|
Unless you plan on getting a 5D, I highly recommend the 10-22mm. Excellent lens for ultrawide work.
I actually think the 18-55 kit lens is okay, it goes wide enough to be considered wide angle. The only real weakness is the darn thing rotates whcih is annoying if you're a lens hood/circ polarizer person.
The next jump up would be the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or the equivalent third party lenses form Tamron, Sigma and (soon) Tokina. These are great for street and event photography.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have the 17-40L for use on y 30D, but I also have the 17-85 IS lens and use that all the tim instead. Maybe the L glass is slightly better, but the 17-85 has so many other davantages I'd say get that.
If you want to buy a 17-40,let me know!
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
carolina. I think it really depends on how you plan to use it. I find my 17-40 boring. However, it is an excellent lens and does its work great. I do event photography (meetings, performances, etc.) and it has all the good things you normally hear like good colour, contrast and a nice build, and a constant aperture (f/4 vs the f/3.5-whatever). However, it is slow. This restricts not only how I use it but when I can use it too, like at an upcoming CD release for a band that I will be photographing later this month in a dark club.
To make up for the lens' "deficiencies" I am now in the market for a lens with more drama, like a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 or a Canon 24mm f/1.4. I like bokeh. I have never used the 10-22, but from what I hear and have seen, it takes pictures just as good an L lens. Some people even say it would be an L lens if it were not an EF-S lens.
Like I said, I am happy with my 17-40 but it is not all that wide on a cropped sensor. I own a 30D. On a 5D or better, I have a feeling this lens would be pretty phenomenal, though still not as good as the pricey Canon 16-35mm f/2.8. The bottom line in my opinion is to figure out how you will use it. If you find yourself doing a lot of indoor still life photography, then maybe the 10-22 is for you. If you are outside taking photos of tall buildings, then you may also feel constrained with the 17-40. Still, as boring as I find mine, it is excellent for many of the gigs and I will not give it up unless I get the 16-35mm f/2.8 someday since my upcoming prime lens would not be flexible enough for this event type of work except for those very dark environs.
I am not sure if this helps you decide, but maybe I've given you something to think about. You are the only one that can decide what you want.
Good luck!
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
 |
_mpd_ [deleted] says:
The wide options are Sigma's 10-22, Canon's 10-22, and Tokina's 12-24 I think. I think only the Sigma works on full frame, and even then I'm not sure. With a lens that wide, you only need about 1/12 of a second to keep it steady, so some slowness can be forgiven. But it really can't do narrow depth of field either...and every bit helps. Fun in a few cases, but not enough to lug around everywhere. I had a Tokina 12-24, it was nice, but I didn't use it enough to keep it. Recommended though. Well built.
The main thing though, as none of those options would allow ditching your existing lens -- and there aren't many options that allow significantly wider shots than the kit. It's already pretty wide.
I do like primes, and I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4 (which rocks), though I'm debating trading it out for something like a 24mm. Can't beat a wide-angle fast prime in the dark. Funness -- yet crazy wide, still, it would not be.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
_mpd_ edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
The Sigma 10-20 does not work on FF: the Sigma 12-24 does.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
mpd. I like the idea of only shooting at 1/16 sec or less with the 10-22mm, but I agree . . . primes ROCK for this kind of work. I am desperately in search of $1000 for a used Canon 24mm f/1.4 lens I found the other day.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
There are a couple of lenses that I'd recommend for wide angle use. Depending on how much you want to spend, the Tokina 12-24mmf/4 and the Canon 10-22mm are both great lenses.
I personally selected the Tokina becuase it has very good optics (Hoya), constant aperture throughout the focal range (f/4) and I purchased it for a very good price (about $400.)
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks for the responses so far. I think one thing is that I'd like a lens which I can use on both my DSLR and standard SLR. The 10-22mm sounds like a great lens, although is DSLR specific.
Forgot to mention that I have the 50mm f1.8 lens also.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
theycallmeuma edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
The Sigma 10-20mm is an EF mount. It will work on a full frame camera with vignetting.
I own the Sigma 10-20mm and I'm very happy with it. It's super sharp and produces nice colors. The distortion is a little harsh at 10mm and should only be used for landscapes.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hey John, (Waxy Poetic)
Just thought I'd chime in on your post related to wide angle lenses. I notice you mentioned feeling bored with your 17-40, and have contemplated the 10-22 or other.
I recently bought the 5D so can no longer use my 10-22mm, but let me say that it's a wonderful lens with so many creative possibilities. It seems you're getting paid for your gigs, so I'm sure there may be a chance that it's too slow for your purposes (you mentioned taking shots in a club), but the FOV is very dramatic. I used it primarily for landscapes, so I was most often stopped down.
