Wide angle for my 40D?

S

samcox89

Messages
261
Name
Samuel Cox
Edit My Images
No
Hey everyone. Im in the market for a wide angle lens for my 40D. I've seen a few e.g. the sigma 10-20, sigma 12-24 and the canon 10-22. I've also got to take into account that i might be upgrading to full frame in the future (maybe the 17-40mm L). Whats everyones thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Sam.
 
I say buy the lens for the gear you have now.
The 10-22mm will retain a lot of value so if/when you do upgrade you won't lose too much by selling it on.
The 17-40 is barely wider than the kit lens on a crop body.
What other lenses have you got to take into consideration?
 
Well if you're missing the super-wide end then you have the choice of
17-40L and gain 7mm until you maybe upgrade to FF
or
get 10-22mm and gain 14mm :D at the wide end, and flog it if you upgrade.

Id go for the 10-22mm personally. :D
 
Depends what you shoot really. For me the 17-40 is too wide most of the time, even on a crop body. I can't imagine ever using 10mm :shrug:
 
I have a Sigma 14mm 2.8 and although I don't use it much, I have a great shot of both Forth bridges which I couldn't have got with any other lens, but I couldn't justify the price of a Canon at £1500 or so!!

Be careful though, I don't see why people buy -s lenses, they wont work on a full frame .
 
George said:
Be careful though, I don't see why people buy -s lenses, they wont work on a full frame .
Click to expand...

Consumer choice is not a bad thing.

When the 5D replacement didn't get announced I went straight out and bought a EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS to go with my 30D. Not L build by any means but does contain aspheric and U D elements so the quality is up there.

When the 5D mk II does eventually surface I'll be keeping it.

So with a 5D mk II (when???!!!!!) and my 70-200 2.8 IS
paired with
30D and 17-55mm 2.8 IS (27-88mm 35mm equivalent)
I'd say I'll have the optimum focal range coverage at f/2.8 and with IS that Canon make.
 
dod said:
Depends what you shoot really. For me the 17-40 is too wide most of the time, even on a crop body. I can't imagine ever using 10mm :shrug:
Click to expand...

Hehehe, Dod you are an old fashioned so and so aren't you.

I was mulling this in the car today. It's odd how the perception of what's wide has changed so much over the last couple of years. When I was a kiddie first getting camera stuff, 35mm was a wide angle. 24mm was a very wide angle and some of us, knew someone that had a ..... wait for it.......21mm.

Now 10mm is almost the standard for wide or 12 if you have a big chip. 17 or 18 is nothing but a standard lens in current kit terms.

Anyway, as for the original question. I'd go for the sigma or canon 10 to whatever it is. The sigma 12-24 is even softer than the 10mm crop sensor version and unless you need it, is a total waste of cash.
 
Bearing in mind you'll most likely keep your 24-105mm when you upgrade along the FF route, I'd put in a firm vote for the Sigma 12-24mm. Mine gets stacks of use, and I settled on it for exactly the same "future proofing" reasons - my feeling being that there is no reason why lenses I buy now can't last me through my next however-many bodies, and I wanted to feel that my money was well spent regardless which route I went along in the future. Also - remember if you fancy having a biut of low-budget playing about with full frame, there is always the option of buying a film body - the 12-24mm will fit on one of those but the other options in that range won't.
 
dazzajl said:
The sigma 12-24 is even softer than the 10mm crop sensor version and unless you need it, is a total waste of cash.
Click to expand...

Sorry Dazz, but as a user of that lens I'd totally disagree. Like any other glass, I suspect a lot depends on what sort of copy you get - perhaps I've been lucky, but mine certainly isn't soft!

If you get a good one, it's a damned good lens.
 
Well I'm just glad I've not got any -s glass and I'm off to Italy to a) visit Venice and take some snaps..... and b) see Scotland stuff/draw/lose to the auld enemy tomorrow and ditto to Italy next week, so merry Christmas to all...........(y)(y)(y)
 
Sorry Dazz, but as a user of that lens I'd totally disagree
Click to expand...

Most people do. ;)

I have real problems with this lens but there are times that obviously nothing else can get the job done.

Personally I think it's down to physics, there are only so many pixels to go around and these super wides just push them too far.
 
Hmm a lot to think about. Thanks for the advice guys. Im still mmming and rrring about which one to buy. Most of the reviews say that theres not much difference in the quality and optics ect. Ooo such a choice.
 
I have a 17-40 f/4 L on my 40D, great lens.

