Which WA lens?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by rfadtke, Nov 16, 2005.

  1. Hi all,
    I'm in need of a wide angle wedding lens and looking hard at canon's
    16-35, but am not super comfortable dishing out $1200, although I might.
    I'm also looking at the sigma 14mm or tokina's 12-24 f4. The lens
    would go on my 20D. Would it be a mistake to not get the 16? I'm
    leaning tokina then sigma...Thanks for your insight...

  2. For a wedding lens you could not do better than the 16-35L. It's f/2.8 throughout its range so lens speed is not an issue. It is very sharp throughout your 1.6 crop sensor from edge to edge. Think of it as a top-notch investment since it's gonna be a money maker for you. (if you want super wide then many will likely recommend the slower but very wide and limited canon EF-S 10-22, but I won't)
  3. how about the tamron 16-35? check out reviews of lenses generally at www.photographyreview.com if you have not found it already.
  4. Hey, check out the Canon 17-40L. Half the price of the 16-35 and one of Canon's best values.
  5. Since you'll often be in churches that don't allow flash,having the widest maximum aperture will be helpful. I thing the extra cost of the 16-35 f/2.8 over the 17-40 f/4 is well worth it if you're doing this professionally.
  6. This is a moot point: Do you need f2.8? 16-35 or Sigma 18-50.

    Do you need f2.8 and are planning on buying a bigger sensor? 16-35
  7. Is 16mm (~25mm on your 20D) is wide enough for you? Have you considered the 17-40/4? What about the 10-22 USM? How badly do you need f/2.8? Are you going to move to 1.3X or 1.0X DSLR in the near future?

    Summary: It's your business. Buy exactly what you need and don't compromise. The added expense will pay itself.

    Advice: Do not compromise on ring-USM. It makes a world of a difference.

    Happy shooting,
  8. Yakim made some very good comments. Personally I believe 10-22 is one of canon's best in that focal range with sub 1k priceline. The color and contrast are superb. And it is no way limiting in the sense that all lenses have limitations. Don't worry about it.
  9. where does one find this lens for $1200?
  10. Thanks all,
    You make some good points. 2.8 is needed, so the 17-40 is out.
    No comments on the 14? Renting one for this weekends shoot, so I'll see.
    Tried the Tamron 17-35, in store only so not a good comparison but it seemed flat, light and not at all like my 28-75 Di. Hmmm....

Share This Page