Getting a new lens

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I am in the market for a new wide angle lens. I currently have the 24-105 ISL lens and shoot on the 7D. It is amazing and I love it. But I feel myself in the market for something wider. At this point I am looking between the 14mm prime and the 16-35, I can see myself using both. I shoot a wide variety of different things so i really can see myself using both. Any suggestions on how to pick between the two, is one better than the other, what are things i should take into account when looking at these two lenses?<br>

Any help would be great<br>

thanks</p>

Have you put any thought into the 17-40? That's pretty much my walkaround lens on the 7d. I love it, great color and really sharp.

<p>If you do a lot of hand held low light photography, you are possibly on the right track. But asking such a general "is there a difference" question about lenses as hugely different as a 14mm prime and a 16-35mm zoom makes me wonder where you are in your photographic development... and whether or not either of these are really going to pay off for you.</p>

<p>These are very expensive lenses, and the 14mm is a very unusual and specialized lens. It is hard to imagine how such a lens would make sense for someone who describes his interests as "general." It does one thing well - shooting very wide at 14mm. It doesn't do much else.</p>

<p>The 16-35 f/2.8 is certainly a fine lens, but is it really the best lens for you? On a cropped sensor body such as yours, there is a very strong argument that the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is a better option in just about all ways. It produces excellent IQ (at least as good as the 16-35 on your camera), it covers a wider focal length range, it has IS. If you are getting hung up on the red ring and the letter "L," it would be a good idea to think about your needs a bit more carefully perhaps.</p>

<p>And what of the EFS 10-22? This is, in many ways, a better lens that either of the two you are considering if your desire is really to fully cover the UWA focal lengths on your camera.</p>

<p>The 17-40 is an interesting question. I shot that lens on a cropped sensor camera for a while. While it worked well in some situations, on a cropped sensor body its performance is not as good as that of the EFS 17-55 in a number of very real ways. (The 17-40 is a fine lens for stopped down landscape and similar work on full frame cameras.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Dan, while I appreciate your response, i do not appreciate you criticizing where I am in my photographic development. Obviously I know there is a difference between the lenses, and when I say general I mean that in the sense that I do not only photograph one thing. I happen to be very good in many different areas. I do appreciate the rest of your response, as I do think you have a valid point with the 10-22, it is something I will definitely look into. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot a wide variety of different things</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that is the case, if you don't need fast glass, what about the EF-S 15-85? It is a very high-quality lens, and it has a great range on a crop sensor. The extra 2 mm on the short end, compared to a 17-anything, is noticeable, and it is nice to have the greater range at the long end. I have one (50D, same FOV as your camera) and have been very pleased. I almost always have it along if I am shooting landscapes, and it is one of my two general walk-around lenses. The main drawback is the slow speed (f/3.5-5.6). For my purposes, that was not a big deal--I use mine almost only outdoors, and for landscapes, I would rarely shoot wider open than 5.6 anyway. I use other lenses for other purposes where faster glass is important.</p>

<p>15 mm is the equivalent of 24mm on a film camera--moderately wide. However, I find that unlike some people, I almost never want to go much wider.</p>

<p>David, if you would like to try a optically superb 14mm lens without having to lay out much cash, I'd recommend the Samyang 14/2.8. (It's marketed in the US under the "Rokinon" imprint).</p>

<p>The Samyang actually has higher resolution than the EF 14/2.8 L, but it costs only <em>one sixth</em> as much. And its build quality is excellent. It has only two drawbacks as far as I can tell. First, it's manual focus only, which may not be a problem for you (as it isn't for me). Second, it suffers from "mustache" distortion, which renders it less than optimal for architectural photography, but it's a blindingly sharp lens for everything else.</p>

<p>Check out photozone's glowing review at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff">link</a>.</p>

<p>I second the 10-22 vote.</p>

<p>On a crop body I would, as mentioned before me, definitely opt for the EF-S 10-22, if the convenience of a zoom is required.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens</a><br /> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Lens</a><br /> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM Lens</a><br /> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens</a><br /> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx"> </a><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DI II Lens</a><br /> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens</a><br>

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Z2zP</p>

<p>Peter J's list is very helpful; and many, maybe all of them, are also reviewed with nice charts and the like at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/all-tests">Photozone.de</a>, one of my personal favorite and trustworthy review sites.</p>

<p>I have the older Sigma 10-20mm and have been very pleased with it.</p>

<p>I think the 14mm prime isn't going to give you enough flexibility...if you need something wider than 24, you'll be stuck with just the 14. The 17-40 only gives you a few extra mm at the wide end, probably not worth the expense just for that, with the bulk of the range overlapping your 24-105 (which I also have). I have the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 when I need something wider than 24mm on my 7D, and it's great. The Canon 10-22 would also be fine if you prefer to stick to Canon-brand lenses.</p>