kay_lee4 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Hi, I have 40d, 50.8 and 70-200 2.8. I like taking sports pics, and just sold 24-70 2.8 in order to buy 300 f/4 is. I am now in search of cheap wide angle lens, and I desperately need your recommendation or opinion. I first thought about canon 24 2.8, but tamron 18-200 is as cheap as 24, but much wider and I can't resist the zooooomability of 18-200 even though the main purpose of buying it is for wide angle. I admit that image quality of the tamron 18-200 can not be compared to L series or 24 2.8. However, I am wondering whether tamron 18- 200 still produces "ok" quality at wide end when stopped down. Or what about compared to ef-s 18-55? I once used 18-55 (without usm and is) with 300d a long time ago, but was quite dissatisfied with IQ. thank you very much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 How about the Canon 17-40, a little over budget, but a good buy. Or pick up the Canon 17-85, I think a bit less than the 17-40: it's a decent general purpose zoom on crop, good zoom range. PS, I would have held on to the 24-70, couldn't get myself to sell a lens like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kay_lee4 Posted October 15, 2008 Author Share Posted October 15, 2008 well...I really like excellent image quality and beautiful design of 24-70. However it all depends on what I like to shoot most..:-) So basically the cheaper the better for the wide angle lens as long as its image quality is not terribly bad..:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangengeman Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I nominate the 18-55 IS. If you think that it's not enough, or if you can afford it, the 17-55 IS USM would be another great choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffs1 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Another vote for the (new) 18-55mm IS. At about $170 it's a great budget crop-camera WA lens. I bought one earlier this year to replace the older 18-55mm kit lens, and I've been very happy so far. You have to recognize the lens' limitations (don't try and use it wide-open, for example), but if you use it carefully it can make some very nice photos. http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgpinc Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 zoom. Best lens in that focal length for the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m._scott_clay1 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Have you looked at the Tokina 12-24? Excellent IQ. It's the only non Canon lens I own and works great on a 40D however, I'm not sure I would call it cheap at $495 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arie_vandervelden1 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 While 18-200 looks attractive, be aware that 200 mm means sacrificing quality at the wide end. Something to think about if you already have a 70-200. I like my Tamron 17-50/2.8. Sharp, fast, inexpensive at $400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Don't get a hyperzoom, at least not for wide angle. I would either go for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or consider an UW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Ordinarily I'd say that you are looking too long for real wide angle effect, but since you don't have anything in the 17/18 to 50-85mm range, the suggestions above are good. Costwise you just can't beat the new 18-55mm IS lens. The 17-40mm L lens is superior, but far more costly, though I'd recommend it over the 17-55 EF-S lens which actually costs more. Of course, the L lens lacks IS. The best of all walk-around lenses on the crop bodies is the 17-85mm IS which will cover almost anything you will need for a day of shooting on the road. It does have some minor problems, but these are usually not noticeable except in something like architecural shooting and can easily be fixed in processing. To go even wider, once you've covered the 17-55 range, you can consider the Sigma 10-20 or the Canon 10-22, but that's another story.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kay_lee4 Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 thank you very much to all! what concerns me most is budget as I am planning to buy 300 f/4 is. However, your recommendations have been very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 If cost is the main factor, do look at the new 18-55mm IS. You'll use that even when you get the 300mm and it really costs very little. Who knows, you might come to like a wider angle in your shots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freelance Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Using the 40D I didn’t see much difference between 18-55 IS and 16-35 II ( in width and IQ, not in low light conditions, and the price difference is huge).Only after having the 5D I started seeing the potential of lenses as 16-35 II, 24-105 and Sigma 12-24 (only recommended for specific tasks). I have seen how sharp can the 24-105 be without IS. I did not use the 18-55 without IS but I got excellent pictures with the IS turned ON. I have to try it one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now