EF wide zooms ?

[calvin_choy]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I currently have a cropped sensor DSLR (450D) and have a 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S Lens which I really like. However, since I expect the FF camera's will be more affordable in the future I am planning to invest more in EF lenses. To expand my lens collection I wanted to add one wide lens and one zoom lens.</p>

<p>The zoom lens is easy, I think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS will be a really nice one. However, a wide EF lens is a bit difficult, I see that there is a EF-S 10-22 . . . and when I look at the EF line I only see wide primes . . . which cost a lot more. Anyone have a suggestion for a good wide EF zoom lens ?<br>

Thnx</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The 17-40 F4L and the 16-35 F2.8II L are both excellant but will be wider on a crop body and will feel a bit big on the 450 I suspect. They are also expensive $650 and $1350 but will also work on a full frame camera if you upgrade later. I have owned both and in my opinion the image quality difference is small so you should only get the 16-35 if you need the extra stop. The other advantage of the 17-40 is that it is a 77mm diameter filter ring which is the same as your 70 -200 F2.8. I cannot comment on the 10-22 but others will. They will also suggest some alternative Tamron, Tokina and Sigma lenses some of which may be quite good.</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>The 70-200/2.8 L IS is certainly a very good choice for a tele zoom ... I recommend to handle it before buing ... just to get a feeling how heavy it is. If you don't necessarily need f/2.8 the 70-200/4L IS is also highly recommended.</p>

<p>The 10-22 is an EF-S lens ... which you seem to want to avoid ... albeit very good, this lens will not work on any fullframe camera. The next one would be Canons EF 16-35/2.8L. On your 450D you will not have any advantage against the EFS 17-55/2.8 IS that you already have. So this would be a pure investment into a possible fullframe future.</p>

<p>If you want something wider than the 17-55 and also a lens that works on fullframe, the Sigma 12-24 is an option.</p>

[bryantan]

<p>Your two Canon options are the 16-35 and 17-40. The Sigma 12-24 would work for you, but it might be much wider than you bargained for on FF.</p>

[calvin_choy]

<p>Maybe because it is because I am still working on a cropped sensor camera that I feel like the 16-35 and 17-40 are not wide . . .becuase I have the 17-55mm. I understand that 16 and 17 mm on a fullframe is very wide.</p>

<p>It just bother me that even though if I buy the 16-35 or 17-40 I will not take much advantage from it after I purchase a FF camera . . which I don' t know when it will hapen. And I wished there was a 17-40 f/2.8 . . .</p>

<p>I am using the 17-55 f2.8 so often that I cant imagine how to live with a f4.0 . . . I am scared that I will miss the extra stop. I have searched a lot on the forum, and see that there are lot of people taking the f4.0 becuase the f2.8 is so heavy.... honestly I think the 70-200 will look stupid on my 450D haha . . .</p>

<p>I also own a 85mm f1.8, the quality is excellent . . but again because of the crop factor it is just that little too much . . . im sure it will be perfect on a fullframe.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I too am not a big fan of EF-S lenses but on the wide end of a crop camera the only way to get a really wide angle is to go EF-S. I ended up getting a 10-22 to go with my EF 24-105. Lately I have been using the 10-22 more and more and I am really learning to love it. That lens with a 50 1.4 makes a nice set up. </p>

<p>For you I would say sell the 17-55 and get a 5D ( used or new ) or consider an UW EF-S lens and keep your current set up. Sigma makes a very affordable 10-20, I believe its around $420 on Amazon but I really like the small light Canon 10-22 even though some would argue the build is better on the sigma.</p>

<p> </p>

[darren_brecht]

<p>I have the 10-22mm and love it.. it is also a 77mm so that would work well if you do decide to get a 70-200mm 2.8.. I see no problems with the build quality, and i did a lot of reading before I picked this over the sigma 10-20mm...</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Calvin, I always buy for what I want/need to use now and not compromise for what I might use sometime in the future. There is only now. The future is uncertain. The 10-22mm Canon EF-S lens is very very good. That and the 17-55mm 2.8 are so good that they are excellent reasons to keep using the APS-C format. JMNHO of course.</p>

