on your XTI. Buy a used 10-20, and sell it when you get your 5D

So:
10mm on a 5D is 10mm, but it is 16mm on a XTI
16mm on a 5D, but it is 26mm on the XTI
24mm on a 5D is 38mm on the XTI

Agreed - I just wanted to make sure that Dogdots understood your recommendation.

I went through the same logic before I bought my 10-20 lens. I wanted the wide lens on the XT, and I decided that buying the lens for my current needs made more sense (for me) than planning for a camera that I might never buy.

--- Denise

two slow

I'm not to well versed on canon gear but doesn't the sigma 12-24 work in both bodyies well? I now on nikon it will work on full frame and the DX sensor.

rpcrowe

17-40l
I don't really ;like this lens on a 1.6x body because it is not wide enough. However 17mm is great on a full frame camera. In fact, the whole range 17mm to 40mm is wide for a full framer.

Scott_Quier

Here's an idea - think a little outside the box you are painting for your self. What I mean is it might be a better choice to get good quality glass for the machine you have now. Then, when (and if) you upgrade to the 5D (or the 5D II when/if it comes out), sell the EF-S glass at a slight loss and press on.

If you will consider that route, you will find the EF-S 10-22 to be a very sweet lens that will fill your needs now. When it comes time to sell, you will find that the market for that lens will be equally sweet - I know, I just consulted my crystal ball on that (the crystal ball is more accurate than the magic 8 ball ).

claudermilk

For UWA ona crop camera, the 10-22 is one of the top. Tokina's 12-24 is the other (and the one I prefer). However these are moot considering your requirements. So that leaves the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 at $689 @ B&H. That's the only option for UWA zoom on FF.

PrescottPhotog

Dogdots wrote:

I've been wondering whats the best wide angle lens for my XTI. Dogdots/Mary

Hi Mary.. I have the Tokina 12-24 which I bought for my XTI, it is a very nice lens. When I bought my Mark III (1.3 vs 1.6 sensor) I emailed Tokina and they said the lens works on the Mark III but I would get some cut off at the edges because of the different sensor on the 12 mm side.

I tried it on my Mark III and it cuts off very little on the wide open side (very little), none on the zoom side.

I know the 5D is a full sensor but I thought I would post this for others that might have or want to look at the Tokina 12-24 lens.

Dogdots

Oh my......so many ideas. I just checked on the lenses at Amazon and BH. The Canon 10-22 and 17-40L are almost the same price And the Canon 16-35L is $1,349 on BH :cry . Which I just won't pay......Uff Da.

I see what your all saying about getting the lens for the camera I have now. It just makes so much sense. And I will be keeping my XTI for the hubby to use. So he could use the 10-22 on the Rebel and I can beg and plead for the Canon 5d with a 16-35 lens ----but.....if I did get the 5d there must be a better wide angle lens then the 16-35 for the camera. Is there? How wide can one go with out getting the fish eye?

The prairie where I live is so vast and I really want to capture the vastness of it with a good wide angle. ---When I started taking photos for my hobby I thought I would never take a landscape photo and the 24-105 was all I needed.

I have looked at the Tokina lenses in advertisements. I have never heard anything about them on Canon cameras, etc. What do some of the canon users out there think?

Just another added question...if anyone here doesn't mind as I think it might apply to my original question---but probably not. I took a photo yesterday with my 70-300 lens of a wild turkey. Such a pretty bird Anyway I saw the whole bird in my viewfinder, but after I checked my shot the bird was cut off somewhat. I tried it again and the same thing happened. Am if moving the camera when I click it or is it the lens. I remember with a point and shoot I had if you looked thru the viewfinder and took the shoot it was different in set up vs looking thru the LCD screen to take the shot.

Thank you everyone
Dogdots/Mary

Dogdots

PrescottPhotog wrote:

Hi Mary.. I have the Tokina 12-24 which I bought for my XTI, it is a very nice lens. When I bought my Mark III (1.3 vs 1.6 sensor) I emailed Tokina and they said the lens works on the Mark III but I would get some cut off at the edges because of the different sensor on the 12 mm side.

I tried it on my Mark III and it cuts off very little on the wide open side (very little), none on the zoom side.

