Okay- so I have a 7d with the 28-135 kit lens and a 50mm 1.8. I have been finding that I have been missing a lot of opportunities because I don't have a wider lens. I'm not looking for a UWA because the person I do most shoots with has a 8-15mm f4 L. I'm really wanting something that would also fit on a full frame body because I will DEFINITELY be going that route sooner than later. I was looking into the 16-35 2.8L along with countless others. The problem is that I'm really unsure of how wide that would be on a 7d body. I just don't know what to go with, and would appreciate any guidance! Thanks in advance!
The 8-15 is a fisheye, so it will have a much different look than rectilinear wide angles. The Canon 16-35 is about as good as you can do in a zoom that will also work on full frame, and the 17-40 is really nice as well, considering how much cheaper it is. Tokina also makes a nice 16-28 2.8 that will work on full frame, performance is really nice actually, it'd be a tough choice between this and the 16-35L for me. To go wider than 16 and retain full frame compatibility, you're looking at a Canon 14mm, or Zeiss 15mm prime (just announced), both of which would be much more money than a 16-35, and not much wider (they will likely have less distortion however). Also at the top of the budget is the Canon 17mm TS-E, which will produce ~12mm shots if you use the shift feature to do a stitched pano. Again, very expensive, but hands down the best performance available in a wide angle. Lenses hold their value well though, so depending on how soon you intend to go full frame, it might be worth it to get an EF-S zoom for now and sell it when you upgrade. This is the route I took with the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and it's served me well. Also worth looking at in this class are the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, and the Sigma 8-16.
I know, and I've really considered that as well. Is there anything that would be wider, that would rival or match the optic quality of either L series lens?
Not wider no, I wouldn't think so. The Tokina 16-28, and Canon 16-35 compete amazingly well against each other.. The only thing that performs better are the three primes I mentioned (or maybe an adapted Nikon 14-24). Anything wider than 14 or 16 is really targeted at crop sensor users (who likely don't want to spend $2,000 on a wide angle). There is a Sigma 12-24, that is full frame compatible, the widest full frame lens in fact. It is quite poor optically compared to all the other lenses I've discussed however. If you want the highest possible quality, wider than 16, and you don't want to have to sell it when you upgrade, I'd probably go for the 17mm TS-E. You can stitch shots on your crop to simulate a 12mm, you'll have the sharpest, least distorted lens on the market that's wider than 24, and you'll have a tilt shift!
Multiply by 1.6 for the crop factor, and it works out to 25.6-56mm. You're already working at 28mm, so you don't really gain anything. The problem is that full frame wide angle lenses on crop sensor cameras just don't get you very far in terms of actually achieving a wide angle of view. I would consider getting an inexpensive EF-S 18-55mm to get the wide angle you want now, and deal with the full frame camera later when you actually have one, or, if you have the budget for it, go for one of the 10-22mm lenses in the EF-S mount lineup from one of the manufacturers getting decent reviews on them. True, neither will fit a future full frame camera, but you'll stop missing shots on the wide end. I suppose it depends on how soon you plan to get a full frame camera though, and what your budget can stand. When you get the full frame camera, what do you plan to do with the 7D? If you plan to keep it as a backup, the EF-S lens(es) can still be used with it. If you plan to sell it, you can sell the EF-S lens(es) with it to help monetarily afford a wide angle for the full frame.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my 28-135 would more like a 45-220 on my crop body right? I thought all lens focal lengths were based on ff bodies. I've really been thinking about the Tokina 11-18 2.8 lately though. As far as me getting a ff body, I would definately keep my 7d as a backup, so I'll probably just get efs lenses until the time comes. Since I posted this, I've done a lot of research and I also got my hands on a fisheye lens, and really came to the conclusion that I want something really pretty wide.
Sorry, my mistake. I somehow got confused and had the 28-135 as an EF-S lens in my mind. Silly, since I have one of my own and know better. You're correct, you're shooting at a wide end of 45 equivalent, not 28.
Even if it was an EF-S lens, it's still 28. 28 is 28, even when you're only capturing the center portion of it.
Lol It's all good! Does anyone have any opinions on the Tokina 11-16 2.8? I've looked into it and people really seem to like it. I was looking at it and the canon 10-22 as well, but from what I saw more people preferred the 11-16.
I have the 11-16 and I like it a lot. It's got some CA, and it flares, but overall very nice. Sharp across the frame, minimal distortion, nice build. You might also want to have a look at the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, or the 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6.
It's not going to give him the wide composition he's looking for if it's a 28mm non-S on a crop sensor. But then, you knew that I'm sure, so you're just being pedantic for some reason. Anything else to contribute?
The only reason I mentioned it was because it's a beginner question that often comes up... Folks asking if 28 on an EF lens is the same as 28 on an EF-S, or if they need to do a conversion or whatever. It's a discussion that happens on this forum from time to time, so I didn't want someone without the understanding to read a line out of context and get confused. My intent was not to be pedantic, but to clear up an apparent ambiguity that causes confusion in people who don't have their heads buried in this stuff all the time as we do.
