which lens for wide angle pics?

[kathy_owen1]

I have been researching trying to narrow it down and deciding which

lens to purchase. I am wanting a wide angle lens. I have a canon

eos rebel 2000 film camera. I've been looing at

Tamron AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di ,

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF ,

Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF

Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS ,

Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Autofocus L and

Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens

 

Please help me narrow it down to the best lens. I am going to the

Grand Canyon and wanting to get a lens for that purpose.

 

I am also wanting to purchase a digital rebel at some point, but for

now will be using my rebel 2000 film.

[ribook]

Kathy,</p>I refer you to the string of responses <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Aqkk">here</a> in response to your own very similar question posted just a few days ago. Looked to me like there was lots of good advice there. Maybe here, with this post, you are seeking more specific information about comparisons between the lenses you've listed? And maybe this is an offshoot of the previous post? If so, I think it might be useful for you to explain how the information in the previous post has led you to your new question, so that responders don't have to go over the same ground that's already been covered.--Russ

[pto189]

I'm waiting for the Tamron 11-18. I wouldn't buy any wide angle lens before seeing report on this lens. It's coming soon.

[mark_chappell]

<I>I'm waiting for the Tamron 11-18. I wouldn't buy any wide angle lens before seeing

report on this lens. It's coming soon.</i><P>

 

Good for you, but it won't be of much use for Kathy, who has a FILM camera, not a sub-

frame DSLR.<P>

 

Kathy: I think my own preference would be the 17-40 if I could only take one lens, but

that's mainly my personal preference. If

you could get both the 17-40 and the Tamron 28-75, you would be set for most of the

scenery shots.

Only problem is they have different filter sizes and you'll likely benefit from a polarizing

filter. I have a Sigma 28-70/2.8, which is fine (maybe not quite as good as the Tamron

28-75), but at least it has the same filter size of 77mm as the 17-40. What's the filter

size of the Sigma 24-70s? <P>

 

None of these lenses is of much use for wildlife (unless you find something both large and

very tame) if you have any interests there.

[jojo_ma]

Kathy, to make a long story short, I've had the Canon 24-70L, Sigma 24-70EX, and the Tamron 28-75; I sold the L and Tamron. The Sigma is a great lens at a great price. I have a 20D, so it isn't full frame, but there are plenty people on PhotoSig and TrekEarth, etc., who use the Sigma on their film bodies. I think the 24-70 range would be the best all around range for your trip. Mind you, the Sigma uses 82mm filters so it is one big beast.

 

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470

[rob_murray]

I like the small 6 oz Canon EOS USM 22-55mm that is now discontinued

on my smaller Rebel cameras. You can get them for $100 or so on

Ebay. Of course a $600 L lens would perform better, it should!

[max_l]

Kathy,

 

if you got some 550 bucks to spare, I would go for the Canon 17-40. Useful on both Rebels - film and digital. Please don't forget that digiRebel has a crop factor (maginification) of 1.6 and it will turn your 17-40 into a ~28-64 mm lens.

 

Be careful at the Grand Canyon! It IS slippery when wet!

 

Best Regards,

Max

[digitmstr]

Grand Canyon will look great with a super wide like the 17-40L

[damian_tinsley]

I second Giampiero - get the 17-40.

1) For the build quality / optics its really good value.

 

2) It will fit your film and digital Canon bodies

 

3) Unless you REALLY know what you are about (and I do not include myself in this category), then working with lenses wider than 24mm (in a conventional 35mm film sense) is quite difficult. So don't feel you need these kind of angles.

 

4) The 17-40 will be serving you as either a walkaround lens or as a super wide angle (depending on sensor / film size) in a decade. Easily.

 

5) Unless you want to make 40x60 inch prints, you might be hard pressed to tell the difference between really good glass and excellent glass anyway!

 

6) The Canon 17-40 beats optically some of the older primes (like the 24mm I just sold).

 

7) 17-40 17-40 17-40 17-40

 

Totally unbiased of course and I don't own shares in canon! But I do have this lens and provide you accept it isn't unobtrusive, it performs magnificently, doesn't cost the earth and is built rather well.

 

All the best

[tom_swanson]

Just a quick vote for the Tamron 28-75 as a really nice lens. The 17-40 would be great for your Grand Canyon trip, however. At f4 it is a better lens for your upcoming digital rebel than the rebel 2000 you have now. (You could get the 18-55 with the digital rebel but that doesn't help you now and wouldn't work on the 2000 anyways.)