Which wide angle do you recommend?

I currently shoot with a Canon 30d and I am looking into wide angle options. I just moved to New York

and my current lenses just don't do the trick when it comes to shooting in downtown manhattan.

 

currently i have a 28-70mm 2.8L 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200 4.0 (that i will be soon replacing with the

canon L series)

 

can anyone recommend a decent quality wide angle lens that works well with the 30d's sensor?

well, you basically have 3 options.

 

17-40L - Excellent lens, not overly wide on a crop sensor, great price ($750)

16-35L - Also an excellent lens, still not really that wide, f2.8, quite expensive ($1300)

10-22 (ef-s) - Very wide (16mm ff equivalent), not compatable with a Full frame camera (ie 5D), good price ($700+), decent build quality

17-55 2.8 - f2.8, not overly wide, EF-S (not FF compatible), relatively pricey ($1000+)

17-85 IS - cheap, not good wide, best left alone

 

The sigma 12-24 isn't as good as the canon... only other option is a nikon w/ adaptor... I don't see the benefit of that though.

 

So the question really is... are you planning to upgrade to FF later? If so, the 17-40L or 16-35L are your best bets... Want to stick with crop sensor? 10-22 for wide, 17-55 2.8 for moderately wide fast lens.

.... sorry for the mumble jumble above, the line breaks obviously didn't work.

 

10-22, 17-55 2.8, 17-40, 16-35 were the options

Sigma 10-20. Loads less costly than Canon 10-22 and gives perfectly acceptable results.

I probably WILL eventually upgrade, but due to finances, probably not for a little while. I want

something to use NOW (or, as soon as my stimulus payment comes through) that is fairly

wide for the cropped sensor. the 10-22mm sounds good......i'll probably keep my 30d when

i get a full frame as back-up so it (a cropped frame lens) won't go to waste.........but i'm not

sure.....

Sigma's 10-20 will save you plenty of dollars compared to Canon's 10-22 and it is a really

good lens. Try one for yourself and make your own mind up.

<p>When you say the 10-22 sounds good, do you mean that's how wide you want to go, or that it sounds like it gets good reviews? The latter is certainly true (and the other three lenses Mr. Bowens suggests are also very good lenses), but the former is more true for some people than for others. The 10-22 is an ultrawide zoom, which in the right hands can produce amazing results but in the wrong hands can be pretty boring (if the wrong hands insist on using it a lot) or will spend a lot of time in the kit bag (if the wrong hands are at least smart enough to recognize that they don't know how to make good compositions for it). The others on the list are wide-angle zooms, which are more generally useful but may not be wide enough for what you need.</p>

 

<p>So the question is: how much wider than 28 do you need to go? Or, if you're accustomed to a film body (where there's no crop factor in play), do you need to go much wider than what 28 was on a film body? 16-x, 17-x, 18-x on a 1.6-crop body are all approximately equivalent to what 28-x is on a full-frame body; the 10-22 is equivalent to a 16-35.</p>

The only lens I'd recommend to you is Canon's best WA zoom, the 16-35 2.8L.

 

I have a habit of never recommending pricey EF-S lenses, as down the road these can be very regrettable purchases.

Here in canada, the Canon 10-22 is $799 and the Sigma is $899

 

Canon's the better deal here.

Just goes to show how screwed up pricing is internationally.

 

A high street retailer in the UK (Jessops) wants:

 

Sigma 10-20 GBP 305

 

Canon 10 -22 GBP 500 (460 after Canon cashback)

I just got the Sigma 12-24, which I will be using on a 5D - it is the widest FF wide angle lens available and produces very good results. This could be another option for you, because it leaves the upgrade path to FF open. Check out fredmiranda.com for real life reviews of all the various lenses.

If you need the view provided by the 10-22 lens on your 30D, then get the 10-22.

 

If you don't need a lens to go that wide, then get the other 16-35 or 17-40 zooms.