[milan.ilnyckyj]

<p>This is an important question for those who really can't afford to spend many thousands of dollars on lenses every couple of years. If you were going to be spending at most $500 a year or so on lenses, you would want ones likely to be compatible with future bodies, including full-frame models.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Bryan + Gil have it.<br>

12mm is <em><strong>really</strong> </em> wide on a 24x36mm sensor camera. 16 or 17mm, of course, are the equivalent of the 10mm lenses on the 15x22mm bodies.<br>

But get what you need now, later, you can always keep the Rebel as a backup camera and use the EF-S lenses there, or you can probably sell it on eBay for a market price or to Adorama for a wholesale price.</p>

[adam_gifford]

<p>Because of the crop: wide on a FF camera = not wide on Crop camera. Thats what the cropping does.<br>

So wide on a crop camera = really really wide on FF, so much so they they dont really make sense/physically possible.<br>

If you want wide on a crop, you pretty much need to get a crop only wide lens like the ~10 to ~22 options widely available.<br>

Your other choice is the aforementioned 12-24, which isnt as wide as the 10mm options, and is freakishly wide on a FF. Plus its got a protruding dome or something to make it work.<br>

Best bet is to get a ~10-22 for crop or limit yourself to a 17-40 which isnt particularly wide.</p>

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>Are you going to sell the cropped camera when you buy a FF? That makes a difference. If you are, don't buy any more EF-s lenses. If you are going to keep it and add a FF, I would consider the Tokina 12-24 for now "if" you need a wider lens than the 17-55. You can use it on a FF but only at 17MM or wider.</p>

<p>The lenses I use the most with my 40d and 5d are 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200L 2.8 IS. I have primes and specialty lenses, but use these 3 for the majority of my shooting.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you already have the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by switching to either the 16-35 or the 17-40 L lenses now. Not better image quality. Not larger focal length range. Not larger maximum aperture. And, obviously, not image stabilization.</p>

<p>When and if you sell the cropped sensor camera it will be time to worry about this.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>"I am using the 17-55 f2.8 so often that I cant imagine how to live with a f4.0 . . . I am scared that I will miss the extra stop. "</p>

<p>Have you actually looked at the exposure data in your photos? If you are using auto exposure you are not necessarily using the lens at F2.8. Many photographers (especially landscape) stop down wide angle lens to increase depth of field (I rarely use my 17-40mm below F8). Others simply increase the ISO by one stop.<br>

<br>

The 17-40mm, in my opinion, is popular because it provides a wide angle view at a lower cost on a FF camera then the Canon alternatives ($700 savings compared to the 16-35mm and $1300 savings compared to the14mm). The 16-35mm is only 1.4lbs (635g) while the 17-40mm is 1.1lbs (500g). That is not a big difference. Weight is more of an issue with the 70-200mm lenses. The F2.8 lens is 3.5lbs while the F4 is only 1.5lbs. That is a big difference. </p>

<p>You really need to ask yourself if you really need F2.8 lenses. Yes the zoom range of your lens is very convienent but convienence should not be the only reason to choose only F2.8 lenses. The exposure data imbedded in your photos and the style of photography you prefer should be the deciding factors. In your case you also need to ask yourself how long you are going to wait before going to full frame. If it is going to be soon then don't concider the 10-22 EFS. However if not, then I would concider it. </p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Since you have the (reputedly excellent) EF-S 17~55, there is no point in buying one of the wide Canon EF lenses until you change formats. The only one that would get you noticeably wider than your present lens is the 14/2.8, and I have always regarded it as crazy to buy that lens for use on a 1.6-factor body. Changing to the 17~40 or 16~35 would lose you both IS and a useful part of the zoom range, and, in the case of the 17~40, one stop of speed. If you want to go wider than the 17~55, either change formats now and also buy either the 17~40 or the 16~35, or buy the (excellent, from personal experience) EF-S 10~22. Can't comment on off-brand options, I don't go there.</p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>an inexpensive alternative is the Tamrom 17-35mm 2.8-4.0.... if you can get a good copy this lens is super sharp.... i use this on my 40D for now with hopes to uprade to FF later.... look into it....</p>

