Advice Needed on a Wide Angle Lens

[brian_berri]

<p>I own a Canon 40D and have these lenses:<br>

Sigma 50mm 1:2.8 DG macro<br>

Canon EFS 18-55mm 1:3.5 - 5.6<br>

Sigma 100-300mm 1:4.5-6.7<br>

I'm happy with the quality of the Sigma macro lens but feel like my other two lenses just don't stack up (they were both starter lenses). Do you have any recomendations on an upgraded wide angle lens (not too concerned about another zoom lens at the moment)?<br>

I'm ok with non-Canon brand lenses (Sigma, etc) and wouldn't be looking to break the bank on something. Maybe something around $500 (or less).<br>

Thanks for your opinions!</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Tamron has two 17-50mm 2.8 lenses in your price range right now with their rebate programs. One is smaller and lighter, the other is a little larger and heavier but it has VC (vibration control). Sigma has another new one in this 17-50mm 2.8 range for a little higher price with OS (their version of IS) that may be the best of the three. They all have excellent reputations for image quality. Maybe review them on photozone.de. I don't think you can miss with any of them. Good luck! </p>

[sheygetz]

<p>The OP is specifically not looking for another zoom. But then again Canon's WA lenses aren't exactly known as outstanding. I would venture the daring opinion that the zooms Gil mentions are probably as good at their widest 2.8 aperture as any 20/24/28 or 35 (that fit the budget!). Just compare the diagrams at SLGear. Of course you loose the faster apertures the primes come with. But just as obviously you have all the focal lengths metioned in one lens. Maybe the OP would like to enlarge on the use he wants to put the WA to and whether he needs the 1.8/ 2.0 apertures for these.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>I know you're not looking for another zoom, but I would still look at the new Canon 8-15mm. It looks intriguing for sure!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Outstanding or not, there are hardly any prime lenses for APS-C bodies that are wide angle <em>on that body</em>.</p>

<p>For wide angle, you really need to consider one of the ultra-wide zooms that run from 8-10mm on the low end and 20 to 22mm on the top.</p>

[redphoto]

<p>You are not going to be happy with the results from a cheap wide angle zoom. It is going to have a lot of edge distortion and color abberrations. Save up and buy the best one you can get, and that would be the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Gary,</p>

<p>That has to be one of the most inappropriate suggestions for a while! How does $500 or less get you a 16-35 f2.8, even a secondhand MkI? What do you see as the main quality differences between the $1,500 16-35 and the $700 17-40 f4? Because on a crop camera with good iso performance most who have used both would say, there is none. Even so the 17-40 is still 40% over budget in an area where there is lots of good quality competition.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I know two people (both Nikon shooters) who are very happy with the Tokina 11-16mm lens but it only works on APS-C bodies and they say it is more like using a prime than a zoom due to its very limited zoom range. I have not used this lens myself but they images from it (and a 300D) are very good for the price.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The Canon 8-15 is a fisheye lens.</p>

<p>The OP is shooting with a 40D, so a 16-35mm is not particularly wide angle.</p>

<p>If another 'normal' range zoom is needed to replace the 18-55mm, the 16-35mm might be considered but it's a lot of lens to carry around for everyday. If that sort of focal length is needed as an upgrade to the 18-55mm, I'd suggest also looking at either the EF-S 15-85mm IS or the weightier EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8.</p>

[bueh]

<p>A Tokina super-wide zoom is the way to go! The AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 if you have the money and love fast lenses, else the 12-24mm f/4 is also sufficient. Both are solidly built and the optically excellent.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"Do you have any recommendations on an upgraded wide angle lens (not too concerned about another zoom lens at the moment)?"</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well we might be all talking in circles because I am unsure what the OP means by this sentence.</p>

<p>Do you mean <strong><em>"I want a wide angle lens and I want it to be a prime lens"</em></strong><br />or do you mean<br /><strong><em>"I want a zoom lens to replace the 18 to 55 - and I am not concerned about the replacing the OTHER zoom lens which I have, at the moment”</em></strong><br /><strong><em>?</em></strong></p>

<p>If the first - then really the wide angle Primes which will fit your pocket are in the Sigma Range.<br />If you mean the latter - then I'd suggest the Tamron zoom, also.</p>

<p>But maybe you mean you want something even wider than the 18 to 55 - I think you need to clarify the question, please.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[phil_tuften]

<p>I was in the same boat as you, Brian. Searched long and hard, I came down to a Tokina or Canon wide zoom. Searched for a long time till I got a 2nd hand Canon 10-22 mm at the price I wanted to pay (about a year, to find a good one). Results are pretty good with this lens, only draw back it is EF-S. I picked mine up in Sydney for $750 AUD, 2 years ago. I shoot nearly all primes except for a 70-200 and the wide angle. I use it a lot, as I like a 35mm equivalent. I know it might break the bank, but it will serve you well. Remember lenses are a long term investment, and this is a really good lens. Save, and spend time searching for a good sample. Hope this helps</p>

[joshuat syd, aus]

<p>On a crop body such as the OP's 40D a wide angle is less than the typical 16, 17 & 18mm. There are many that fit into the 16, 17 & 18mm range zooms and they are all very much standard zooms.</p>

<p>I had a Canon 10-22mm which was great. Other options include the Sigma 10-20's (there are 2 of them) and the Tokinas. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them once you find the sweet spot and find the best. </p>

<p>My advice would be to find the best deal with any of these lenses and run with it. You can always sell up and get most of your money back.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Many, many people still equate "zoom" to "telephoto". I suppose from "zooming" into their subject from long distances. I've given up explaining to people that my 400/2.8 is not a zoom lens, I just go with the flow. Hence I suspect the question is about wideangle "zooms".</p>

<p>Have a look at the Sigma 12-24 as well. Buying used is always a good option from a reputable dealer. Check out keh.com for one. If you are happy with the wideangle end of the 18-55 then consider a used Canon EF 17-40/4 L, or Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>John I know what you mean - when I shoot hockey with a 300 (these days the F4 - I used to use the F2.8) I am constantaly asked what zoom range does it have. Indeed one lady once told me that I was silly to use it as her compact had a 20x zoom and my camera could not zoom at all - some are quite surprised when they look through one however and realize what they are missing with point and shoot cameras.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>If you're looking for an ultra wide angle the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is the best available for crop and easily the equal of lenses like the 16-35 f/2.8L II on FF.</p>

<p>If you want a replacement for the 18-55 then your budget is somewhat constricting, but the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 would certainly be an improvement.</p>

[William Michael]

<p> . . . I didn't think of that interpretation, thanks John: still it would be nice if the Brian did explain exactly</p>