Canon Wide Angle Lens

RSR

RSR

RSR

Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2006
Posts
10,410
Hi All,

I am looking to buy a new wide angle lens tomorrow for my Canon EOS 7D

I have been looking at the following:

Canon EF-S 10-22
Canon EF 8-15
Canon EF 16-35 MK2
Canon EF 17-40

I have also been recommend a Sigma 8-16mm

Id like to upgrade to full frame at some point but because of my interests in Motorsport I have currently gone with the 7D.

I have read reviews on all all of the lens and I think I have confused myself even more, so I am going to visit Jacobs / Jessops tomorrow to try the lens out / buy.

What would you recommend or advise?

Thanks

Andy
 
Last edited:
If you're shooting motor sport, I reckon the 17-40 might be a nice choice, seeing as it's an EF lens so you can use it on your 5D. The 8 - 15, while it looks like a fantastic lens might be a bit too wide imo
 
RIZZEE said:
If you're shooting motor sport, I reckon the 17-40 might be a nice choice, seeing as it's an EF lens so you can use it on your 5D. The 8 - 15, while it looks like a fantastic lens might be a bit too wide imo
Click to expand...

I am just after a general wide angle lens, which can be used for Motorsport to Landscape / Architecture in normal / low light.
 
andyd said:
I am just after a general wide angle lens, which can be used for Motorsport to Landscape / Architecture in normal / low light.
Click to expand...

The 17mm isn't wide on a cropped sensor.
I'd go with the wider 10-22mm EF-S, it's a fantastic lens - used it and 'wraping the sky' into a shoot is actually really cool! Plus, the distortion isn't that bad and LR3 fixed it instantly - even if you have the intention of upgrading, selling on your cropped lens and upgrading isn't too big a hit unless you go 100% L!

I have not tried the Sigma but the reviews seems to rate it well, if Fisheye style to ultrawide is your thing.

I've also tried the Tamron 11-18mm, decent lens, cheap and does well in terms of colour and sharpness but the 'opposite' zoom wheel is a little off putting and the focus ring turns! Still, it was half the price of the 10-22mm.
 
Mr Jones said:
The 17mm isn't wide on a cropped sensor.
Click to expand...

This has been my single biggest worry.

Lens using a APS-C (1.6 x crop)

17 - 40mm - 27-64mm
16 - 35mm - 25-56mm
10 - 22mm - 16-35mm
8 -15mm - 12 - 24mm

What is the 10-22 like for use in low light?
 
The best wide angle is the 16-35 mkii, the 8-15 is a fisheye zoom.

The 17-40 is F/4, but cheaper, much cheaper than the 16-35, the 10-22 is EF-S so forget that if you want to go FF.

Basically, get 16-35 if you have the money.
Get 17-40 if you don't
Get 8-15 if you want fisheye.
 
The reviews I had read about the 8-15mm suggests that its not a fisheye through out the lens range and that its only at the very low ends it become a fisheye which I do like.
 
Tokina 11-16mm. What it lacks in range it makes up for in IQ and aperture (f/2.8). It's prime sharp and you can use it on full frame at 15-16mm. Best of both worlds.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The best wide angle is the 16-35 mkii, the 8-15 is a fisheye zoom.

The 17-40 is F/4, but cheaper, much cheaper than the 16-35, the 10-22 is EF-S so forget that if you want to go FF.

Basically, get 16-35 if you have the money.
Get 17-40 if you don't
Get 8-15 if you want fisheye.
Click to expand...

For once I'm going to disagree with you, the 16-35mm can only just be considered wide angle these days at a 25.6mm equivalent FOV. I know traditionally a 28mm was considered wide and a 24mm really wide but times have changed.

If it were my money it would go on a second hand 10-22mm yes it's EFs and will need to be sold in the future but it holds it's value brilliantly so the cost of ownership of a second had example should be pretty small and it is well and truly wide angle by any definition.
 
a1ex2001 said:
For once I'm going to disagree with you, the 16-35mm can only just be considered wide angle these days at a 25.6mm equivalent FOV. I know traditionally a 28mm was considered wide and a 24mm really wide but times have changed.

If it were my money it would go on a second hand 10-22mm yes it's EFs and will need to be sold in the future but it holds it's value brilliantly so the cost of ownership of a second had example should be pretty small and it is well and truly wide angle by any definition.
Click to expand...

The 16-35 / 17-40 are actually regarded as ultra wide angle lenses on FF bodies and the OP would like to move to FF in the future. I had the 10 - 22 and 17-40..I found myself always trying the 10-22 and then putting on the 17-40 again. Now I can say the 10-22 is amazing, very sharp and produces great colours. Not far off L standard for its optical performance but the 17-40 has more pros and I would prefer to use that. You'll soon find that shooting at 10mm 1.6x soon gives you massively distored images and you'll find yourself zooming upto the 15mm mark, then you'll wish you had gone for the 17-40. (16-35 whatever)
 
a1ex2001 said:
For once I'm going to disagree with you, the 16-35mm can only just be considered wide angle these days at a 25.6mm equivalent FOV. I know traditionally a 28mm was considered wide and a 24mm really wide but times have changed.

