Options
Wide Angle Lens for Crop Body
What wide angle lens do people recommend for a crop body (40D)? I shoot a lot of stuff indoors and/or in low light, so fast is good. I have a 24-105 4L and shoot at the low end occasionally but it's not really fast enough for use in low light situations. My other glass includes:
50 1.4
85 1.8
I haven't shotten with anything below 24mm on my crop body so I'm not sure how much I'm missing out on lower focal lengths. With all the good things being said about the 17-55 on these forums, I'm wondering if having the faster lens, and extra 7mm on the low end would make it worth switching with my 24-105 or just adding it in general. That's probably the topic for another post though.
Cheers,
Steve
50 1.4
85 1.8
I haven't shotten with anything below 24mm on my crop body so I'm not sure how much I'm missing out on lower focal lengths. With all the good things being said about the 17-55 on these forums, I'm wondering if having the faster lens, and extra 7mm on the low end would make it worth switching with my 24-105 or just adding it in general. That's probably the topic for another post though.
Cheers,
Steve
0
Comments
I'm drooling over the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS right now!!!
The next best options would be any of the 10(ish) - 20(ish) offerings on the market though these are a stop +/- slower than the 17-55. The Canon EF-s 10-22 rocks!
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
I'd say just get both.
Steve:
I think I know where you're coming from. I bought my 30D with the 24/105, but found it a bit slow indoors, and not wide enough in many situations.
After much searching and debating, the solution was the Canon 17/55 mentioned by others above.
What I've told others is that it's my "go-to" lens for people and for people indoors. I often use ISO 640 or 800, and shoot available light, in fact even though I have four lenses, and other trimmings and am quite a serious amateur, I don't have an external flash yet.
This 17/55 lens is fast, sharp, and has good colour' ; when viewing pics on-screen, I must peek at the EXIF data to determine which lens was used (17/55 or 24/105). It has L quality optics in a regular build (not great but decent). By cranking the ISO to 1600, I've taken kids blowing out their birthday candles (room light dimmed).
If I had to pick and use just one lens, it would be the 17/55. On some sites, dust is often mentioned as a problem with this lens; it seems that owners that use a UV filter have much less trouble in this regard. However, keep in mind that dust in the lens is really an aesthetic problem and doesn't show up in images, so it's a bit of a red herring.
As to whether or not to keep or trade the 24/105, personally I wouldn't let this lens go for anything - I like the length, and it's an extremely well built lens.
At the "ends" of a zoom lens's range, it typically exhibits some distortion - when I need 24 mm or 26 mm, I use the 17/55 as this is right in its mid-range where distortion is nil. The overlap is useful in this respect. On a showery day, the 24/105 won't have "issues" if it gets damp, as it's sealed better.
Happy hunting.
Glenn
I've seen a lot of people mention the Canon 10-22 recently, which might not be as fast as I'd like but still a nice lens to own! Once the holidays pass I'll have to see what kind of funds are available and look into buying myself a final Christmas present.
f/2.8 still may not be fast enough, depending upon circumstances.
IF f/2.8 is fast enough and you want a prime lens the 20mm gets you to 32mm on the 40D for $400, but if 38 isn't wide enough, this may not be either.
Your comments make it seem you are not put off by the cost of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 at $1000. The 16-35 MkII f/2.8 is only $1300 and it will work on a FF if you get one in the future. And it seems it is more readily available at this time.
-Fleetwood Mac
You may want to wait for that one and see if you want to get that.
Sweet!! I own the Tokina 12-24 f/4 and am very hapy with it. The big drawback of course is the f/4 max aperture. Love my Canon 24-105 f/4 too, but same gripe on max aperture.
I tend to shoot with off camera light indoors, so a fast lens is less important to me in most situations.
My photos
"The future is an illusion, but a damned handy one." - David Allen
After much self-debate I settled on both about 6 months ago. Turns out I have no regrets. I pretty much use the 24-105L outdoors, where I need the reach (105mm vs. 55mm) and I do not miss or need the f/2.8. But indoors, I always switch to the 17-55, where I need both the wide end and the f/2.8. Even outdoors, I am more likely to use the 17-55 in the winter when it's often a low-light situation all day long. It must be mentioned that I wanted to shoot more wide angle with narrow depth of field, and this was another consideration driving me to the f/2.8. In this way, I probably use both lenses roughly equally.
I did not like paying that much money for two similar lenses. The only way I justified it was to promise myself that I would not be buying any other lenses for a long while. Having these two lenses does make me feel like I can deal with any situation up to 105mm. Good thing I don't regularly need something past 105mm.
Getting a fast wide prime is certainly an alternative if you're concerned about overlap, but I like very much that the 17-55 maintains f/2.8 even when zoomed into 55mm, that's part of what you pay for.
My first SLR was a film camera but it was long enough ago that I don't can't use it as a frame of reference. I shot with a 50mm lens and remember it being wider than the 50mm on my crop body but don't remember how much.
I've been considerng the 24mm 1.4 as an option. Regarding the price of the 17-55, well, I guess I've come to grips with the fact that I chose an expensive "hobby" to get into. I realize that to get good glass you going to part with a decent chunk of change.
I don't forsee a FF entering my life anytime soon since I just got a 40D and expect I'll get some good mileage out of it. How does the 16-35 compare to the 17-55? Anyone know the advantages and disadvantages of each, besides the obvious benefits that come with the L? Is the price of the 16-35 what make people recommend the 17-55 instead, or is it the extra 20mm, or something else?
Any idea on how soon? Days, weeks, months?
Hrm, I was kinda hoping nobody would have both and enjoy it.
Hmm. Sounds intriguing. that would give me f2.8 from 11mm to 200mm.
Currently for wide on a crop you're looking either at the ultra-wides of Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24 as top dogs, or one of the several 17-xx zooms.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I've heard Febuary, but I'm not sure. Tokina has had problems meeting delivery dates. As for the price, I'd suspect it'll be along the lines of it's 16-50mm f2.8 at about $600 or a bit more.
Drool. Looks just like a 12-24, so I expect L-quality build & optics. Looks like Tokina might get me to start my first gear churn to swap my beloved 12-24 for this guy.
I love that the blog points to the Amazon gift card site...dropping hints, eh?
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/