Which wide angle do you recommend?

[m_barbu1]

And, for what it's worth (follow-up to my comment above), I opted for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

[JeffOwen]

I got the Canon 10-22 when it first came out and used it on my 20D. Best lens I ever bought as I like the ultra wide capability. It took a little getting used to the perspective thing but that usually only an issue with close ups of people, i.e. people on the edge of the frame can look distorted.

 

I now have a 40D and it is still one of my favourite lenses.

[manuel barrera houston,]

get a fisheye, sigma 15mm is good, not much distortion on a crop camera and great for effects on full frame.

[arie_vandervelden1]

David Bowens said: "Here in canada, the Canon 10-22 is $799 and the Sigma is $899 Canon's the better deal here."

 

Hmmm. The Camera Store here in Calgary lists the Sigma for $600 and the Canon for $813.

 

I've got the Sigma 10-20. Nice lens. Very sharp, but the color and micro-contrast aren't quite on par with my Canon lenses. Whether a bit better color and an extra 1/3rd stop is worth an extra 200 bucks is a personal matter. On the other hand, here in Canada we get a 6 year warranty with Sigma, Canon only 1 year. Both lenses are very good - the perspectives you get at 10 mm are awesome.

 

10-20 or 10-22 will mate nicely with the 28-70 lens, as opposed to a standard 17-something zoom. I say go for it, go ultrawide. It's fun.

[markonestudios]

"I just moved to New York and my current lenses just don't do the trick when it comes to shooting in downtown manhattan...can anyone recommend a decent quality wide angle lens that works well with the 30d's sensor?"

<p>Since i've never been there, I'd like to ask, what exactly are you shooting in downtown Manhattan? Whereas you might fancy the 10-20/22's, the 12-24s and the 11-16s, will you really need to go that wide on your 30D? I would suggest you test out the top contenders in real life to figure out what you would actually want to use. Check your exif data after say a weekend of 'typical' shooting and see which focal length you used, and at what apertures you shot. This should be a better guide for you.

<p>I have the 17-40 and would highly recommend it any day, but it may not suit your needs. So I think before you invest bigtime, make a small initial investment that will pay off when you make the longer-term commitment to a lens purchase...

[photo_dark]

At arie....

 

Depends where you look I guess. The dealer I go through (saneal camera) has the canon for $799 and the sigma for $899. www.sanealcamera.com

 

http://www.sanealcamera.com/ECscripts/ECware.exe/dcp?id=001&sku=EX1224DE&type=A1QH1&lc=EN

 

and

 

http://www.sanealcamera.com/ECscripts/ECware.exe/dcp?id=001&sku=C1133&type=A1QH1&lc=EN

[arie_vandervelden1]

David Bowens - Yeah, Saneal usually has slightly better prices on Canon gear. The Camera Store is the place for Sigma. Saneal is the place for Tamron.

 

Anyways I don't mean to hijack the thread - please carry on.

[shannonholm]

thanks so much for every one's advice. i'm checking a few more reviews, but i think i'm kind

of sold on the canon 10-22. i'm looking to play with the ultra wide side of the spectrum for

a while......and the upgrade to the full frame DSLR might be a few years down the road

(unless i win the lottery or something). now i just have to wait for my check......

[wes_baker1]

Personally, I think the "eventual full frame upgrade" argument is a red herring. Sure, an EF-S lens won't work on a full-frame camera, but it isn't as if every EF-S camera in the world is going to disappear all of a sudden. I know a guy who shoots portraits professionally with a 10D, even though many would consider that camera to now be deeply obsolete. There are millions of Rebel/20D/30D/40D cameras out there, and there will always be people looking for superwide lenses for them.

 

If you buy a 10-22 now, you'll be able to sell it 5 years from now for a larger fraction of what you pay today. Or, you can buy one of the third party lenses that may or may not hold its value as well. Or, you can be paralyzed by the idea that you might go full frame some day, avoid buying crop camera wide lens because of that, and be stuck shooting at no wider than 24mm focal length (35mm equivalent). If you really want to shoot very wide, and you have an EF-S camera, those are your options.