If it were my money it would go on a second hand 10-22mm yes it's EFs and will need to be sold in the future but it holds it's value brilliantly so the cost of ownership of a second had example should be pretty small and it is well and truly wide angle by any definition.
Click to expand...

I agree. Some FF lenses just don't make sense on a crop body, and wide angle lenses is one of them. Lenses like the Canon 16-35 are just wastedon a crop body and will not result in anything remotely wide.

One has to buy the right tool for the job, in this case a dedicated wide angle lens designed for a crop sensor. A 2nd hand Canon EF-S will hold its value very well. If and when one changes to a FF camera then it can be sold on at little loss. And the Nikon 12-24 actuallyworks quite well on FF from 20mm or so.



I only have one other suggestion if you are thinking of a Canon 16-35 and you are happy manual focussing for landscapes (common when you use hyperfocal techniques etc.), then you might want to consider the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 Nano via an adapter.
This lens is out of this world, offering unbelievable sharpness. It destroys any wide angle zoom canon has and is better than almost all the primes out there including Canon L, Zeiss and Leica.

E.g, here is a comparison to the Cnon 14mm L
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html
It makes the Canon L glass look like a fisher price plastic adapter.

The other zooms don-t ahve a chance:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html

Hence many Canon landscape photographers use the Nikon 14-24 via an adapater (or switched to Nikon). There are of course a few caveats (cost, weight, delicate front element) and filter solutions are pricy.

However, above all, the 14-24 on a crop body still is not that wide.
 
Johnny|lucidcomposure said:
The 16-35 / 17-40 are actually regarded as ultra wide angle lenses on FF bodies and the OP would like to move to FF in the future.
Click to expand...

Thanks for correcting something I didn't say :D

Ultra wide they maybe on full frame but the OP isn't there yet and could have an ultrawide on his crop body for a very small total cost of ownership should he buy second hand and decide to sell in the future.

Johnny|lucidcomposure said:
I had the 10 - 22 and 17-40..I found myself always trying the 10-22 and then putting on the 17-40 again. Now I can say the 10-22 is amazing, very sharp and produces great colours. Not far off L standard for its optical performance but the 17-40 has more pros and I would prefer to use that. You'll soon find that shooting at 10mm 1.6x soon gives you massively distored images and you'll find yourself zooming upto the 15mm mark, then you'll wish you had gone for the 17-40. (16-35 whatever)
Click to expand...

Horses for courses, I'm always wishing I could go wider than 17mm everyones opinion is different I was just offering mine.
 
Interesting opinions guys, this is why I got so confused in the first place.

I think its going to be good idea if I take my own 7D into the local camera shop and try the lens out.

I was originally thinking about a 17-40 but after doing a bit of maths, its not really that wide. However, in terms of IQ etc.... it seems much better than 10-22 which I have read about.

How do these lens perform at night, as a example a city scene at night?
 
andyd said:
Interesting opinions guys, this is why I got so confused in the first place.

I think its going to be good idea if I take my own 7D into the local camera shop and try the lens out.

I was originally thinking about a 17-40 but after doing a bit of maths, its not really that wide. However, in terms of IQ etc.... it seems much better than 10-22 which I have read about.

How do these lens perform at night, as a example a city scene at night?
Click to expand...

The image qulaity on the 10-22mm is generally regarded as very very good easily the best of the crop sensor wide zooms.

Shooting a city scene at night you going to want a tripod and the image quality from those two lenses won't be far off one another.
 
a1ex2001 said:
The image qulaity on the 10-22mm is generally regarded as very very good easily the best of the crop sensor wide zooms.

Shooting a city scene at night you going to want a tripod and the image quality from those two lenses won't be far off one another.
Click to expand...

What Alex said.
The issue here is, it's not a fast lens BUT the colour and performance is great for an EF-S. If you want fast, Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is about as fast and ultra wide as you get on a cropped sensor.

Seriously, not everyone is looking to upgrade to FF :p
 
Avoid the 16-35. The first one was awful but even the MKII has pretty crappy barrelling/distortion at 16. You can take it to 18 but i would rarely use it under 20. If it's a crop sensor, it's not going to be worth it.

I've never been particularly blown away with Canon's wider lenses. The 17mm TSE is outstanding, though, but totally not what you're after.
 
That's assuming the 5DMK3 will be orientated to his Motorsporting needs...
(should have read his OP properly)

Even then, buying a second hand 10-22, and selling it on 6 months down the line, he'll not lose much. All apart from one of my second hand lenses lost no more than 10%. Not quite a big hit than getting the 17-40mm or 16-35mm and just wanting more during his period of using cropped sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom