Wide Angle Lens

B

bmitch

Member
Greetings! The other day my wife surprised the stew out of me by saying that she is very interested in getting a good wide angle lens. Right now we're using a Canon 28-300 exclusively but she is looking to be able to shoot some stuff in the below 28mm range.

Now I could spend hourse combing the web reading review after review about this lens or that, but I figured it would probably be more effective to come here and ask my question. I know that this is largely subjective, but I'm trying to get a feel for which direction we should go in buying the new lens. I've been hooked on Canon L series lenses since we put the streetsweeper on the first time, so that's a starting point for the kind of lens I'm looking for.

So here goes. What wide angle lens (or lenses) does everbody recommend? All comments are welcome!

Mitch
 
Ahh yes. I remember using my 20/2.8 after using 28-105 for so long with 35mm.

With the 30D, if you don't want to get the EF-S 10-22:

17-40L: Best value L out there. I have no complaints with it.

If money is no object: 16-35/2.8. Or just the 14/2.8, but I'm sure if you would like that as much due to it's special size.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, I'm not that educated on lenses yet and I'm a Nikon user. I am also looking for something wider but not buying any time soon.
 
A couple of third party lenses you might consider is the Tokina 12-24 (I reviewed it here http://www.themagicinpixels.com/forum/h ... ic.php?t=6) or the Sigma 10-20 which a lot of people over in the dpreview.com forums use. You could do a search over there to see photos taken with it.

If you really want wide-angle, something in the 10 to 14mm range is awesome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i had the canon ef-s 10-22 in the past and it was a fantastic lens. i sold it because i cannot use it anymore with my 5d and didn't want to keep an ef-s lens just because i still have a 20d. the 17-40L is a nice lens, i agree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A big thumbs up from me on the 17-40L. Terrific lens for the price, and the extra range (even over a 24-105) is extremely useful. No regrets at all from me on it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought I would throw in an update. The 17-40L is in the house.

It's killing me because I have to keep it hidden in my office closet because I'm giving it to my wife as a birthday present and thats another week away.
 
I was out shooting with mine. I REALLY like this lens. Super glad I bought it - that extra range is a lot of fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mine will be making the westbound cruise, i hope to get a few scenics in aruba and the famous arches in cabo san lucas with it
i think it's a great lens, great L value for the price, after the 24-105 probably my next most used lens on the 5d
 
I'll add on to this thread because I'm thinking about getting an ultra wide as well. Keeping in mind that I have a 1.6 crop factor body, can I get some input on what the different focal ranges would mean to me?
I'm thinking in particular of a trip I'll be taking to DC in June. I want to try some monument and city photography, and I gather an ultra wide may prove useful there. I know that there's a whole style of photography that I've been locked out of with my usual 28mm wide end, but the thing is this means I have no feel for what the wider lens options would be like. I also want to start trying out landscapes, I've got the chance to go on a canoe trip in Northern Minnesota later on in the year and figure that I could spend the time that I'm not shooting wildlife shooting scenery.

The 17-40L is definitely intriguing. I can get an idea of what 17mm feels like because I have my kit lens, I know that it let me do some fireworks shots at the Magic Kingdom that just don't work as well at 28mm. But what about the difference between 17 and 12 and 10mm?

I don't know what I'll "need". The 17-40 is tempting, it doesn't cost that much more and I'd sure like to add another L to my collection (actually I'm considering a longer telephoto L as well). I can imagine that that range might be usable in a wider variety of situations, but will I feel constrained by the 17mm limit? I have no idea what will happen once I start exploring the options that a wider angle gives me.

I'm feeling biased against the Canon 10-22, it just seems awfully pricey. I'm already looking at blowing more money on a long tele for wildlife shooting, partially for the canoe trip, if I take it. I'd just as rather reign in the spending on the ultra wide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan, I'm going to quote Roger from lensrentals.com here:

"For those of you who haven’t tried an ultra wide angle lens, remember the field of view at 11mm is 50% larger than 18mm. It makes a world of difference."

http://www.lensrentals.com/item/sony-11-18-mm-f4.5-5.6

This shot of the Lincoln Memorial I took with the 20/2.8 USM on positive film:

<img src="http://www.themeparkphotos.us/g/g2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=10074" />
 
The 17-40 is as wide as I need for my landscape shots, but I'm using it on a full-frame body - big difference. All I know is that I have a 24-105, and the 17 at wide open is NOTICEBLY wider than the 24.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dan
consider the tokina 12-24, reviewed favorably by other tmip members, you really need to get down to 11-12 on the wide end with the crop body
i know the 10-22 is expensive, but i'll say it's a very impressive lens for a non L
and if most of your budget is going towards an L tele, and you want the wide for a specific trip then rent it for this year, that will let you get into the feel of a real wide end before spending the bucks
and dc is one place you want to be wide, wide as you can get short of a fisheye, monuments, the mall and the older buildings, esp georgetown, and around dupont circle, all take on a completely different look done in wide angle
 
Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. I wanted everyone to say that the 17-40 would be fine for me. It does overlap my current coverage a bit too much anyway.

Oh well, the Tokina's cheaper. The photozone.de review mentioned some fairly serious CA that concerns me, although in the end they largely dismissed it as something that's easy to correct with the proper RAW tools. The Sigma 10-20 looks like a serious contender too, photozone gives very similar resolution data for both. The Sigma costs roughly the same, but adds their HSM (USM equivalent, apparently). Photozone says it has a bit of a vignetting problem, though.
I guess I could always get a 5D and the 17-40 ;).

Okay, well, thanks for the input.

As for DC, I've been there twice before with a DSLR, but only with the kit lens both times. That was back when I thought I could just buy the body and that would be it, I figured I wouldn't need those high priced lenses.

Yeah, yeah.. I had NO idea what I was getting into. Before that I'd shot film with an older SLR I got from a garage sale for $20, I think one of the lenses was a Sears brand, or something like that. I had no idea how complicated the lens situation got, and how much the quality varied.

It would be quite a photo adventure to experience everything all over again with an ultra wide. I saw Scott's review, it made me realize how much new stuff there was for me to learn with that kind of shooting. In particular I'll remember the bit about getting something interesting in the foreground.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top