I know the 5D is a full sensor but I thought I would post this for others that might have or want to look at the Tokina 12-24 lens.

Hi..

Could you post a photo using this lens on your XTI? I would love to see how it works.

Dogdots/Mary

ziggy53

Dogdots wrote:

....if I did get the 5d there must be a better wide angle lens then the 16-35 for the camera. Is there? How wide can one go with out getting the fish eye?
...
Dogdots/Mary

Mary,

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is an absolutely superb lens. Sigma makes a wider lens that fits full-frame cameras, the 12mm-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM, but it does not have the resolution or color of the Canon.

If you assume that a 50mm lens is "normal" for a full frame 35mm format camera, indeed it is called the "standard" focal length. then a 16mm focal length is already 3 times as wide as normal. The Sigma lens is indeed pushing it, and the Sigma is unique and without competition (for now).

Super-wide and ultra-wide zoom lenses are relatively recent creations, and considered impossible not that many years ago.

Remember that as a lens' focal length shortens, it should require the rear element to be closer to the film plane/focal plane. That seems fine until you remember that there is a mirror flipping up and a shutter that has to be cleared as well. It wasn't until lens designers developed an "optic relay" that allowed super-wide and ultra-wide lenses to even be mounted on a 35mm camera.

We live in a wonderful time, photographically speaking.

pathfinder

If one's desire is to shoot wide angle landscapes of the prairie, do you really need an ultra-wide angle, or would you be better off with a good tripod and pano clamp, and learn to shoot multi-frame panos, which will be sharper and more detailed than any single frame ultra wide angle shot?

Just thinking outside the box here.

Dogdots

ziggy53 wrote:

Mary,

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is an absolutely superb lens. Sigma makes a wider lens that fits full-frame cameras, the 12mm-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM, but it does not have the resolution or color of the Canon.

If you assume that a 50mm lens is "normal" for a full frame 35mm format camera, indeed it is called the "standard" focal length. then a 16mm focal length is already 3 times as wide as normal. The Sigma lens is indeed pushing it, and the Sigma is unique and without competition (for now).

Super-wide and ultra-wide zoom lenses are relatively recent creations, and considered impossible not that many years ago.

Remember that as a lens' focal length shortens, it should require the rear element to be closer to the film plane/focal plane. That seems fine until you remember that there is a mirror flipping up and a shutter that has to be cleared as well. It wasn't until lens designers developed an "optic relay" that allowed super-wide and ultra-wide lenses to even be mounted on a 35mm camera.

We live in a wonderful time, photographically speaking.

What is the difference between the super-wide and ultra-wide?

The Sigma may have a wider lens but to give up on somethings to get the wider photo----That isn't good even to gain something.

Dang...I knew I should have just gotten the 5d in the beginning, but didn't know if I would really like photography or want to get to deep into it.

But is there really a difference in the 16-35 and the 17-40? If it were on a 5d? Because there sure is a difference in the price. I'm just looking at the 16/17 numbers.

Dogdots/Mary

mr peas

If this question was asked 3-4 years ago, I would have said that go with the 16-35 and 17-40 glass because 5Ds are much better than the crop-bodied predecessors back in those days (e.g. D60, 10D.. etc), however, today, the crop-body cameras are just as good as the 5D, if not better in some ways. I highly doubt crop-body cameras will go away anytime soon, look at how many people buy them!

I hit this point as well, choosing to sell my good ol' XT to get a 5D. But I picked up a Canon 10-22mm lens instead, which is similar to a 17-40L in terms of glass elements, it is said that it is L-quality without the branding for crop-body cameras.

It works extremely well. If anything, when I used a 17-40 on a film/full sensor camera, there was more distortion to take notice of than there was on the Canon 10-22 on an XT/20d..etc body.

If I were you, I would look for reviews of the Canon 10-22 lens, 16-35L, 17-40L, etc etc. It sounds like you have not yet done your homework on it. Then if you truly feel the need to upgrade to a 5D and have the cash to do it, then do it. But in my opinion, the Canon 10-22mm lens is perfect for you and your XTi. They're on sale at BH right now as we speak for just over $600 dollars. Its the latest glass I've bought for myself and I have not yet regret buying it. The difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 is that 1 extra mm of coverage (which is negligible because honestly, you can afford to take 1 step back to recover that 1mm) and the difference in aperture abilities: 16-35 can go as low as F2.8 whereas the 17-40 can go as low as F4. The 16-35 also has an extra glass element, but remember the huge price difference as well.

