Looking for a sharp wide angle lens

[aalok_gaitonde]

Hello

 

I recently posted a question about getting a lens for a wedding. After

considering the views of the photographers here, I dropped the idea of buying a

lens and flash just for the wedding. (I am not a professional)

 

Now, I need a lens for general landscapes and nature. I have a 400D with the

stock lens and a 50 mm f/1.8 prime. The former is far from sharp and the latter

is as sharp as it gets, but not wide enough.

 

So which is the lens that I shall consider buying ? The budget would be around

700-750$.

 

Aalok

[tdigi]

You have a few choices.

 

10-22 EF-S

 

17-40 F4 L

 

Primes

20

24

 

I would vote for the 17-40. this is what I plan to purchase for the wide end. Or if you

don't need to go as wide search out a used 24-105 f4. I see them up for sale everywhere

for around $800 to $900

[chinmaya]

<p> I like Tommy's Choices. But each of them will cost you about 650$. You can get both of the following for about 850$ or so, if you stretch your budget by another 100$+. You can get a general purpose lens and a wide angle lens.

<p>

Tokina 12-24mm

<p>

 

<p>

Tamron 17-50mm (Can be used as general purpose lens)

<p>

[tdigi]

I have heard good things about the lenses Chinmaya has mentioned as well. I have a Tamron

28-75 2.8 and the photo quality is very good. build is just so so.

[bobatkins]

How wide do you need? The 24/2.8 is a nice lens on an APS-C camera, though it's just barely a wideangle (=38mm on full frame). It's not expensive either.

 

If you want wide, the EF-S 10-22 is your best choice and it's within your price range.

[cece_huerta]

I have a 17-40mm F4L and just love it for landscapes! It's tack sharp and the colors are stunning.

[photo_dark]

I also have the 17-40L and I absolutely love it... it get's my vote.

 

That being said, the 17-85 IS isn't really half bad either, and is a little more 'general purpose'. If you are looking for super wide (I'm assuming you are shooting with a rebel or 20/30/40D) the Canon 10-22 has come down in price and is quite an excellent lens.

[trebor_navilluso]

Also I'd consider the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 macro. It's very sharp, focuses pretty fast (for non canon) and the macro feature comes in handy.

[m_barbu1]

If you plan on using the lens at the wedding, you may want to look for one that has a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or greater (such as the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM). It's going to cost you more than you've allowed in your budget, but I think you'll find the extra light it affords to be beneficial.

[aalok_gaitonde]

The 17-40 f/4L is a nice lens. How sharp is it ? The focal length is OK for me.

 

Regards,

Aalok

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 17-40 is as sharp as you'd expect an ultrawide* L zoom to be: not perfect, but more than sharp enough. I'm not a pro but I'm quite sure it's sharp enough for pro work; I sell photos on a few microstock sites, and I've never had one rejected by the site admins for any reason related to this lens (only for my own ineptness or other such reasons). I don't know that it will be as sharp as your 50/1.8; mine isn't as sharp as my 50/1.4, but then, it's unreasonable to expect an ultrawide zoom, even an L one, to beat a normal prime.</p>

 

<p>You say its focal length is OK. For the uses you cite (other than weddings, which you mention but don't say are the rationale behind your search for a lens), its speed is probably also OK; f/4 isn't great for low-light use but if you're shooting landscapes, you probably will have any lens you're using stopped down to f/8 or so and ideally you'll put your camera on a tripod, too. There will be some distortion, as there is with any zoom (and particularly with very wide zooms), but that can be fixed in software for pictures where it makes a difference (and left alone where it doesn't; in many landscape pictures, for instance, a bit of distortion does no harm). There is chromatic aberration (again, as there is with any zoom, and particularly with wide ones), and again, that can be fixed in software. Build quality, AF speed, and mechanics are as you'd expect from an L lens.</p>

 

<p>If the 17-55/2.8 IS USM had existed at the time I bought the 17-40, I'd probably have bought the 17-55 instead. It's faster, has greater reach, and has IS, and most reviews say it's even sharper (but its price tag is bigger). If I stick with 1.6-crop, I plan on eventually replacing the 17-40 with the 17-55. Anyway, it didn't exist at the time. And if I could go back in time 3+ years to when I bought the 17-40, knowing what I know now about it, I'd buy it again without hesitation.</p>

 

<p>*: the lens itself is ultrawide; it just doesn't act that way if you put it on a 1.6-crop body.</p>

[m_barbu1]

It's pretty sharp, but one stop slower than the EF-S 17-55. That means that if you have to use ISO 1600 in order to have a sufficiently fast shutter speed at f/2.8, you might have to double your shutter speed in order to get a useable shot at f/4 (since you don't really have an option for ISO 3200). Likewise, if at ISO 1600 at f/4, you can drop down to ISO 800 at f/2.8 (which will reduce noise, and boost contrast and saturation).

[tdigi]

I don't feel 2.8 is as important on the wide end unless your shooting without a flash

indoors. I would imagine if your using a wide angle to shoot people its probably a group

and I would never shoot at group at 2.8.

 

I would and did consider the 17-55 for all the reasons above but does anyone else feel

uncomfortable purchasing an EF-S lens for $1000. I think for a $1000 it should have

better build quality and work on Ff as well as 1.6. Since thats not the case my opinion is go

with the 17-40 and maybe a wide prime when low light is a factor inside.

[tdigi]

How about a 17-40 and 28 1.8 combo? same price as the 17-55 2.8.

[fatboy999]

I would add that if you want to go ultra wide on the 400D the only choice is EF-S 10-22mm. This lens is equivalent to the 16-35 on a full frame. The only problem is that it is a little slow so you might have to use a tripod in lower light.