 

I wanted the 10-22 range now, even though I'd like a FF in the future. I don't care if I have to sell it for less than I would have gotten otherwise. I don't want to wait another number of months or longer to be able to shoot in that range.

 

I guess first decide how wide you want to go and then go from there.

Shannon, if you're OK with a variable maximum aperture that is not as fast as two of your current lenses or the one you plan on getting soon, and you're OK with it being EF-S which means you won't be able to use it on a non-crop body, then the 10-22 is a good choice.

the Canon EF-S 10-22 is great for wide angle on an EF-S camera.

Tokina's 12-24/4, designed for APS-C cameras, is a fine lens optically and with great build added to that. I would be very tempted to get Sigma's full-frame 12-24 however since I would no doubt have crazy fun with such a lens on a future full-frame camera.

If you are looking at a non-canon option, wait a few weeks for Tokina 11-16mm lens. Should be very good and much better than other 1.6x tokina, sigma, and tamron.

 

If you want ultra-wide and want canon don't listen to anybody and get 10-22 EF-S. 17-40 and 16-35II (original 16-35 not recommended) are not wide enough on crop bodies.

 

If you want an upgrade path, then consider Sigma 12-24, it is reasonably wide on 1.6x and insanely wide on FF.

No one has mentioned the new 18-55mm image stabilized lens that replaced the old kit

lens. I guess at $175.95 it's not expensive enough despite rave reviews that says it rivals the

17-55mm and surpasses the 17-85mm. I have one. It is terrific and sharp. And the wide

end is perfectly fine for the canyons of New York where I have used it many times. Check out

the review:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-

c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

Let's try again:

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-

c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

Hmmm. Bum link. Just go to Photozone.de and check it out under Canon reviews.

EF-S 10-22. That lens is why I own a 40D. When I went shopping for my first DSRL last year I

first had to choose a system: Canon, Pentax or Nikon. I liked the Pentax camera best but the

Canon 10-22 beats all the others on price, distortion, wideness and zoom range. So now I

own a 40D. The lens like a 16-35 zoom on a 35mm camera giving the same perspectives as

15, 25 and 35 lenses I have for my 35mm rangefinder. Ideal.<div></div>

My other lens for the 40D is the EF-S 17-85. It's quite something -- really fine lens. But at

17mm the barrel distortion is absurd. Scenes with straight lines in them look silly if you

shoot them at the wide angle end.

I have the Canon 10-22 on a 40D. I researched it extensively and found most considered it better than the Sigma and Tokina ultra wides. Obviously the people that bought those lenses would disagree, but I am just telling you what I found out. I love the 10-22 and it has quickly became one of my favorite lenses. In the link below, the church pictures and bridge pictures were taken with the 10-22. Also the historical home pictures (except the yellow house). This was from a trip in January along coastal Maine.

 

http://www.flickr.com/gp/21144083@N02/55A4X1

 

Below is a great review from Luminous Landscapes website (a great resouce)

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/

Shannon,

 

The Sigma 12-24 is an excellent lens if you can get a good copy. It's not as wide as the 10-22 on your 30D, and the 10-22 would probably be better if you're convinced you will stick with the crop-frame format.

 

However, if you think you might ever be interested in shooting full-frame, the 12-24 is MUCH wider (since the 10-22 doesn't have a full-frame image circle). In fact it's the widest rectilinear lens ever engineered for an SLR and is tied for the widest rectilinear lens made for a rangefinder -- the Voigtlander 12mm prime. If you think you might use full frame, I'd recommend the Sigma 12-24 if you have the patience to find a good copy (and return any bad ones).

If you are thinking about full frame, take a look at the Canon 16-35. I have heard nothing but good things about it. It is expensive, but if you are looking at full frames, you may well justify it. I am pretty sure there is a review on Luminous Landscapes.

I would go for the Canon 10-22. While I have owned a few Sigma lenses now and they produce pretty good results I always end up eventually becoming dissatisfied with them and replacing them with the Canon versions.