Canon Wide Angle Lens Choice

A

andyitr

Messages
174
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
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

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:
The last two on your list with give you next to nothing or nothing at the wide end over a kit lens or quality 17-50mm f2.8, but will be usable on full frame.

AFAIK the only lens that will give you a wider than normal kit lens type view on APS-C and also be able to use on full frame is the Siggy 12-24mm. Several APS-C only lenses give you a 10-20mm view and 2mm does make a difference.

Of course you could always buy something like the APS-C Siggy 10-20mm and simply sell it on when / if you go full frame.
 
Last edited:
Agree with above. Get a Sigma 10-20mm, then sell it when you upgrade to full frame and get a 16-35.
 
My current widest lens is 24-70mm, which on a cropped body isn't very wide. Ideally id like a lens that's a very good performer in low light.

Thanks for the advice so far. :)
 
andyitr said:
Ideally id like a lens that's a very good performer in low light.
Click to expand...

If you want low light performance you're probably going to want a wider aperture and that cuts your choice down, a lot, and with zooms you are limited to f2.8. To get a wider than f2.8 aperture you're going to have to look at primes and as you say 24mm isn't wide enough you'll probably need to look at a 20mm f1.8. Wide enough?
 
Have to say I really liked the Siggy 10-20 when I shot mainly with a 40D.

BTW, I disagree with woofwoof above in post no.2 that the 16-35II gives "next to nothing or nothing over a kit lens". In FL terms maybe, but in terms of larger max aperture, better colour and contrast, less glare/flare, better residual value (% wise), much more robust build, basically the 16-35II is just better in EVERY way.

If ~25 mm is wide enough for you (1.6x16) the 16-35II is by far and away the best of the suggested lenses and, of course, it futureproofs you when you move to FF.

Just my 2p worth.
 
gary43 said:
Have to say I really liked the Siggy 10-20 when I shot mainly with a 40D.

BTW, I disagree with woofwoof above in post no.2 that the 16-35II gives "next to nothing or nothing over a kit lens". In FL terms maybe,
Click to expand...

What I said was...

"The last two on your list with give you next to nothing or nothing at the wide end over a kit lens or quality 17-50mm f2.8, but will be usable on full frame."

And they don't. The 17-40mm f4 gives no additional FoV at the wide end over a 17-50mm and at the long end you lose 10mm, plus it's f4 and there are several very good 17-50/55mm f2.8's available.

The 16-35mm gives 1mm wider FoV and it's up to the user to decide if this is significant.
 
How wide do you really need, ie. what is it for?

They are some very different lenses. 8-15 is a fishey and that is really odd, and unsuitable for most day to day shoots, but offers new unusual perspective and works well for some projects.
17-40 and 16-35 are ultra wide on FF - but really not perfect considering what nikon or sony make. On crop this will be you Standard zoom with a bit more contrast, sharper and weather sealed. Nothing wrong with that.
10-22 ventures into an ultra wide territory, this time on crop, and again it is a rather specialised lens, best suited for landscape and architecture, but not the day-to-day shots.
The best value for the money 'limited' range option is Tamron 17-50, the best overall on crop is probably 10-22 + 24-105mm.
 
Key question.

Do you want wide, or ultra wide as you have both listed.

The two are very different.
 
daugirdas said:
How wide do you really need, ie. what is it for
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. However, its main use is going to be for landscape and shooting around the City in day and night.

I have also read that the 8-15mm can be used a wide angle lens, as that's why I am also considering it at the mo.

I am finding when shooting with the 24-70mm, that it lacks wide angle. However, I do love the DoF you can achieve with a F2.8 lens. I believe the 24-70 at widest point on the 7D works out at around 38.4mm.

I hope this little bit of information helps.
 
Wide angle and motorsport don't go together.

I've shot motorsport with a uwa but only specific wide shots, such as cars exiting pits very close. For general motorsport you'll need a telephoto.
 
odd jim said:
Wide angle and motorsport don't go together.

I've shot motorsport with a uwa but only specific wide shots, such as cars exiting pits very close. For general motorsport you'll need a telephoto.
Click to expand...

MS isn't going to be the main, use for the lens. Its more cityscape / architectural shots.

How does the 10-22 perform in low light levels?
 
andyitr said:
MS isn't going to be the main, use for the lens. Its more cityscape / architectural shots.

How does the 10-22 perform in low light levels?
Click to expand...

Do you have the kit lens still? 17-55 3.5-5.6 (not listed in your camera bag)?

It really depends on what kind of low-light you are after. The 10-22 is a decent lens.
Landscapes often can take benefit from a tripod.
That said, with the 7d, the 10-22 can be used hand-held for a reasonable hit-rate to 1/8th of a second. I rarely use this lens at 22mm, (I have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS), so most of the time I have up to f/4 to play with, which is a decent aperture still on the lens. The optical quality is good on the lens too. Compared to an L lens I used recently, perhaps not quite the same, but pretty much close to it.
I believe that the second hand price of the lens holds quite well as well, so if you do move to full frame, it isn't exactly the end of the world. Also, if you do move to full frame, there is nothing to say that you would get rid of the 7d (I know I wouldn't). I got the 7d because it is a crop camera, and gives that little bit extra reach to a lens.

