Wide enough on a crop body?


TPF Noob!
Dec 2, 2008
Reaction score
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
So I *think* I have the lenses that I'm pretty happy with.

I've been using a 70-200 f/4l is, 50 f/1.4, and the 28-135 is (which in the late future I'd like to swap for a 24-105 is, but now now).

However, I have been thinking about a decent quality, but not overly expensive wider angle lense. 28 is certainly not very wide on my crop body (rebel xt)

I don't care about it being super fast, as I would only use it for mostly landscapes/vistas, etc. (which reminds me I need a semi-decent tripod!), but I definitely want the optics not to be total crap.

With that, and from reading a whole bunch of reviews at photozone

I think the 17-40 f/4 may be a pretty nice lens. It's not overly expensive (certainly less than the 70-200!), and being an L should mean it's a pretty nice quality/build etc.

But 17 with my crop body may not be very wide, and I don't know if I'd just be throwing my money away.

Are there any alternatives? or will it be fine?

Also, I've seen a few people around here asking for tripods, and some of you have been helpful with that... but if anyone knows what's the best I coudl get for just the 100 dollar range, I'd appreciate it. Glass is my priority right now, the rest will come later.

10-22mm EF-S gets high marks so long as you don't mind leaving it on your rebel if you upgrade to a full-frame sensor model. It's roughly the same price as the 17-40 L and I've seen it described as having 'L' glass (though not the build quality).

It's as wide as you can get on the crop sensors.
Thanks! I hadn't looked into EF-S much, though I am certainly not planning on a full frame camera. If I were to upgrade the body it would be for a camera with better ISO, as IMO 1600 on the rebel XT is unusable most of the time. I'll just wait for the 60d or 70d to come out so that I can pick up a cheap 40d or even 30d :)

Anyway, your suggestion is a little pricier than the 17-40, but not overly so, and quite wider. Does that mean that you think the 17-40 isn't wide enough on a crop body? I am unsure still.

If it helps I would like to use it for skylines, shores, mountains, etc. Not as much to create effects with distortion.

Check out the Sigma 10-20 as well. It's a little more affordable and a well rated lens also.
17mm is still not very wide on canon crop of 1.6 which makes the 17mm=27mm thats not wide enough for me
i am using a friends sigma 10-20 and i have been have a really fun time, i might have to pick one of them up
17 on a crop isn't that wide. 24 on full-frame is what cuts it for me, so you'd need to go wider than 17.

If you can, go into a shop and try one of these so-called crop-sensor-only lenses on a full-frame body. I've put a 55-200 lens on my film body and, although there's definitely a little vignetting, it doesn't appear to be that bad. I'll see for sure though once I develop the film, but yes, crop lenses work on full bodies.
A crop sensor lens, for a Canon, as known as EF-S mount, will not physically fit on a full frame camera, as far as I know.

Now, you said 24 is what cuts it for you, yet the 17 will be equivalent to 27mm, which is only a 3mm difference. Is that such a huge deal? Wat do you use whatever 24 you have for in the FF camera?

As it is I'm leaning towards the EF-S lens, as I'm really not planning on going FF anytime soon. As I've said, if I upgrade a body it will only be to get better low light sensitivity in the sensor, and I think a 30d or 40d will be good enough for that.

I have to read on the Sigma though....

Thanks for chiming in.

Sigma 10-20mm: Widest (and they apparently make an F3.5 constant version now).
Tokina 12-24 F4: Optically, very good. Built sturdily, and about the same price as the Sigma.
Tokina 11-16 F2.8: Fastest, optically best, but most expensive lens of the three. Also built very well.
Tamron 11-18mm: Don't know much about this lens, but from what I've heard the Sigma and Tokinas beat it.

Take your pick. Stay away from EF wide angle lenses. Even the widest ones won't be very wide on your XT.
All the lenses mount but it reduces the area of the sensor that you are using by such a great amount that if your FF camera is 21 megapixels, the image you get from a crop lens on the camera would be like 5.5 - 6 megapixels. So essentially you are using like 25 percent of the sensor to capture.
For the money, a Tokina 12-24 f4.0 is a great lens.
I bought one used through the Fred Miranda site for around $400.

It's $489 at B&H. LINK

At the fred Miranda site, there is a place to view/write reviews on equipment.
The Tokina fairs pretty well in the reviews. LINK

Tokina also has a 10-17 fisheye that looks like it could be fun.

Good luck.
It depends on what you're looking for.

17-40 is a good, mid-range zoom on a crop camera. It's wide enough to make a decent walk-around, but is not wide enough to be considered "ultra-wide." So if you're looking for those pictures that just stretch from here to eternity, the 17-40 won't give them to you -- what you need instead is a specialty "ultra-wide" lens like those mentioned above (e.g. the 10-22).

However, the 17-40 will certainly be wider than the 28-135, and may open up more walkaround options for you. If you're looking for a lens that can just stay on your camera all the time, then you would want something like the 17-40 (or the other mid-range zoom options available), and not an ultra-wide like the 10-22.

So I guess it depends on whether you want an ultra-wide specialty lens or just a wider walkaround lens than you have now. Personally, I'd probably pair an ultra-wide with the 28-135, and switch between them -- but that's a matter of personal preference.
Now, you said 24 is what cuts it for you, yet the 17 will be equivalent to 27mm, which is only a 3mm difference. Is that such a huge deal? Wat do you use whatever 24 you have for in the FF camera?

28mm is considered wide-angle, since it has no distortion. 24mm starts to distort the image so that it appears much more wide-angle than it really is without the distortion being really obvious (as you get with 16mm and other ultra-wide focal lengths). So yeah, it's a hell of a lot more of a difference than, say, 150mm to 153mm would be.

Most reactions