Which Canon Wide Angle Zoom

[iPhoto]

Hi Guys

I want a wide angle zoom to put on the Canon7D for landscape and city scape images.

I am looking at 3 options I guess;

Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L MKII USM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L USM

As we know, both the EF and EF-S will attach to the crop body such as 7d so no issues there.

Has anyone ever compared the 3 or any combination of the above?

Would anyone care to offer an opinion on the best choice.

Mark.

 

[tijuana taxi]

The EF-S will be the only true ultra wide angle on a 7D, so depends how wide you want to go

The other two are obviously only the equivilent of a standard zoom like the EF-S 17-55mm

 

[iPhoto]

The EF-S will be the only true ultra wide angle on a 7D, so depends how wide you want to go

The other two are obviously only the equivilent of a standard zoom like the EF-S 17-55mm

You are of course right in making the distinction between the EF and EFS lenses is not simply about the fitting but the relevance of the focal length when the crop factor is taken into account. Something I know about and completely over looked when considering my options :bang:

Strictly speaking they would be;
26-56 2.8
27-64 4.0
10-22 3.5-4.5

So when you consider I have the EF-S 15-85MM F3.5/5.6 I am not going to get what I am after which is WA and large aperture :shrug:

Now to go look at the prime wide angle options

Mark.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

You are of course right in making the distinction between the EF and EFS lenses is not simply about the fitting but the relevance of the focal length when the crop factor is taken into account. Something I know about and completely over looked when considering my options :bang:

Strictly speaking they would be;
26-56 2.8
27-64 4.0
10-22 3.5-4.5

So when you consider I have the EF-S 15-85MM F3.5/5.6 I am not going to get what I am after which is WA and large aperture :shrug:

Now to go look at the prime wide angle options

Mark.

Please stop confusing yourself.

They are what it says on the tin (the lens). Your camera has a tiny sensor, and that affects the field of view in the image. EF-S only fits croppers.

So get that 10-22 or Tokina 12-24mm and enjoy shooting landscapes.

17-40 and 16-35 are quite honestly pointless for your camera, as they fall in wide-standard region, where you can better get 17-55. They aren't even perfect for full frame as I have found out.

 

[tijuana taxi]

How about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, decent WA and large aperture too

 

[dinners]

Strictly speaking they would be;
26-56 2.8
27-64 4.0
10-22 3.5-4.5

No

You should multiply all of them by 1.6 crop

The 17-40 and 16-35 would be considered wide angle on full frame whilst the 10-22 would be equiv to 16mm at it's widest on your crop.

 

[iPhoto]

No

You should multiply all of them by 1.6 crop

The 17-40 and 16-35 would be considered wide angle on full frame whilst the 10-22 would be equiv to 16mm at it's widest on your crop.

Accepting what you say, and I do, what was the point of the EF-S fittings then. Was it purely to make the physical size of the lenses shorter?

Anyway, ignoring that as a separate issue, it brings me back to the beginning where compared to a 35mm Neg the effective focal lengths and apertures must then be;

26-56 2.8
27-64 4.0
16-35 3.5-4.5

In which case they are all wide angle on a 1.6 crop sensor for at least part of their zoom range, i.e. the bit below 50mm.:shrug:

 

[Moreorless]

If you've got the money to spend the three best options would I'd say be...

Canon 10-22 - The most range and flare resistance.

Tokina 11-16 - Sharper with larger appature but less range.

Sigma 8-16 - The widest but can't take any filters.

All pretty similar prices at around £500-600.

 

[odd jim]

Accepting what you say, and I do, what was the point of the EF-S fittings then. Was it purely to make the physical size of the lenses shorter?

Anyway, ignoring that as a separate issue, it brings me back to the beginning where compared to a 35mm Neg the effective focal lengths and apertures must then be;

26-56 2.8
27-64 4.0
16-35 3.5-4.5

In which case they are all wide angle on a 1.6 crop sensor for at least part of their zoom range, i.e. the bit below 50mm.:shrug:

I think you're really confusing yourself here.

A 10-22 is a 10-22 on a crop and a 16-35 is still a 16-35 on a crop. It doesn't matter if they are EF or EFS fit, the focal length stated on the lens is still as stated on the lens.

 

[iPhoto]

I think you're really confusing yourself here.

A 10-22 is a 10-22 on a crop and a 16-35 is still a 16-35 on a crop. It doesn't matter if they are EF or EFS fit, the focal length stated on the lens is still as stated on the lens.

Yes Jim I know that but as I said in the message, its compared to a 35mm negative. So on a 1.6 crop such as the 7d, the field of view from a 10mm lens will be on a par with that of a 16mm lens on full frame :bang:

 

[odd jim]

Yes Jim I know that but as I said in the message, its compared to a 35mm negative. So on a 1.6 crop such as the 7d, the field of view from a 10mm lens will be on a par with that of a 16mm lens on full frame :bang:

Indeed, the 10-22mm is effectively the crop version of the 16-35mm L...

Just checking!

 

[markta]

Mark,

Have you also considered the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 which will be 10-20mm on a crop body?

 

[odd jim]

Mark,

Have you also considered the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 which will be 10-20mm on a crop body?

Eh? All lenses are what they report to be on a crop body!

 

[RKC]

Accepting what you say, and I do, what was the point of the EF-S fittings then. Was it purely to make the physical size of the lenses shorter?

That has always been my understanding. wikipedia

 

[odd jim]

Its a bit more than that. They are dedicated for crop sensors, so they use less glass as the sensor coverage area is smaller, and they are more compact as they can allow the rear element to protrude further into the body. This also makes them more cost effective.

That's why it's always better to buy a good EFS lens on a crop over the EF equivalent.

 

[iPhoto]

Its a bit more than that. They are dedicated for crop sensors, so they use less glass as the sensor coverage area is smaller, and they are more compact as they can allow the rear element to protrude further into the body. This also makes them more cost effective.

That's why it's always better to buy a good EFS lens on a crop over the EF equivalent.

I have to say the cost effectiveness point hadn’t occurred to me, so that means buying an EF-S lens is going to net more more lens for your buck I guess.

 

[odd jim]

I have to say the cost effectiveness point hadn’t occurred to me, so that means buying an EF-S lens is going to net more more lens for your buck I guess.

Definately. Look at the EFS 17-55 IS f/2.8 USM. you can buy this for £700. The closest EF equivalent to this is an L lens costing twice as much!