At 10mm, on the 7d, the lens is still over 90'. I reckon probably somewhere around 110 degrees.
 
The Canon 10-22 is not a fast aperture lens, but generally in ultra wide photography you are using at least f/5.6 and above as it's an ultrawide, and there are very few circumstances where you would shoot wide open (aperture wise) using a uwa where you would want the whole frame in focus.
 
Last edited:
andyitr said:
MS isn't going to be the main, use for the lens. Its more cityscape / architectural shots.

How does the 10-22 perform in low light levels?
Click to expand...

OK, keep 24-70, then add that or tokina 12-24 or 11-16 - whichever you fancy. They are all good, but only as good as you set them up.

For motorsport, you are looking for at least 70-200mm, or perhaps 100-400mm L.
 
Ref. post no.7.

I was agreeing with woofwoof in that the 17-40 and 16-35 give no additional focal length (give or take the odd 1.6 mm) compared to a kit. My point was that it "gives" you all the advantages of better build, reduced glare/flare, sharpness maybe (?) etc...

Do not think we are at odds here in what woofwoof writes below. It is the other advantages I was pointing out.

FL and FoV are just a part of the equation when lens buying, of course.

Sorry for diverting the thread a bit.




woof woof said:
What I said was...

"The last two on your list with give you next to nothing or nothing at the wide end over a kit lens or quality 17-50mm f2.8, but will be usable on full frame."

And they don't. The 17-40mm f4 gives no additional FoV at the wide end over a 17-50mm and at the long end you lose 10mm, plus it's f4 and there are several very good 17-50/55mm f2.8's available.

The 16-35mm gives 1mm wider FoV and it's up to the user to decide if this is significant.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
OK, keep 24-70, then add that or tokina 12-24 or 11-16 - whichever you fancy. They are all good, but only as good as you set them up.

For motorsport, you are looking for at least 70-200mm, or perhaps 100-400mm L.
Click to expand...

I have a 70-200mm :D

Cool, Ill have a look at these tomorrow.
 
I have the Sigma 10-20 and have to say that it is a great lens. Obviously it is not compatible when you go full frame, but as already said you can always sell/ trade when upgrading to full frame.

It is great for walk about wide shots, architectural and close up car photos.

Below are links to some shots i have taken with the Sigma 10-20mm. They show a bit of variety in the situations it can be used.

(i posted links only so not to hijack your thread)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/5684900274/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/6097510981/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/5984160842/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/5666369848/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/4011673113/

Just realised that i have tagged some 'Sigma 10-20mm' so have a look on my photo stream for more examples.
 
Last edited:
MG TF 135 said:
I have the Sigma 10-20 and have to say that it is a great lens. Obviously it is not compatible when you go full frame, but as already said you can always sell/ trade when upgrading to full frame.

It is great for walk about wide shots, architectural and close up car photos.

Below are links to some shots i have taken with the Sigma 10-20mm. They show a bit of variety in the situations it can be used.

(i posted links only so not to hijack your thread)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/5684900274/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/6097510981/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/5984160842/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/5666369848/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjkcanon/4011673113/

Just realised that i have tagged some 'Sigma 10-20mm' so have a look on my photo stream for more examples.
Click to expand...

WOW.

They very impressive set of pictures. I love the way colors in pictures stand out, has this been enhanced in post processing?
 
Last edited:
andyitr said:
WOW. They are some impressive pictures. I love the way colors in pictures stand out.
Click to expand...


Cheers, its great to have a bit of positive feedback. (y)

As noted the Sigma is a great choice. I have checked your camera bag and noticed that you are used to f2.8's. So the Sigma will obviously be slightly lower performance than you are used to. I have found that when using at the wide end you can get away with some very slow shutter speeds in some situations.

If i was you i would hire one of the shortlist from Lens for Hire before jumping in and buying one.
 
After a lot of testing and seeing the real world differences I have gone with a Canon EFS 10-22mm

I just need to get a lens hood now, as a few places I tries where out if stock.

Thank you all for the advice and recommendations.
 
andyitr said:
After a lot of testing and seeing the real world differences I have gone with a Canon EFS 10-22mm

I just need to get a lens hood now, as a few places I tries where out if stock.

Thank you all for the advice and recommendations.
Click to expand...

I'v heard its a problem, I was lucky and found a used one with hood included.

I don't think you'll be disapointed in the 10-22, as Jim said you'll probabley not use it wide open for low light work very often but the 3.5 can make for a decent shallow DOF if your very close to a subject. The biggest pluses for me though are the range(going right up to a 35mm equivilent cuts down changes alot for me) and the flair resistance.
 
Cracking lens. You are going to have so serious fun with that.

The Canon will hold its value so trade in when you go to full frame should be good. You are gonna need that hood though as excess light can creep in at the sides with this one.
 
MG TF 135 said:
Cracking lens. You are going to have so serious fun with that.

The Canon will hold its value so trade in when you go to full frame should be good. You are gonna need that hood though as excess light can creep in at the sides with this one.
Click to expand...

I have just ordered a genuine hood from Amazon, so that should arrive shortly.

Once again thank you for all the advice.

(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top