Do your homework, go to stores try stuff out and ask yourself, do you really need to spend the extra few thousand dollars on a larger sensor when you can spend the same amount of money on more lenses, flashes, etc.?

Wish you all the luck.

ziggy53

Dogdots wrote:

What is the difference between the super-wide and ultra-wide? ...

Those are names that, to some degree, are just made up. If you assume that a "wide angle lens" is about 2x normal field-of-view (FOV), I suggest that a "super-wide" zoom should be approximately 3x normal FOV (at the widest) and that an "ultra-wide" should be approximately 4x normal FOV.

Dogdots wrote:

...

The Sigma may have a wider lens but to give up on somethings to get the wider photo----That isn't good even to gain something.

...

Always purchase according to your needs. The Sigma 12mm-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM is a very nice lens, just not as nice as the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. It's always a compromise somehow.

Dogdots wrote:

...

Dang...I knew I should have just gotten the 5d in the beginning, but didn't know if I would really like photography or want to get to deep into it.

...

The Canon 5D has pros and cons, just like anything. I have decided that the 5D is not what I want, so I likely will never have one.

Dogdots wrote:

...

But is there really a difference in the 16-35 and the 17-40? If it were on a 5d? Because there sure is a difference in the price. I'm just looking at the 16/17 numbers.

Dogdots/Mary

The Canon EF 17-40mm, f/4L USM is what I chose for my Canon 1D MKII, for my wide angle lens. It's a great lens and a real value. It does not have f2.8 and the corners are just a bit soft at f4, so the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is still a considerable upgrade and someday I will have one.

I have limited monetary resources like most people and so I have purchase priorities, like most people.

claudermilk

Away shooting for hte weekend...

I own the Tokina and chose as for me it was the best overall package. It produces excellent images & is a joy to use.

The Tokina will physically mount on any body (Canon's is an EF-S and only mounts on 20D/30D/40D and Rebels)--but it will vignette at wider zoom settings on the 1.3 and FF bodies as has been mentioned. For those bodies, AFAIK Sigma's 12-24 is the only option in that focal range that works on everything.

Dogdots

mr peas wrote:

If I were you, I would look for reviews of the Canon 10-22 lens, 16-35L, 17-40L, etc etc. It sounds like you have not yet done your homework on it. Then if you truly feel the need to upgrade to a 5D and have the cash to do it, then do it. But in my opinion, the Canon 10-22mm lens is perfect for you and your XTi. They're on sale at BH right now as we speak for just over $600 dollars. Its the latest glass I've bought for myself and I have not yet regret buying it. The difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 is that 1 extra mm of coverage (which is negligible because honestly, you can afford to take 1 step back to recover that 1mm) and the difference in aperture abilities: 16-35 can go as low as F2.8 whereas the 17-40 can go as low as F4. The 16-35 also has an extra glass element, but remember the huge price difference as well.

Do your homework, go to stores try stuff out and ask yourself, do you really need to spend the extra few thousand dollars on a larger sensor when you can spend the same amount of money on more lenses, flashes, etc.?

Wish you all the luck.

You are so right - I haven't done my homework. I usually do.

Now I have done many hours of looking things up and while I have read reviews, seen photos with the lenses I'm interested in and I have even checked out cameras----I"m still in the mode.

I see the 17-40 as a sweet lens. I see the 5d only good for landscapes and wouldn't really help me with my telephoto animal photos. Which I really love to do.

I also see the 10-22 as a good lens, but I do have some doubt on it.

My conclusion is the 5d would be great for the lonesome prairie here in ND with the 17-40 lens and my 24-105 would shine on it. But for getting the eagle or hawk photo with my telephoto the XTI would do a better job. And if I'm going to just have the XTI I can go either way, but the 10-22 would be better suitied for it as it would give me more "wide" so to speak, but alittle harder to work with. If I'm wrong in any of this or have interrupted it wrong please let me know.

