Wide angle from 17mm

skankmaster

skankmaster

skankmaster

Associate
Joined
24 May 2004
Posts
438
My new years resolution of getting only one lense a year begins..
Looking for a wide angle lens and a number of choices have appeared that have caught my eye:

(i) Canon 17-40L f4
(ii) Sigma AF 17-70 f2.8-4.5
(iii) Tamron SP AF17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD
(iv) Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS

Now Im not planning to get one until late summer, so have plenty of time to absorb opinions and read reviews - option (iv) is an unknown quantity at the moment and would be the most expensive of the lot. Im only planning to get one lense a year - honestly Mr/Ms bank manager!

your opinions and experiences welcome.
 
if it was me i would be looking at the 17-40 L lens, i have been very impressed with all the pics i have seen with this lens.

its definatly the one i intend on getting :)
 
If you are going to be using these on a APS-C sensored DSLR then these lenses are more 'standard zoom' lenses rather than wide angle. When i eventually get a DSLR hopefully at the end of the summer i think i'm going to get the Sigma 17-70, simply becasue of it's price/zoom range/fastish apeture and good reviews. But if you can afford one of the others then i should think they would be better, but i have yet to see a review of either the new Tamron or Canon. Also the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 gets good reviews, generally on par with the Canon 17-40L, but is not quite as wide.

If you are looking at wide angle zoom, then u basically have a choice of:

Sigma . . 10-20 . . F4-5.6
Canon . . 10-22 . . F3.5-4.5
Nikon . . 12-24 . . F4
Tamron . 11-18 . . F3.5-5.6
Tokina . . 12-24 . . F4

Of which i would go for the Sigma, but the Canon is the best of the lot if you can afford it :)
 
Last edited:
I have

(iii) Tamron SP AF17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD

It's fantastic. Really chuffed with it. It's a vast improvement on the 300D kit lens, and all the things I hate about the kit lens have been ironed out. It has good reviews wherever I look, but you have to be careful with quality. I got a good example, but apparently there are some duff ones out there.

If you want any sample pics, give me a shout :)
 
You can add the Sigma 12-24 to the list as well, it's a cracking lense.

17mm is not wide enough IMHO, as has been said above, once you take into account the crop factor of DSLRs
 
Lostkat said:
I have

(iii) Tamron SP AF17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD

It's fantastic. Really chuffed with it. It's a vast improvement on the 300D kit lens, and all the things I hate about the kit lens have been ironed out. It has good reviews wherever I look, but you have to be careful with quality. I got a good example, but apparently there are some duff ones out there.

If you want any sample pics, give me a shout :)
Click to expand...

Post some pics - you promised me!
 
Sleepyd said:
Post some pics - you promised me!
Click to expand...
So I did! Will sort some out tonight.

For me, 17mm is plenty wide enough. I wanted a lens to use for architecture and landscapes. It's perfect. I think the distortion on anything wider would drive me demented.
 
I went into a camera shop yesterday to look at what was available - the sales guy mentioned the canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5/4.5 and did a nice sales pitch on it - I dont know anything about the lense so didnt buy it. However, I have noticed the price is almost the same as for the canon 17-40L - in exploring my options for a wide angle, would you say the EF-S10-22 would be on par with the 17-40L for quality? or is it just that you pay a premium for a wider angle lense?
 
The 10-22 is quite close to the quality 17-40L but the 17-40L is superior.

  • It has a fixed aperture
  • It is weather proofed
  • It has a better build quality
  • It comes with a lens hood and bag
  • It can be used on a full frame camera, should you upgrade later
 
why on earth is the 17-40 L appearing in the same thread as the 10-20??

They really cannot be compared - the super wide 10-20 is for landscapes only and i doubt anyone would consider it a "walk around" lens. 99% of those with these have other lenses in the bag

The 17+ lenses mentioned are more practical and would be good for those not wanting to switch lenses/ or a lighter kit bag.

Would this lens be the only one you own? If so go for the 17+ range option
 
Last edited:
Exactly what i was thinking, you can't compare the 10-22 with the 17-40L because they have completely different focal lengths!

However, you could say that the 10-22 is the 1.6 crop factor equivilant of the 17-40L is on a full frame body. But when they are both on a 1.6 crop then the 17-40L becomes a standard zoom and the 10-22 is super wide angle zoom :)

What other lenses do you have already?
 
whoops - from 17mm to 10mm, what was i thinking of :p

I already have the range 28-75 covered. It sounds as though I only need a lens from 17mm onwards. A 17-40L looks like it may be useful. It'll probably be the only canon L i'll own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom