Canon wide angle help

[memento]

I have a 40d and want a wide angle lens.
I've had it in my mind that I want the 17-55,
until I saw a 17-85 on Craig's List for a good price.
It made me think, do I really need to dump a bunch of cash on a lens?
I mean, would I notice a difference?

The main use would be family/holiday, mostly inside stuff.
But definitely used for landscape too.

I've also been eying the 16-35L.
And I've debated about Tamron's 17-50 2.8 and Sigma's equal.

There's too many options.

Someone tell me what to get.

ps. I don't plan on upgrading to a full senor body any time soon/ever.

 

[EOS_JD]

Yes you would see a difference.
The max f2.8 aperture allows so many more opportunities to take a shot than the slow f4.5-5.6 that is the 17-85.

For indoor photography the 17-85 is just too slow unless you have a decent flash.

For landscapes, I would suspect either lens would do the job.

16-35L is a heavy investment. On a crop camera, the 17-55 IS is just the ticket. If you can do without IS then the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is also a nice lens.

 

[Big Mike]

The question to ask yourself is....do you need a large maximum aperture like F2.8? If you do, then go with one of the F2.8 lenses. The Canon 17-55 IS, is maybe the best option but it's expensive. The 16-35 F2.8 L is also very expensive and also very good (no IS though).

The Tamron and the Sigma are both pretty good and are priced much lower.

If you don't need such a wide aperture (you do have the 50mm F1.8 after all) then you could go with the 17-85 IS. I have this lens and it's actually really good. Great for all around shooting...I use it quite often.
However, when I shoot weddings, I use my Tamron 17-50 F2.8 because I usually need to shoot at F2.8 or F4 etc.

 

[memento]

The question to ask yourself is....do you need a large maximum aperture like F2.8?

That's what I don't know.
I got the 50 1.8 and was surprised at how much light was still needed, even wide open.
I haven't used it in a while, especially sense I got a flash(430ex).
It taught me a lot about DOF.
However, I don't like the prime part.
Plus, I'm not too happy with the quality of the image.
I found the pictures with the 28-135 looked better, so that's all I use now.
I'm amazed at how awesome the inside pictures are coming out.
I've been using smaller f/ #'s(8) with the flash.
So why do I need the 2.8 if I'm mostly f/8?
Is it that with a 17-55 opens wide enough so you don't need a flash?

Hmmmm... maybe I should use the 50 @ 2.8 for a while, and conduct my own experiment???

 

[Big Mike]

Hmmmm... maybe I should use the 50 @ 2.8 for a while, and conduct my own experiment???

Good idea. However, if you are finding that the 50mm F1.8 at F1.8 isn't letting in enough light, then F2.8 isn't going to help any.

You are correct though, if you are using flash and usually using smaller apertures like F8, then you might not need to spend the big bucks for a fast lens.

I'm surprised that you are not happy with the image quality of the 50mm. It's usually a pretty good lens. Keep in mind that it should be quite a bit sharper at F2.8 than it is at F1.8. Cheap lenses are usually poor when used wide open. Also, it's not built as well as most, so somthing may be out. Try it at F2.8 and F8 etc and see if you don't love it.

I explained in another thread today, how a large aperture can be helpful when shooting with flash...if you want to achieve a balance between flash and ambient exposure and to get faster enough shutter speeds while doing so. This is why I use an F2.8 zoom lens.
However, if you are happy shooting at F8 with flash, the you shouldn't have a problem.

Also, keep in mind that you can raise the shutter speed or get more ambient exposure by turning up the ISO. The 40D should be able to give you great images at ISO 800 or even 1600...just be sure to keep your exposure accurate, otherwise the noise will come out in processing.

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

To make your decision even harder, if you determine you do not in fact need the 2.8, you could consider the 17-40 f4L. you'll get a constant f4 with L series quality. Also, I haven't seen mention anywhere yet, that the lenses you are looking at are all digital-only except for the L series ones. (according to BH they each come out to about the same focal length, which doesn't make sense to me considering that some are digital only)

 

[Big Mike]

(according to BH they each come out to about the same focal length, which doesn't make sense to me considering that some are digital only)

Focal length is focal length...it's the physics of the lens and has nothing to do with digital or not.
However, the FOV (field of view) may be different, depending on what camera you attach the lens to.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Also, I believe they make a EF-S 10-22mm, which is the crop equiv. of a 16-35mm. If you'e not planning on switching, then that is the wide angle for you.

 

[Goldeeno]

I was going to ask if you had considered the 10-20mm. For portraits i dont rate it, for scenes, i love it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldeeno/2175840122/
And the sigma lens is currently about £330.
I rate and so do alot of others. It falls short on the maximum zoom, but to be honest i have a 18-55 and 55-200, only kit lenses but, at least ive got a good overall range.