While doing my checking around I found this interesting http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx The shading in the crop factor. This is why I lost the rear end of the
Turkey

I am heading to the store today and see what I can try out on my camra. I hoping they have a Tokina, the 10-22 and I know they won't have the 17-40---they never carry those buggers.

Dogdot/Mary

Foochar

Dogdots wrote:

While doing my checking around I found this interesting http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx The shading in the crop factor. This is why I lost the rear end of the
Turkey
Dogdot/Mary

Mary,
I don't think crop factor is why you lost part of the turkey, as the crop factor is reflected in what you see in the viewfinder as well. That is one of the major benefits of the a (D)SLR. If anything the viewfinder may not cover 100% of what the sensor/film will see, but you should not see more in the viewfinder than you would see in the image. I think a more likely reason is that you were probably shooting at a very high zoom level, especially since wild turkey's aren't known for being an animal that will let you get close. Assuming you were shooting at your max zoom of 300mm it would not take much motion on either your part or that of the turkey for part of him/her to end up out of the frame.

mr peas

The 10-22mm on an XTi is equivalent to a 16-35mm on a 5D.

When mounting a telephoto such as a 70-200mm, on an XTi, it only gives you the appearance that its covering a longer range than the 5D, but in reality, the 5D covers the same area as the XTi but more still cover more image space than it would on that XTi if you were to use both cameras from the same position and at the same zoom lenght; giving it a 'shorter' zoom lenght appearance when taken in comparison.

I dont know how the Canon 10-22mm would make it 'harder' for you, technically it would make it easier because you wont have to buy another body and another lens just to cover the same wide coverage as you would with a 5D and a 16-35mm or 17-40mm. You can do both wide angles and telephotos with that good ol' XTi of yours. You don't need to spend an extra $1.5k on another body.

Honestly I think you're way too busy thinking about what gear you can have when you should be more worried about how many hours you can put in at the moment and learn with what you have on you. You can shoot wide with that 10-22mm now and shoot telephoto with the zoom lens.

If you stay with that camera, you can even spend extra doe on a nice Canon flash, a nice bag (ahem.. Crumpler for example), software (Adobe Lightroom is a nice cheapy at around $200 bucks), and be out there shooting already. I would also invest on books, magazines, etc. to learn more about photography and shooting as much as you can now to get that 'eye' for things. And also investing on an online cataloging website, such as Smugmug is a good idea so you can showcase your photos.

Plus.. who says you cant buy the 5D later on? You can easily resell that Canon 10-22 for 5-15% less than what you paid for so its like you just rented it. You talk as if the 5D is a magic-box that automatically takes super-duper-photos, when you should remember, the camera is only as good as the photographer using it.

BUT.. then again, I did just realize you have a 24-105L which costs a pretty penny alone. But remember, there is a big difference between 16mm and 24mm on a full-sensor body. Once you get your 5D you may just realize that your 24mm still isn't enough to cover super wide areas. By that time, you would have already spent another 600-1k dollars on a wide angle + 1.7k on a 5D, thats a good 2.5k-3k dollars you've spent already...when you could have just bought the Canon 10-22mm and covered everything you need plus have a really nice 24-105mm for a walk around lens. Heck, you'll have extra cash on you to buy a nice Canon BG-E3 grip for the XTi too, best bang for the buck to makes the camera larger for grip and give you a vertical shutter release as well.

chopsky

On an XTI? Without question the 10-22.
Best wide-angle for the XTi.

Dogdots

Foochar wrote:

Mary,
I don't think crop factor is why you lost part of the turkey, as the crop factor is reflected in what you see in the viewfinder as well. That is one of the major benefits of the a (D)SLR. If anything the viewfinder may not cover 100% of what the sensor/film will see, but you should not see more in the viewfinder than you would see in the image. I think a more likely reason is that you were probably shooting at a very high zoom level, especially since wild turkey's aren't known for being an animal that will let you get close. Assuming you were shooting at your max zoom of 300mm it would not take much motion on either your part or that of the turkey for part of him/her to end up out of the frame.