[nathan_meador]

Go with the efs 10-22, it is within your budget and gives you a good range on the far wide end with very good quality. Your 50 1.8 will work very well indoors without using the flash. I doubt you will miss the gap between 22mm to 50mm...err.. 35mm to 80mm for a 1.6 camera.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>the only choice is EF-S 10-22mm</cite>

 

<p>The only <em>Genuine Canon</em> choice is the 10-22. There are some wthird-party lenses offering similar zoom ranges, if you're willing to consider equipment without the Canon name on it. I don't know how they compare to the Canon 10-22, as I'm not in the market for any of these lenses. The Canon one is certainly highly regarded, and I believe the third-party ones have earned pretty good reputations, too.</p>

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>I don't feel 2.8 is as important on the wide end unless your shooting without a flash indoors.</i></p><p>I had the impression that when the original poster wrote, "I dropped the idea of buying a lens and flash just for the wedding," he was saying that he would be "shooting without a flash indoors". Perhaps I misunderstood. :-)</p><p><i>I would imagine if your using a wide angle to shoot people its probably a group and I would never shoot at group at 2.8.</i></p><p>Why not? Are you concerned about depth of field? Using <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">this calculator</a>, it would seem that when using a 400D, at 17mm and f/2.8, if the subject is 10 feet away, you have a total depth of field of 16.5 feet.</p>

[david_wu6]

You may also consider Sigma 12-24.

[alan_myers]

"I don't feel 2.8 is as important on the wide end"

 

I tend to agree with that. Wide lenses are much more easily hand held, than telephotos.

 

If I had the OP's current kit (400D, 18-55, 50/1.8) I'd get the Tokina 12-24/4. The difference between 12mm and 18mm is dramatic. (The difference between 12mm and 10mm like the Canon 10-22 is also noticeable, but 12mm is still pretty darned wide on any 1.6X crop camera.

 

This lens costs $450-500, leaving about $250-300 in the budget to apply toward another lens. You might want a longer tele, like the 85/1.8 or 100/2, although those would put you over budget a little unless you get a good deal on a used one.

[m_barbu1]

While it's certainly nice that wide angle lenses are more easily hand-held, you still need a sufficiently fast exposure time to freeze the motion of your subject. At an indoor wedding/reception, you're not likely to be able to do that at f/4, without flash or supplemental light. Sometimes you may not even be able to do it at f/2.8.

[tdigi]

As to shooting groups at 2.8 you tend to get softer as you get away from the center so I

usually shoot at F4 or 5.6. and since I am using a 580ex2 I have more then enough light.

Just seems much safer to me this way. I am sure its possible to shoot a group at 2.8 but I

would not feel very safe doing that unless I really had to and so far I never have.

 

Also its not 16.5 feet of DOF. 17 on a crop is really more like 27 which makes it shorter.

 

Alan - I hear great things about that lens and I may end up getting an ultra wide since it

will probably be at least a year before I go to a full frame and I am sure I would hang on

to my 40D either way. I love the reach of the 40D but it is limiting on the wide end so I am

hoping the 17-40 is wide enough.

 

I prefer the 17-40 because it will work on FF and 1.6 and I never really need to be wider

then 32 which I get from the 20 2.8 I just sold off.

[jon_worth]

Aalok, I'm about to take the plunge into the world of EF-S lenses and I understand the fears some people have on this board about their potential for obsolescence.

 

IMHO, I think crop cameras are here to stay. (Okay, I may have to eat my words someday.) Crop sensors will *always* be much cheaper to produce than full frame ones and their noise response is getting better all the time.

 

I agree with Yakim about the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Granted, I haven't used it, but on paper it looks like a very versatile lens, and the reviews have generally been excellent. The EF-S 10-22 will barrel-distort less than the 17-55 does when the latter is shot wide. (This can be fixed with software, though, and in many cases will not be readily apparent anyway.)

 

I recommend you go through your images on your computer and look at their EXIF data to see what focal length you use most and go from there.

[William Michael]

Just a few thoughts on the EF17 to 40F4.0L vs. the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS

 

The difference between F2.8 and F4.0 is never important until it is important: then it is crucial.

 

And, on a similar line of debate regarding the usefulness F2.8 at the wide end, as well as the groups shots and DoF at the wide already mentioned by M Barbu: the aforementioned `wide` lenses are zooms and as such have a long end too, with the same aperture.

 

But also: IMO if one is on a budget, (and it seems you are buying a lens to REPLACE the kit lens, and as a result will have a small lens cache, being one zoom and one prime): it seems contra logic to buy a lens compassing either 17 to 40 or 17 to 55 and specifying such a narrow range of uses as `I need a lens for general landscapes and nature`.

 

The point I am making is:

 

Wouldn`t it be those who have a BIG budget who would buy lenses for detailed narrow applications . . . yes I understand you are mentioning what your main application will be to assist the answerers, but take pause and think this scenario through:

 

You cannot reasonably use your kit lens inside in ambient light as it is, and it is F3.5 to F5.6.

 

To my thinking, spending $XXX.00 on an f4 zoom with almost the same zoom compass as the kit lens you have, is not budget wise, it is budget foolish.

 

I am not suggesting that you will change what you MOST take pictures of with the next lens you purchase, I am just asking:

 

Considering your budget and you small lens kit you (will) have, are you REALLY sure you will ONLY use this next lens for `landscapes and nature` pictures exclusively?

 

WW

[aalok_gaitonde]

Thanks you all for your answers.

 

Yes, the focal length is not a problem for me. 17-40mm is enough. I dont want anything ultrawide like the 10-22. Also, I would like to stick to Canon lenses only.

 

Regards,

Aalok