[rj russell]

<p>Calvin, are you buying full frame tommorow or just another one of us who dream of it. You have made a good investment into APC sensors with a fabulous lens already... truth be told you will miss the 17-55 f2.8 I.S. greatly if you go full frame, it is a lens of the times, a true keeper.<br>

I too would love to go full frame and still might, but in the meantime I like having quality lensnes matched with the perspectives I need to keep me shooting now. I have a 400D and wouldnt dream of life without my 17-55 f2.8 I.S. or my Sigma 10-20.<br>

I dont believe crop sensors are going anywhere soon and they are pretty good. Perhaps in the future they will be as good in low light situations with a larger variety of fast wide lenses? If not old lenses can be sold for new lenses and the future is full of large camera bodies and large lenses to produce good corners on those large sensors. <br>

Grap the Canon 10-22 ($680 approx) or the Sigma 10-20 ($480 aprox. I reccomend this as a user, its fantastic) and continue having fun until the urge strikes you to buy a $2700+ body. I would consider that 70-200 f2.8 I.S. long before the body as well... that would be one sweet trio of zooms!<br>

Ultimately that's my 5 cents, good luck with your choice and keep us posted with what you get and what you reasoning was.<br>

Ryan</p>

[NimArt]

<p>Hi<br>

Think about Ef 17- 40 L F 4, I recently have bought it , and find it very good, sharp and wide enough for me, take a look. Nima</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>16-35 on full frame is the same as 10-22 on 1.6 crop, if that helps.</p>

[calvin_choy]

<p>Thank you all for the great advices.</p>

<p>I am not planning to get a FF really soon (see next paragraph), although I do expect that, with all the competition going around lately, the price for FF will drop drmatically withing the coming two year. The big question is ofcourse will the canon (or other company) release a camera with a price tag between the XXD and 5D series. If I check the current prices now (europe) I see that there is a gap of about 1000 euros between a high-end crop and a FF. Something like 1000~1200 for crop and 2000 to 2500 for FF. If one of the company manage to bring one out a FF priced around 1600 or so, it will give the final push.</p>

<p>The question if I will keep the crop or not is difficult . . . I think I will have another camera withing 1.5 years. I planned to get a XXD end of this year (the FF is still out of my budget I think) . . but the 50D disappoint me and there isn't much reasons to get a 40D having the 450D already, imo.<br>

I do agree with buying what you need now, because I feel the limitations of using just my 17-55mm lens, although I try to myself entertained enough with some creativity :). The decision of the 10-22mm or not is difficult . . . I think I may first purchase the zoom lens first. It will give me some extra time to consider.</p>

<p>The option of getting the 17-40L, which gives very good quality and build is starting to get attractive. I know that the f/4 shouldnt be a problem, but what about the combination of the f2.8 with IS? When it is getting dark outside with the f/2.8 and IS combination I still manage to get decent pictures. Will that still be possibiel with the f4.0 without IS ? I do have a flash (430 EXII), while I love to use it inside, or as additional fill light etc. I definetly don't like to use it outside in the dark when my flash is the only light source.</p>

<p>So, in short:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>70-200mm IS L for sure . . . f2.8 or f4.0. The f4.0 is priced a bit more human :p</li>

<li>10-22mm, wait till I get the 70-200mm</li>

<li>FF cam, not withing 2 years</li>

<li>17-40 L f4, how is the performance without IS and in the dark. If the next XXD can have low noise high iso (like the Nikon D90) I think I will sell my 17-55 and get this one instead. The ISO1600 on my 450D is saving me some shots every now and then . . . I get shutterspeeds of 1/30 to 1/60 and manage to get some decent shots when images are resized smaller ofcourse . . .</li>

</ol>

<p>Thnx for reading :)</p>

 

[c jensen]

<p>You seem to like 2.8. Take a look at the reviews on the Tokina 11-16. I just bought it and love it.</p>

[rj russell]

<p>That 17-40 wont do any justice with your crop, I wouldnt touch it with the 17-55 at my disposal!<br>

