Wide angle Lense

[shayne_laverdi_re]

Hi

 

I have been craving a good wide angle lens for my 20D for a few

weeks now. I am looking for something that would be equivalent to 20-

28mm in 35mm format but for my 1.6 croped 20D. I think my 28-80

(tamron) is a tad too subjective. ANyway I have been looking at

Tamron and Canon and find myself looking at 1300 us dollar + lenses.

What do you guys recomend? I don't want to sacrifice image quality

(I am very pleased with my Tamron DI) but unfortunately, I can't

afford a 1300 dollar lens. Are there any good compromises on the

market right now? Used or new? Thanks for the help.

 

Shayne

[shambrick007]

Sigma 12-24

[jon_austin]

If you're looking for a sharp zoom:

 

Canon EF 17-40 f/4L, ~ $680: provides an equivalent 27.2-64mm FOV. I own this lens; it's very sharp, and stays on my 20D 90% of the time.

 

Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, ~ 800; provides an equivalent 16-35.2mm FOV. I will probably never own this lens; it's reportedly quite sharp, but it will only work (thus far) on the 20D, the dRebel/300D, and the forthcoming dRebel XT / 350D.

[kevin_emerson]

If you have a 20D then you can use EF-S lenses. Why not get the canon 10-22 (16-35 on your 20D). It's a good lens, it runs around $800, and the quality is better than the Sigma. If I could get one for my 10D I would have bought one long ago. You can find a review comparing these two lenses here: <br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml"> Canon-10-22mm-test </a>

[lancemcvay]

<a href="http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/11_18mm.asp"target="new">Tamron has an 11-18</a> coming out, well, sometime. I've been waiting to see how it compares to Canon's 10-22, but it's still close to $1000 list.

[tamas_gaidosch]

I like the EF-S 10-22. If you plan to stick to 1.6 crop factor for a while then you should consider this as well. Check the reviews. It is exactly what you want: a good wide angle lens.

 

The attachment shows how wide it is at 10mm. The original is pretty sharp too.

[neal_thatcher]

I have the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 and have found it to be a good substitute for my Canon 28-70 USM on the wide end at least. I picked up mine on e-bay for about $400 new. If you were happy w/ your other Tamron, I am sure you would love this one.

[rcox2]

I like my Sigma 12-24. It'll set you back about $650 or so.

[grant g]

One more vote for the $800 10-22 EF-S. More than I wanted to spend, but it *never* disappoints me when I see the prints.

[mark_chappell]

Like Sheldon, I like the Sigma 12-24 (works on larger sensor cameras than the 20D, if you

ever get one; 15.5 mm full-frame equivalent on a 1D!). On the other hand, it won't take

front filters.

[yakim_peled1]

If I had the 20D I would opt for the 10-22 for its w-i-d-e FoV, for its good optical quality, for its USM, for its IF, for its ability to take front filters and for its lack of possible future incompatibility problems.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ian_collins1]

Hi,

 

Does anybody on this forum feel the need for a good wide angle prime? I was disappointed to learn that Canon's next EF-S lens is a 60mm Macro, which I don't think is really necessary when you consider the existence of both 50mm and 100 mm Macro's. What I would love to buy is a 12mm, f2.8 or better, rectilinear (ie non-fisheye) for the EF-S mount, This would give something similar to a 20mm lens on 35mm. I already have the EF 17-40mm lens, which is great, but it's not a prime and still at the minimum focal length only has the FOV of a 28mm lens (on the 20D). I suppose Sigma's newly announced 30mm digital lens is a step in the right direction, but I'd much prefer to see a 12mm lens. The present full frame lenses (14mm from both Canon and Sigma) are very expensive.

[samusiskin]

EFS12mm f2.8? - YES!

[grant g]

EF-S 12/2.8?

 

I doubt it will happen. With the 10-22 being f/3.5 on the wide end, I don't see the value in making a 12mm prime. Have either of you tried the 10-22?

[shayne_laverdi_re]

Thanks to everybody that helped me out here

 

I will probably opt of the 10-22 but still feel that the 3.5-4 f stop to be high. I

guess that what you get for a low budget.

 

Thanks again

[grant g]

Test it out if you can. That is what sold me. I thought 3.5 was slow, but it is sharp wide open and close focusing. If it was any faster, it wouldn't have 77mm front mount filters and would probably be well over the $1,000 mark.