Wide angle lens

blueofspirit

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Hong Kong
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I'm going away on a trip into some scenic (big mountains, plains, etc.) places and want to buy a wide angle lens before I go. I own a 50D so I know there'll be the 1.6x crop limiting how wide I can go, but really want some advice on what lens I should get. Budget is probably around US$1,000 (or more if there are gems that are worth it)

Currently thinking of the following. Any recommendations?

1. EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
2. EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
3. EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Why is the 16-35 twice as expensive as the other two? Because of the f2.8? Is it worth it if I'm going to be shooting daytime big scenery mostly?

Thanks!
 
You could also check out the Sigma 10-20s and the Tokina 11-16, although the 11-16 is hard to get ahold of... 10mm is considered the Ultra wide on crops, the equivalent to 16mm on a full frame sensor, so you may want to go that route if you want some crazy wide shots.
 
The 16-35mm and the 17-40mm, while wide angle lenses, aren't really all that wide on your camera because of the crop factor. The 10-22mm will allow you a much wider view.

I have the 10-22mm and it's a great lens. But yes, also consider the Sigma & Tokina mentioned above.

Why is the 16-35 twice as expensive as the other two? Because of the f2.8? Is it worth it if I'm going to be shooting daytime big scenery mostly?
Partially, yes....but also because it's an 'L' lens...Canon's designation for their top of the line lenses. It has also be recently redesigned (hence the II) so it's more expensive than an older model.

The 17-40mm is also an 'L' lens, but is actually one of the most affordable...a great bargain.
 
If you want wide angle, the 16-35mm f2.8L is hard to beat. I own it and love it. The 17-40 f4L is a quality piece of L glass. In this range the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 has excellent optic quality. The build is not L glass build and the motor is a bit noisy but an excellent lens. I still keep one around because optically it is that good.

If you want ultra-wide then the Canon 10-22 or the Toking 11-16 are both outstanding lenses. I used to own the Canon and sold it and I now have the Tokina. I needed the speed that the Tokina provided for sports. I have heard good things about the Sigma, but have never shot one so I have no first hand experience with it.

It really comes down to how wide do you want or need to go as to what glass to get.
 
Last edited:
I also am thinking of grabbing a wide angle soon. I had the Tokina 12-24 when I first got my camera but never used it, so I sold it. It was built like a tank though and took great shots. However, now I am probably leaning towards the Tokina 11-16 ( especially since I also have their 16-50 f/2.8 so I would have a lot of range covered ) I have heard that the 11-16 is very sharp throughout because of its short zoom range. Not sure how true it is, but I am sure its more consistent than a zoom of 10-24. Just my two cents.
 
With that budget the EF-s 10-22 is really the best option (IMO).

17-40 (or 16-35) is not wide enough on a crop body.
 
Would the EFS 10-22 have crazy distortion? I'm aware of the necessary distortion but don't want photos to be like they're shot out of a fisheye lens. For reference pictures should I be looking at 16-35 samples to get a feel of what pictures will look like (given the crop)?

Fokker - "with that budget" - what else is there if I take away the budget? Just for reference..
 
You won't get crazy distortion with a 10-22. To be honest there's not a heap else that goes that wide apart form the tokina 11-16 mentioned already, and the sigma 10-20. All good lenses though the canon is very well regarded and has a good zoom range. With regards to my earlier comment regarding your budget, I was more suggesting that your budget is quite healthy, and therefore you should take the canon option as opposed to a cheaper sigma. Since you already ahve the 24-70 it maeks sense to get something that covers up pretty close to the 24mm mark - the tokina (a good lens I've heard, haven't personally read any reviews or anything though) will elave you a little bit of a gap in between ultrawide and wide.
 
You won't get crazy distortion with a 10-22. To be honest there's not a heap else that goes that wide apart form the tokina 11-16 mentioned already, and the sigma 10-20. All good lenses though the canon is very well regarded and has a good zoom range. With regards to my earlier comment regarding your budget, I was more suggesting that your budget is quite healthy, and therefore you should take the canon option as opposed to a cheaper sigma. Since you already ahve the 24-70 it maeks sense to get something that covers up pretty close to the 24mm mark - the tokina (a good lens I've heard, haven't personally read any reviews or anything though) will elave you a little bit of a gap in between ultrawide and wide.

Ah, though you meant he had a tighter budget, what I get for not reading the whole post. In that case yes the Canon would be a better option considering you have the 24-70.
 
thanks all for the suggestions. having looked at the sample photos i think i'll look into getting a 10-22.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top