Made the jump to Canon

[glenn_cummings1]

OK...I finally made the switch from Nikon to Canon. Purchased a 30D

with the 24-70 2.8L. Will be buying the 70-200 as well in the

future to photograph my boys hockey games.

 

The question I have is what would be a good solid wide-angle lens to

complete this outfit? I have contemplated the Tokina 12-24 and the

Canon EFS 10-22, or should I be looking at a Canon prime? Any

recommendations would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Glenn

[will king]

I have the 10-22mm and it works great on my 20D. It's on sale at B&H for $639 US Dollars. Do a search for PSMAR06050 one B&H's website.

[jon_austin]

Welcome to the family!

 

By all accounts, the 10-22 is a good wide-angle solution, increasingly so since its price has begun to come down, so long as you're aware that it'll only work with EF-S-mount bodies.

 

Personally, I find the 17-40 wide enough for my needs (I have a 20D), and it'll work on full frame, as well. You might want to consider both this and the 16-35.

[glenn_cummings1]

Jon...I thought about the 17-40 but I figured there was too much overlap there with the 24-70 and I don't think I can afford the 16-35. Thanks for your suggestions.

[david_lau3]

If you are looking at real wide angle (wider than 28mm equivalent), then the only choice from Canon is the 10-22mm. The only Canon prime gives you wider than 28mm is the 14/f2.8L, which is heavy, very expensive and cannot use front filter.

 

I have the 10-22mm on my 20D and it really performs well.

[John Crowe]

Also consider the Sigma 12-24 which also works on full frame.

 

I don't know if you kept your Nikon lenses or not but if you did you can get a mechanical adapter from China through jinfinance on eBay for less than $40. Stopped-down metering only and of course manual focus but your Canon will meter with it in Manual and Av modes. I specifically bought some Nikon lenses to use on my 10D. Avoid the G lenses of course.

[jon_austin]

Glenn:

 

The 16-35 was too rich for my blood, as well, so I got the 17-40 instead.

 

I have a 24-105 instead of the 24-70, but the overlap with the 17-40 is the same. Overlap is not necessarily a bad thing! When I reach into my kit, I have no doubts when to mount the 17-40 (mostly for indoor flash) and when to mount the 24-105 (mostly for "walk around" or indoor low-light with static subjects).

[kemmerichphoto]

If you decide aganist the 17-40 or the 16-35...I highly reccomend the 10-22 canon...I have never used it but three of my good friends use it all the time and the pictures look great.

 

KE

[kevin conville]

I have the Tokina 12-24 and Canon 17-40 F4L. Get the Tokina, you'll love it.

 

Here's one taken with it on a 350D:

[jan_thomas1]

I also bought the Tokina, and I love it too.

[peter_white2]

The 10-22 is an extreme wide angle. Most people will be happier with something not quite so extreme. The 17-40 or 16-35L would probably be better choices. The 16-35L would keep you with a f/2.8 which will focus better in dim lighting.

[scott_sjostrom]

I'm dealing with the same decision, on the 5D however.

 

These have been recommended to me:

 

Tamron 17-35 - both full frame rectilinear lenses.

 

"People call this the poor mans L lens."

What do you all think about that comment?

 

Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime

[images_in_light_north_west]

EF17-40L full frame = great set up, not to costly

[scott_sjostrom]

Here is a new one I just saw at Adorama. Notice the 50mm.

Hasn't even shipped yet, but you can order it. This is

not a FF lens however.

 

Tamron SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical

[maria barnett]

I too have been contimplating the 17-40L and 16-35L. Wondering could I justify the additional price for 16 and F2.8. Then I spoke to someone from Canon at a recent trade show--this person emphatically recommended the 17-40 because it is sharper. I can't justify the $$$ for the 16-35 right now when the 17-40 gets high praises from so many. I am going to go with the 17-40. :)

[mark u]

Depending on rink lighting, I think you may need to look at a Canon prime or two to cover your sons' hockey (85 f/1.8, 135 f/2?). F/2.8 may not be quite fast enough to give action freezing shutter speeds.

[peter_white2]

Maria,

 

There's no evidence that the 17-40 is overall sharper than the 16-35L. If anything, the 16-35L is probably a hair better overall. But essentially all of the testing suggests that the two lenses are very similar overall, except for that one f stop. But salesmen are hardly objective. If this Canon salesman had a sense that you were more likely to buy the less expensive Canon lens rather than the more expensive lens, he's very likely to just tell you anything to get you to buy a Canon lens. The 16-35L is expensive, especially compared with Tokina, Tamron and Sigma. So if he can get you to think that the 17-40 is the better choice anyway, from his point of view you're more likely to become a Canon lens customer than a Tamron lens customer, and that's his job.

 

Salesmen lie. That's just the way it is.

 

If the brighter focusing screen you'll get with the 16-35L is important to you (it sure was to me) I'd suggest you consider the 16-35L, regardless of what the guy from Canon says.

[scott_sjostrom]

Maria,

 

I going to try to go to a local camera store this weekend and test the

two canon L's as well as the Tamron 17-35. Look for a posting from me.

[lovcom_photo]

Maria, Peter's right in regard to the 16-35L vs. 17-40L.

 

Saleman are mostly deceitful....ever buy a car? It's the same breed with few exceptions.

 

As for the Tamron 17-35, will good luck finding one that is sharp wide open. And the Tamron lacks the color rendition and the contrast of the L's, so it's just not about sharpness.

 

I can't suggest the Tamron.

[lovcom_photo]

Maria, the 17-40 is NOT sharper then the 16-35L, and let me tell you, you will find that F4 is TOO SLOW for many purposes.

 

I have BOTH...so I know...the 16-35's F2.8 is really wonderful and it is very usable wide open.

[robert_hall2]

Glenn: I made the same jump, after almost 40 years with Nikon. It still bothers me that Nikon fell so far behind. Well, they did and that's that. The site photozone.de is great for lens evaluations. Norm Koren has a site that helps explain the whole thing if it is new to you. It will take a couple hours of slow reading, maybe more. The graphs are not everything. The L lenses have better color and contrast, not in the graphs. You may go up to a 5D or higher; the EF-S lenses won't work. I am moving slowly into L-glass, one at a time. Don't forget to think about cleaning the sensor. Cheers!

[w_t1]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

[eric_chi1]

Canon is the right choice for sports. Canon's best lenses are the tele and long-tele lenses. Canon is never famous for wide angles.

 

If you really want a Canon wide angle, the newer lenses are better than the old ones. Either the 10-22 or the brand new 17-50 f2.8 IS are the best in Canon line. Both are EFS.

 

If you still have a good Nikon DSLR body, I'd use that for wide angle. You probably need two bodies for sports anyway.

 

Eric.

[wolver]

I have the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. It is an amazing lens, optically and build wise it is worth way more than what it sells for.

[dave_holland]

Regarding the somewhat off-topic sidebar of hockey, I use the 70-200 2.8 all the time for hockey. In well lit arenas at ice level I find it an outstanding option. It's plenty long when coupled with an APS size sensor.

 

The comment about it not being fast enough is well taken. However when you use those really fast lenses, remember that your DOF is very narrow. That ain't easy to focus when the action is fast, and you may find that you have a lot of weak shots because the action moved outside of that narrow DOF window. I find f2.8 fast enough, and I don't find that I toss many images because of poor focus. The 20D will allow you to boost ISO without losing much, so boosting ISO might be a better option when speed is critical.