Advise for a Canon Wide Angle, please

c_lawrence · Mar 29, 2008

I am looking to purchase a wide angle lens for my canon xti. (will eventually upgrade my camera body so I'm looking for a digital/film interchangeable lens in case I end up with a full format down the road)

I have the 'stock' 18-55mm lens that came with the xti when purchased. I am also getting ready to purchase a 50mm f/1.4.
Just invested in 70-200 2.8 L series... (wow!)
And now looking for a good quality super-wide, preferably f/3 or better with sharp images
...BUT... due to my most recent "L investment", the budget for this wide angle is under $300-400...

are my desires possible for this price -- any suggestions?

Big Mike · Mar 29, 2008

I think you are stuck...

Firstly, because of the crop factor of the XTi, what is wide on a film/full frame camera, is not so wide on the XTi. So one lens probably can't do the job of wide angle on both types of camera.

For example, the 17-40mm F4 L or the 16-35mm F2.8 L, are two really great wide angle lenses...they might even be called ultra wide angle on full frame. However, those lenses on an XTi will be only slightly wider than your kit lens at 18mm.

The best wide angle lens for the crop bodies, is the EF-S 10-22mm. It gives you that really wide field of view, but being and EF-S lens...it's no good for full frame. It's also quite expensive...as are the two EF lenses I mentioned.

I don't know what to suggest for your budget...but for a wide angle, I don't think it's practical to hold off on the 'digital only' lenses. Go ahead and get one, and if you upgrade to a full frame camera, just keep the wide angle with that camera or sell it off at that time.

memento · Mar 29, 2008

c_lawrence said:
preferably f/3 or better with sharp images
...BUT... due to my most recent "L investment", the budget for this wide angle is under $300-400...

are my desires possible for this price -- any suggestions?

What I've noticed is that when you start looking at lenses that are 2.8 or faster.. the prices start at around a thousand USD.

But with wide angle, I'd have to assume you're shooting landscape.
If that's the case, why do you need the speed?
You need a tripod, not fast glass.
Look for focal range not really wide apartures.

Save up a bit more and get a 10ishmm - 22ishmm.. check out Tamron and Sigma.

Riggaberto · Mar 29, 2008

Save for the 17-40, it's worth it. the 16-35 might not be worth it on a budget, because it gets distorted at 16 and it's twice as much. I only got one because I got a deal on it, and I need the extra stop. Waiting to get the 17-40 f/4 L is worth it though, do it. It's not as fast as you want but it's crispy good.

JIP · Mar 29, 2008

Honesly if I were you and I only had $400 I would save my money. If you have a decent lens already just go with it and wait till you can afford a 2.8 or mabye an L lens as well.

astrostu · Mar 29, 2008

Yeah, I'd save your money. I was buying ~$300 lenses (well, 2 of them) and then went the L route for a prime. Now I "can't" go back, and I also plan on getting a full-frame body at some point so don't want to buy EF-S lenses. If it helps, my long-term lens purchasing plan (in approximate order of purchase) is:

70-200 mm f/2.8L (this summer)
24-70 mm f/2.8L (following summer, 2009)
14 mm f/2.8L II (maybe when I get my doctorate, 2011?)

I'd really like the 14 mm one sooner, but I'd rather have a wider range of good glass before that. One thing you should look into, though, if you do choose to wait, is panorama software. I used to love RealViz's "Stitcher" program, but over the last ~2 years I've found that Autopano Pro is superb. Whenever I do landscapes, I do panoramas with my 35 mm f/1.4L, and the way I shoot, there are no stitching artifacts (unless there's a huge foreground object and I'm doing something in the background, but that's more of a composition issue). I think panoramas are a reasonable substitute for an $1800 lens (last I checked).

c_lawrence · Mar 30, 2008

Thank you all so much, the info is very helpful.

But with wide angle, I'd have to assume you're shooting landscape.
If that's the case, why do you need the speed?

Definately will be shooting landscapes, but also want to use it for creative close-ups, so that's why I was thinking of the 2.8.

But I think Mike is right -- after doing some more research and reading these responses -- I think I'm stuck with my previous limitations.

SO...
I was looking at B&H and saw a Sigma 12-24. Anyone have any experience with this lens? I know it's lower quality in general and typically I don't like this brand (seems to 'stick' with manual focus), but if anyone has used this lens, could you tell me how the images came out? pros and cons?

OK... two more - I also just saw (B&H) these two lenses:

TAMRON Zoom Fisheye to Super Wide-Angle 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AT-X 107 DX Autofocus Lens for Canon Digital ($550)

SIGMA Zoom Super Wide Angle 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras ($500)

Anyone has experience with these? Would the Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for $650 be better?

Thanks again for you time and feedback!

astrostu · Mar 30, 2008

c_lawrence said:
I was looking at B&H and saw a Sigma 12-24. Anyone have any experience with this lens? ... SIGMA Zoom Super Wide Angle 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras ($500)

I think a lot of people on this board have the Sigma 12-24 and like it. I was originally looking at the Sigma 10-20 but was told the "DC" meant that it's for cropped bodies - which you said you wanted to avoid.

Would the Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for $650 be better?

Again, I thought you wanted to avoid lenses tied to cropped bodies. Any EF-S lens is only meant to be used on Canon's cropped bodies, not ones with a full-frame sensor.

c_lawrence · Mar 30, 2008

astrostu... thanks - I actually did not realize that DC was for digital only, but I did know about the EF-S... I guess I'm leaning more towards the advise I got from Mike about not taking the digital only lenses into consideration & just knowing that if I do upgrade to a full frame camera then I will need an additional wide angle to fit it... basically, just sidening my options a bit...

any other suggestions and/or experience with the above (or other) wide angle lenses for Canon would be greatly appreciated.

soylentgreen · Mar 30, 2008

Save up a bit more. You can get the older version of the 16-35 f/2.8L for a song these days. The 17-35 f/2.8L goes for about $600 and less. You can check KEH.com for used euipment or B&H, Adorama. My friend just got one in really good condition for $299 US.

c_lawrence · Mar 31, 2008

thanks... didn't know about KEH -- I'll check this out.

Big Mike · Apr 1, 2008

I read a ton of reviews before I ended up buying the Canon 10-22mm. Bottom line was that it was the best lens of the group. I've also been hearing plenty of good things about the Sigma 10-20mm, which is cheaper.

Another thing to consider is the resale value. It's hard to know for sure, but I would guess that the Canon will hold it's value better than the off brand lenses.

You could buy an ultra wide angle for you current camera, then sell it when you upgrade and use the proceeds toward a wide angle for the new body (17-40 or 16-35 etc).

I may be wrong, but I thought that the Sigma 12-24mm did vignette a little bit on full frame. Not to the extent that a DC lens would...but just a bit at 12-14mm.