Suggestions for wide-angle lens for Canon 40D

I have gone digital only recently, and the only lens that's worth keeping from my earlier pack is a <a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397662-

USA/Canon_0344B002AA_24_105mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html">24-105 f/4L IS

USM</a>. I think I need to buy a wider angle lens - especially for landscapes - situations that my 24-105 would have

covered with the analog camera. I was considering buying the <a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-

GREY/Canon_2509A003_Super_Wide_Angle_EF.html">Canon Super Wide Angle EF 20mm f/2.8 USM</a>. It

seems reasonably priced, and has good reviews. Can anyone advise me on:

<br>(1) How does this compare it with an L-series?

<br>(2) Any chance a wide angle converter might work better with my existing 24-105 lens?

<br>(3) Should I simply spend the extra $220 and get the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-

USA/Canon_8806A002_17_40mm_f_4L_USM_Lens.html">17-40mm f/4L USM</a> instead?

20/2.8 is wide only on a full-frame body. On a 40D the field-of-view is similar to a 35 mm lens, just short of normal.

 

For landscape, what you want is a lens that does 10 mm or 11 mm. Have a look at Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20,

Tokina 11-16. Tamron 10-24 should be out soon. All of these ultrawides are sharp and will mate nicely with your 24-

105. Can't go wrong.

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">(1) How does this compare it with an L-series?

</blockquote><p>

Depends on which L lens you are talking about. The EF 20mm is exceptionally prone to flare, a tiny bit "soft"

wide open and generally not that exciting optically. However, it makes a nice moderate wide angle lens and I like

its perspective and overall characteristics (f/2.8, weight, <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;"

title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr>, no distracting distortion) a lot. It is a nice carry-around lens for casual

wide angle photography.

 

<br>

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">(2) Any chance a wide angle converter might work better

with my existing 24-105 lens?

</blockquote><p>

Wide angle converters are very poor optically compared to dedicated wide angle lenses. I didn't know they where

making one for the EF 24-105mm, but I doubt that it will be equal to the EF 20mm in any way.

 

<br>

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">(3) Should I simply spend the extra $220 and get the

17-40mm f/4L USM instead?</blockquote><p>

Optically this L zoom is pretty much the same as the EF 20mm -- decent, but not outstanding, with a little less

flare and a tiny bit more "softness" wide open. You lose one stop, though, and have a heavier and more

front-heavy lens. It is still not very wide on a crop-factor body. If you want to go wide, better choose any of

them super-wide zooms the various manufacturers offer -- they are all better than the old EF 17-40mm and EF 20mm

lenses and give you a much bigger angle-of-view.

I love my Canon 10-22 ultra-wide zoom, which would work fine on the 40D. Quite contrasty and sharp. Only downsides: (i) it's not cheap, and (ii) it's not so great indoors in low-light. Outdoors, it's tops.

17-40 f/4L USM

I shoot over 50% of my photos with the 40D + EF 16-35 lens. HIGHLY/Top recommended.

I love my 16-35mmf2.8 lens on my 30D. It's my first L lens and so far my favorite. I agonized over the different wide angles available and haven't regretted it once. Except when I took a look at the bill but it was only for a few seconds.

I would go after the 17-55 2.8 IS. I love the lens and it works great in or out. The 10-22 is fun lens too but to keep it sharp, you need to crank it down a bit. Outside/good lighting the lens is fun and it's wide! My work horse are either the 17-55 2.8 or 24-105.

Hands down - the Tokina 11-16 2.8 The issue is that it's hard to find. Take a look at reviews, and you won't find a move beloved lens that this baby. It's consistent 2.8 through the range, is ultra sharp, and will work on full frame if you can stand a little vignetting. I love this lens. It gives me those shots no one else can get, and I've never heard anything but love for it. hope you can find it somewhere. Turned out my local camera shop had one, but they are hard to find.

 

Let us know what you pick!

I have a 40D and just got the 10/22mm so far I like the lens a lot. it might not be a 2.8 but it that does not bother me a whole lot. I also used a 17-55 2.8 for a week and absolutely love that lens (next in my list) 2.8 all the way, IS, very sharp and great contrast. Aside from the $1000 price tag everything else apeals to me. Seems also like you need to resolve is how wide do you want to go once you consider the 1.6 crop and if you want a zoom or a fix prime loke the EF 14mm F/2.8 II USM.

Good luck

Alex

> - especially for landscapes - situations that my 24-105 would have covered with the analog camera. <

 

EF 16 to 35F2.8L MkII or EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS.

 

My preference is for the 16 to 35F2.8LMkII.

 

I have not used the third party lenses mentioned.

 

Your specific questions:

 

1) What Bueh B wrote, added to that: I did not like this lens all that much - but I used it on a 5D, I do not recall specific centre the edge comparison, however.

 

2) I would not go that route, because I suspect any and all will be poor quality.

 

3) 17mm is not that wide, if do you want it to replicate the FoV of a 24mm on your Film rig then, it is almost close, but the difference between 27 and 24 can be significant in the landscape world.

 

WW

Arijit, have you spent any time using the search function? There have been plenty of posts on this topic...

Canon 10-22 or similar focal length 3rd party.

Add the Tokina 12-24/4 to your list for consideration. Great lens... equal in image quality to the Canon 10-22, but better build and much lower price. Even includes the lens hood, unlike the Canon where it's extra.

 

All of us are assuming since you mention the difference compared to a film camera, that you are using one of the recent 1.6X crop sensor cameras. If, on the other hand, you are using a 1D with the 1.3X crop, you might have to rethink what to get. EF-S lenses won't fit and some (many? most?) "digital only" third party lenses will vignette heavily.

> All of us are assuming . . .[APS-C] <

 

Good point Alan, yes I assumed that.

 

WW

EOS 40D is APS-C.

Hello Bueh,

 

I know a 40D is APS-C, but I cannot read at any point in this thread, where Arijit Ghosh states that he(?) has a 40D.

 

?

 

WW

Uh..., check his title of the thread.<br>

<IMG src="http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Winks/a-wink.gif" title=";-)" alt="smiley">

Bueh !

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH . . . CRASH !

 

I never read road signs . . . I just drive fast . . . I had better change my habits!

 

Thanks . . . for being so kind about it.

 

:)

 

WW

You're welcome!