Thank you for the answer to my problem with the turkey. I just checked my photos and yep....I was open to 300 and I was the one that moved because the Turkey was in the right of my frame heading towards the left and I losts his tail feathers. I was compensating for a Turkey moving and the bugger didn't move

Your so correct. Wild Turkeys don't let you get very close. One thing that amazed me is that in the sun they let me closer, but in the shade they moved away quicker

Thanks---

Dogdots/Mary

Dogdots

mr peas wrote:

The 10-22mm on an XTi is equivalent to a 16-35mm on a 5D.

When mounting a telephoto such as a 70-200mm, on an XTi, it only gives you the appearance that its covering a longer range than the 5D, but in reality, the 5D covers the same area as the XTi but more still cover more image space than it would on that XTi if you were to use both cameras from the same position and at the same zoom lenght; giving it a 'shorter' zoom lenght appearance when taken in comparison.

I dont know how the Canon 10-22mm would make it 'harder' for you, technically it would make it easier because you wont have to buy another body and another lens just to cover the same wide coverage as you would with a 5D and a 16-35mm or 17-40mm. You can do both wide angles and telephotos with that good ol' XTi of yours. You don't need to spend an extra $1.5k on another body.

Honestly I think you're way too busy thinking about what gear you can have when you should be more worried about how many hours you can put in at the moment and learn with what you have on you. You can shoot wide with that 10-22mm now and shoot telephoto with the zoom lens.

If you stay with that camera, you can even spend extra doe on a nice Canon flash, a nice bag (ahem.. Crumpler for example), software (Adobe Lightroom is a nice cheapy at around $200 bucks), and be out there shooting already. I would also invest on books, magazines, etc. to learn more about photography and shooting as much as you can now to get that 'eye' for things. And also investing on an online cataloging website, such as Smugmug is a good idea so you can showcase your photos.

Plus.. who says you cant buy the 5D later on? You can easily resell that Canon 10-22 for 5-15% less than what you paid for so its like you just rented it. You talk as if the 5D is a magic-box that automatically takes super-duper-photos, when you should remember, the camera is only as good as the photographer using it.

BUT.. then again, I did just realize you have a 24-105L which costs a pretty penny alone. But remember, there is a big difference between 16mm and 24mm on a full-sensor body. Once you get your 5D you may just realize that your 24mm still isn't enough to cover super wide areas. By that time, you would have already spent another 600-1k dollars on a wide angle + 1.7k on a 5D, thats a good 2.5k-3k dollars you've spent already...when you could have just bought the Canon 10-22mm and covered everything you need plus have a really nice 24-105mm for a walk around lens. Heck, you'll have extra cash on you to buy a nice Canon BG-E3 grip for the XTi too, best bang for the buck to makes the camera larger for grip and give you a vertical shutter release as well.

Ouch....truth hurts Thanks for your input. It is very helpful.

I was looking down the road in what I would like when I pass the XTI down to my hubby. And with the holidays coming I was thinking this may be a good time.

But....I'm a lens changer and the 5d (with what I've read) really has a dust problem and I really don't want to deal with it. I've had the XTI for 9 months and just a couple weeks ago I had a dust problem show up. Not bad after all the use and dusty travels I've had with that camera. Don't get me wrong. I love the XTI. It has never let me down.

I want wide and for my XTI its the 10-22.....so its going on my list for the holidays and hopefully santa will be nice. And with the extra money he saves he can buy me diamonds

Thanks----

Dogdots/Mary

mr peas

Dogdots wrote:

I want wide and for my XTI its the 10-22.....so its going on my list for the holidays and hopefully santa will be nice. And with the extra money he saves he can buy me diamonds

First shoes, then bags, then jewelry, now lenses, where will it end

ziggy53

Dogdots wrote:

... And with the extra money he saves he can buy me diamonds

Thanks----

Dogdots/Mary

You must mean one of these:

http://www.canon.co.uk/About_Us/News/Consumer_Releases/2H06_News/Diamond_IXUS.asp?ComponentID=394948&SourcePageID=26446

Dogdots

mr peas wrote:

First shoes, then bags, then jewelry, now lenses, where will it end

It never ends

Dogdots

ziggy53 wrote:

You must mean one of these:

http://www.canon.co.uk/About_Us/News/Consumer_Releases/2H06_News/Diamond_IXUS.asp?ComponentID=394948&SourcePageID=26446

Oh...wow...anything sparklie will do