[milton-chris]

I just checked Henrys.com because I couldn't believe the Canon 10-22 being cheaper than the Sigma 10-20. Lo & behold, the Canon is $849 while the Sigma is 10-22.

 

Just shows that ya gotta shop around a bit to get best prices.

[ken munn]

Chris,

 

Should that be the Sigma is $619?

[photo_dark]

Those are probably US stores Chris? I find prices are a little different up here in canada... we do get rather good prices on the Canon stuff it seems. I picked up my 17-40L and 70-200L for just under $1400 (the pair). not bad. I typically try to avoid buying from the US... too many hassles at the border in my experience.

 

For some reason Sigma stuff is more expensive up here, when realistically, it's not worth the money compared to the competition they are up against (Canon L, or the higher quality EF-S lenses)

[ken munn]

David,

 

Henry's is a Canadian retailer.

[sarah_fox]

David wrote: "For some reason Sigma stuff is more expensive up here, when realistically, it's not worth the money compared to the competition they are up against (Canon L, or the higher quality EF-S lenses)"

 

Others have wrote similar comments.

 

It's popular to throw stones at Sigma. They do have their problems, true. I admit quality control isn't the best, but there are quality control issues with almost all manufacturers, perhaps excluding the more compulsive manufacturers like Zeiss. And yes, there are interface problems, as the EOS interface must be reverse-engineered by third party manufacturers, and sometimes Canon pulls "gotcha" tricks with new bodies. This problem is shared by other third-party manufacturers. At least Sigma is good about re-chipping lenses.

 

But it is absolutely not true that Sigma is a substandard manufacturer. Their EX lenses are intended for professional use, like the Canon L series, with the caveat that they're not sealed the same way. Build quality of my 12-24 is better than that of my 24-105L, for instance, but not quite as good as that of my 17-40L. From what I can tell so far, the optics of my Sigma 12-24 are perhaps better than those of my Canon 24-105. The "Bigma" and the "Sigmonster" are also quite worthy of professional consideration. Not all Sigma lenses are stellar, but neither are they necessarily intended to be. Sigma makes some junk too -- just like everyone else, including Canon and Nikon.

 

When considering a 12mm full-frame lens, consider the technical challenges! It's truly difficult to manufacture so complicated a lens with the tolerances it requires. The miracle of the 12-24 full frame lens cannot be understated. To get anything that wide with good sharpness, minimal chromatic aberration, and minimal distortion is extraordinary. The engineers from Sigma are to be commended for doing something that no other manufacturer, including Canon and Nikon, has been able to do. Well, in fact they did take home a lens-of-the-year award in 2004.

 

Again, I'm not the biggest fan of third party lenses, but when there's a really good one out there (at least from an engineering and build perspective), let's not disrespect it!

[sarah_fox]

Partial retraction!

 

I just got my 5D and 24-105, and I'm in the process of testing my optics on full frame. I underestimated the optics of the 24-105, based on some shots I was peeping. I saw a bit more chromatic aberration than I wanted/expected, but the performance on my test pattern was pretty darned good. Not much CA or softness anywhere or at any FL. It shot wide open about as well as it did at f/8, only falling off appreciably in sharpness towards f/22.

 

The Sigma 12-24, on the other hand, performed pretty admirably to the 1.6 crop marks on the pattern, with good detail in the 40lp/mm range. However, there is noticeably less contrast overall, apparently due to internal light scatter. With a bit of contrast adjustment (PS), this problem disappears, and the Sigma at 24mm looks very similar to the L at 24mm -- in the center and out to the 1.6 crop marks. However, beyond those marks, out to the edge of the frame, the Sigma gets noticeably soft -- about half the resolving power of the 24-105L. Zoomed out to 12mm, the lens still does amazingly well, but again with less overall contrast than the 24-105L, and with deterioration in resolving power past the 1.6 crop. (Much of this is due to the fact that the focus is not completely flat, curving a bit towards the lens at the margins.) Even so, I still say it's a pretty amazing lens! My 17-40 would still be my lens of choice down to 17, but beyond that range is wide-open territory, only covered by the Sigma 12-24.