The thing with L seris is that the build quality is excellent, it's a lens that was clearly designed to last forever.

Better image quality too, and weather sealed with a filter.

I love mine, great lens.

If your finding it difficult to make a decision based on image quality then look at what each lens also offers in terms of size, weight, build quality, IS, apature etc...

And besides, image quality means nothing if you can't get the shots you want becuase you bought a cheaper lens ;)
 
8utters said:
I have a 17-40 f/4 L on my 40D, great lens.

The thing with L seris is that the build quality is excellent, it's a lens that was clearly designed to last forever.

Better image quality too, and weather sealed with a filter.

I love mine, great lens.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this entirely. I looked into the S range and tried them out before I got the 17-40L, but I didn't like them both in terms of IQ and build quality. For landscapes I find the 17-40L plenty wide enough for me - depends what you want it for I guess. With L glass and the 40D you will have a nice 'weather proof' setup. Also I was put off by future incompatiability.

 
samcox89 said:
would the extra 7mm reach which i'll get from it be worth it... being that iv got a 24-105mm L?
Click to expand...

I've got the 17-40L, the 24-105 L and the 70-200 L IS and I find them a good combination in terms of overlap.

 
would the extra 7mm reach which i'll get from it be worth it... being that iv got a 24-105mm L?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. You really need to think more in terms of which lens will best fill the vacancy you have. If you shoot lots in the 20-30mm range then having that covered with a 12-24 and a 24 105 is going to be a pain whilst the 17-40 will be bliss.

If you need width, the 17-40 may well leave you still wanting. It's not always about having the best range of focal lengths but the best tools for the shots you take.

There is no doubting though that a superwide zoom will give you the more adaptable/jack of all kit.
 
I've got a sigma 12-24 and like it I've used it on both crop and full body cameras and on a full body it is wide! It would also fit in nicely with the other lens you have. Best way if you can is to go to a shop and try them both on your camera and see which you like best. I have also used the 17-40mm, and would both lens are nice. Can't comment of any of the other lens as not used them my crop body was a 10D so not take the ef-s mount.
 
samcox89 said:
My thinking behind this is, if i do go down the 17-40mm route, would the extra 7mm reach which i'll get from it be worth it... being that iv got a 24-105mm L?
Click to expand...


It depends on how often you think " I need a wider lens". I've got both the 24-105 and the 17-40, and most of the time the 24-105 is Fine. There are occassions that I need the extra, the 17-40 gives.

I worked on the basis that if I felt I needed the 17-40 once then it was just the odd event. Twice was getting nearer needing it. The third time , well OK I bought it. And glad I did .

Bear in mind though I'm using this on full frame cameras, and you do get a fair amount of image distortion at the shorter focal lengths.

In summery, if your not sure , don't buy it. When you are then go ahead
 
edster said:
I've got the 17-40L, the 24-105 L and the 70-200 L IS and I find them a good combination in terms of overlap.
Click to expand...

I've got a 40D and I've also got the 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400.

I bought the 10-22mm and it's great and fits in really well with my range of lenses. Most of the time the 24-105 stays on the camera but when you need wider this lens is great. It's the only ef-s lens I have but figure I can sell on if ever I go full frame.

I considered the sigma, but it seemed noticeably slower at focussing and I got the canon lens for only a little more.

I'd say get the wider lens rather than the 17-40. That's just too close to your 24-105 - IMHO.

Anyway with really wide lenses you can have fun:
1/200s f/10.0 at 13.0mm iso100 full exif
75234295.jpg


1/400s f/11.0 at 10.0mm iso100 full exif
81969307.jpg
 
jonnypb said:
Tokina 12-24 seems to get good reviews and very good build quality
Click to expand...

I was just about to post this myself....I was reading some reviews with the idea of getting the Sigma 12-24, and all the ones I read scored the Tokina 12-24 as a much better lens :shrug: (although the Canon 10-22 is scored best of the bunch if you can justify the extra cash)
 
antihero said:
I was just about to post this myself....I was reading some reviews with the idea of getting the Sigma 12-24, and all the ones I read scored the Tokina 12-24 as a much better lens :shrug: (although the Canon 10-22 is scored best of the bunch if you can justify the extra cash)
Click to expand...

Someone here has that Tokina and raves about it. Can't remember who though....! :thinking:

Remember though - if you're looking to "future proof" against future 1.3x or FF upgrades, then at the moment the only super-wide option is the Sigma 12-24mm. The Tokina is crop sensor only
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top