I find it rather odd that a fella asking questions about wide is now leaning to tele-photo.<br>

Try doing the math...</p>

<ol>

<li>16-35 f2.8 L (1400) + 24-70 f2.8 L($1300)+ 70-200 f2.8 L (1500)+ 5DmkII (2700)= approx. $6900 for full frame with quality F2.8 fast zooms.</li>

<li>17-40L ($700)+24-105 f4 L ($960) + 70-200 f4 L IS ($950) + 5DmkII (2700)=approx. $5300 for full frame with slow quality f4 zooms.</li>

<li>10-22($680)+17-55 f2.8 IS(owned) + 70-200f4 L IS ($950) + 450D(owned)=$1630 (shave $200 if buying sigma 10-20. = 1430 for quality zooms and your body.</li>

</ol>

<p>The difference between option 1 and 3 is $5470, I sure could use a vaction to shoot foriegn land with my new lenses! On the other hand Canon is probably starving and $5470 might just keep tham afloat for another year ;)<br>

All prices aproximate from B&H.<br>

Enjoy the consumer game!</p>

[spipaw]

<p>Hey Cailvin.<br>

Like you I am in the same position. I also am planning on buying the new 5D. I currently have a 40D and I love it. I have been buying only EF lenses ( I have seven ) for the same exact reason as the situation that you are in. However, I've held out on the wide angle lens decision because I thought like you, It would be a waste of money to buy one that is an EFS. Well, this chrstmas I got the10-22 EFS and i couldn't be more happy here's why:<br>

Ive been waiting for the 5D markII since I Before I bought my 30D. Back then i got suck into the 5D hype machine and I decided to wait because it was supposed to come out soon. Guess what? It diddn't. So i bought the 30D and learned the camera and it's system, bought a few lenses,took great photos, got better at post processing, and even bought a pro wide format printer (Epson 3800). Well, less than a year later canon released the 40D. I was highly upset. It had features that I really wanted in my30D and I felt cheated. It was then that I could hear the sweet and undeniable deisel hum of the 5D hype train once again coming down the tracks. Man I hopped that train like hobo trying to get to next town before it got dark. But then guess what? That train slammed to a halt and threw me right off the train. No 5D,no next town, no nothing. Once again I felt that I had gotten railroaded ( no pun intended). But then I lucked out-- someone wanted my camera (selling a used digital camera is hard these days) and since it was less than a year old, i got enough to help buy me the 40D. I continued to take great photos, bought more lenses and got even better at post processing and enjoyed my photographic life. My friends and family loved my photos. I was either winning or placing in the competitions that i had entered and really had no need for a new camera. And then it happened again. Here comes that 5D train again, but this time I wasn't buying it. Sure this time it was for real, sure this time there are actual passingers on this train waving their 5D's out the window on their way to happytown, but I realise that I'm happy wtih what I've got - A fantastic 40D that just isn't a good backup camera, but a great second camera. The point is I regret not buying the10-22 sooner because I thought that having a 5D would make me Ansel Adams. It won't. There were to many times that I was in the montains, city streets, small rooms, or at the park where the light was right, and I had all day to shoot whatever I wanted and I didn't because in my mind I told myself "wait till they see what I can do with this 5D and crazy L lens!". <br>

So If your waiting for the price to drop on the new 5D good luck. In the meantime get the10-22. It has damn near L lens quality. (and I have a few ) Personally, I am glad that I can't find the 5D at my local store because I'm worried about Canon's self admitted problems with the camera and I would rather wait until I know that these specific problems are gone. Whether it's 3 to 6 months or a year I can wait. I know the 5D is better for a variety of reasons, But I can wait to enjoy it then as much i enjoy my 40D now. There are a lot of good people here giving great advice, I know because I read these forums everyday but, in the end you need to decide whether it's worth it to miss out on getting great shots with this lens or waiting until you can afford the 5D. ( in which case you still would have to buy at least the 17-40 L as Nima mentioned ) For me it's a no-brainer.</p>

<p>Good Luck, Lionel</p>