What wide (short zoom) should I go for???

photostar_1

photostar_1

Messages
4,802
Name
Carole
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm a Canon lass and confess to being a bit of a lens junkie, However quality of image produced is more important than just the "name" so........

I want wide;fast throughout, with a short, variable focal length for my gig images. (I have tried the 20mm and 35mm primes but find them a bit too restrictive). I have it in my head that it has to be the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L. I already have lenses that start at 24mm, but they just are not quite wide enough sometimes.

He who holds the cheque book however thinks;
1. I'm greedy ;)
2. There must be an equaly good quality third party option.

Over to you guys....and yes, I know 1. is correct:LOL: What would you advise?
 
If you want proper wide then I'd recommend the much documented 10-20 Sigma. IMHO you are unlikely to be shooting at 2.8 at the wider lengths, so I wouldn't get hung up on speed.
 
with the primes what apertures do you normally shoot at? Just wondering if it has to be fast glass or if it could be sharp lens just a little slower?
 
kalibre said:
If you want proper wide then I'd recommend the much documented 10-20 Sigma. IMHO you are unlikely to be shooting at 2.8 at the wider lengths, so I wouldn't get hung up on speed.
Click to expand...



This was shot at f1.4 if memory serves me (I'm at work right now). This gig had excellent lights, but still had to use f1.4 to get decent shutter speed. Think the ISO was about 800, but can't quite remember.

MG_9258.jpg


I don't think the 10-20 would be anywhere near fast enough........but I've never tried it.... perhaps I should!
 
Totally agree for the shots you've shown, but none of them are 'wide'. Just thought because of the title you were more interested in the wide end.
 
Normally I would say the 17-40 as it is a great lens for the price, but can see that you would need the f2.8, so I'd go for the 16-35.
 
Don't discount the possibility of finding a used 17-35/2.8L They're frequently found in 2nd hand listings and you'll get quality at a very reasonable price.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Don't discount the possibility of finding a used 17-35/2.8L They're frequently found in 2nd hand listings and you'll get quality at a very reasonable price.

Bob
Click to expand...

That's an idea Bob......didn't realise there was such a lens. Seems strange for there to be two lenses with only 1mm difference. Any idea why canon changed it?
 
I went looking for lenses with my Mum the other day for her new 450 and I loved the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.

She didn't get one and went for a 10-20 and the 50-150 but of all the (seemingly hundreds) of lenses we checked out, that little number impressed me by far the most.

Small, very sharp, light, the macro setting nearly is just that and not a bad feel for manual focus either. All in all, a bit of a bargain at £250 I thought. (y)
 
Personally think the Tamron is sharper. I do really like them both though. 17-50 is more or less permanant on my 40d with 70-200 Sigma on my 30d. If I don't have enough reach I will put the 28-70mm on the 40d - usually if the band are very far back on stage - but its not often. Both the lenses give -to me - the best option rather than having a 24-70mm or my 28-70mm. In an ideal world I would love a 17-70mm f2.8 (or a 10-400mm f1.8 hehe!!)
 
photostar_1 said:
Sorry, but how can a 17mm be noticeably wider than a 16mm at the wide end???? Or have I missed something?
Click to expand...

I was referring to a comparison of the Canon 17-55 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8.

A couple of reviews I have read say that the Tamron is noticeably wider than the Canon at the 17mm end. How this is possible I don't know, construction perhaps? It made it sound like the Tamron was certainly wider.
 
sakura said:
well it was saved with exif grrr...
Click to expand...


It's ok...exif there. Just what I want!! Thanks for your advice.


GEH007 said:
I was referring to a comparison of the Canon 17-55 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8.

A couple of reviews I have read say that the Tamron is noticeably wider than the Canon at the 17mm end. How this is possible I don't know, construction perhaps? It made it sound like the Tamron was certainly wider.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I have just "added to basket"" and order in before 6pm so should have it tomorrow!!

:woot::bonk::woot::bonk:
 
Dont think you will regret that Carole, Matt the moderator has that lens too, and swears by it :)

Re the owls, we need a nice bright day for them or shutter speeds are really slooooow will have to keep an eye on the weather and will let you know :)
 
photostar_1 said:
Thanks...........think it's the Tamron then.
Click to expand...

Or, as has been suggested, Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 for £600 new. Generally regarded as the best lens in this category. With IS too. Tell me why not? I've got one :)

Richard.

BTW, focal length is not an absolute guide to angle of view as lens constuction can do strange things at mega-wide focal lengths, eg fish-eyes. But for lenses like these, 17mm is 17mm is 17mm. The difference, if any, is that the lens might be marked 17mm, but is actually a little bit longer. Naughty, but very common.
 
sakura said:
Now I need to open a thread entitled 'should I go for the 1d mk 3 or a 5d mk2"
Click to expand...

Wait! Mk4 is coming any minute (then IanC will sell you his Mk3 :D).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top