The build quality, IQ, and sharpness are indeed up there with L's. If I didn't live in Indonesia, I'd sell you mine (perfect cond), although I'll be back in the States this summer for 8 weeks.
I picked up the 24-105 IS with the 5D, and was hoping I'd find it wide enough (equiv to 15mm on the 1.6x bodies), but unfortunately, I've been missing the ultra-wide. I'm probably going to pick up either the 17-40 or the Sigma 12-24 (not completely sold on the sharpness of the Sigma and usually stay with Canon) - the 12mm on FF may be pretty cool but not so practical. We'll see.
So, I highly suggest if you're not going FF in less than a year, go for the 10-22. Even if you are planning on it in more than a year's time go for it and just sell it later. It's truly an exceptional lens.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I own a 17-40 f/4 L which provides the "wide" end of my lens collection. It was the first lens I bought with my 20D and found it took some time to really appreciate just how good a lens it is. You can find my thoughts on the 17-40 f4 L here:
tynersphotography.blogspot.com/2006/09/canon-17-40mm-f4-l...
One thing to think about is for the cost of a 16-35 f2.8 L you could buy both a 17-40 f4 L and a 580 ex speedlite.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The EF-S 10-22 is a lovely lens.
See my shots with it here (on a 350D)
www.flickr.com/photos/speedy_msd/tags/canonefs1022mmf3545...
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
javajive . . . Thanks for the note. I do love many of your photos with the 10-22 and it is a lens that I have wanted for more than 6 months. However, as much as I want the ultra-wide view, I feel that I will eventually move to the 5D. If I get the 24mm f/1.4, like I want now, I will later seamlessly move to the 5D and have a great set-up along with the 17-40mm. I realize that the 10-22 would still work in the meantime, but for me, the 24mm would be a better investment for the kind of photography I crave with bokeh and that certain moodiness that it gives. While I love your landscape photos, they are just not may favorite thing to take normally, as dramatic and amazing as your photos are.
Anyway, I am not saying no to this nice EF-S lens, it is just sitting at the #2 spot on my list. In addition, even though I could open the focal length to a wide 10mm and thus shoot as low or lower than 1/16s without camera shake, I would still have a ton of motion blur for a low-light band shoot, which is why I feel the 24mm f/1.4 lens would suit me better.
Crag . . . Good point! The 17-40 and a 580EX is a powerful combination. I use this a lot for my event photography. There are times when a flash is needed where a faster lens just cannot cut it.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
I have a lot of 10-22 shots in my stream ... I love the lens, though 4.5 on the long side stings a bit
www.flickr.com/photos/tomkphoto/tags/efs1022/
I'm likely migrating to the 5D/16-35 combo this year, but have no regrets about my time with the 10-22 ... with the new combo, I'll gain 2.8 ... but also gain more flair issues and more barrell distortion.
The 10-22 is an optical masterpiece, like the Nikkor 17-35 (but for different reasons).
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
tomKphoto edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
I'd say - get an ultrawide. They are really useful for tight spaces and dramatic shots. The 17-40mm is great for full frame but not as useful or as good on a crop sensor as the 10-22mm.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses. Sounds like I should get the ultra wide angle lens then rather than the 17-40L. People have mentioned the Tokina equivalent to Canon, but I've not heard much about it...any reviews?
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
can't speak for the canon 10-22, but as all have said it is a stellar optic. i have the tokina and i find it to be a great lens also. its image quality is excellent when stopped down. i find it rather soft for my tastes at f/4, but i am a sharpness dork.
one thing that the tokina lens lacks is canon's usm motor. while it focuses fairly quick, i don't think it's as fast to lock as the canon usm lenses i own. i have yet to find a definitive comparison of the two lenses, so my suggestion is to try them both out at your local camera shop.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I would go with the 10-22 because it has no distortion at it is very versital.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I sold my 17-40L to get a Sigma 10-20 and I'm not regretting it. I tend to do a lot of outdoor shots and although the 17-40 is a stellar piece of glass, it just wasn't wide enough on my RebelXT.
The one thing I've found in comparison between the 2 is sharpness.The Sigma is not quite as crisp as the Canon (difference of L glass vs. regular glass), but I think it's a really good ultra wide.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Keep in mind the filters you may want to use on the lens, if you want to share same filters with other lenses that you have and possible new lenses you may want to get. You are getting into a system.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This is interesting and I wanted to share it with y'all. I looked on Craigslist today for camera gear and someone is selling a 17-40mm lens. Their reasoning:
"I truly do not want to sell this lens but i find myself unable to afford the 5D which i was saving it for. super sharp, gorgeous colours and contrast. this lens has been used for 80% of my photos over the last year but i find myself wanting wider."
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
I got plenty of decent shots with my kit lens, but (of course) it doesn't quite compare in quality to more expensively constructed glass.
I replaced mine with a Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC which is still not "L-glass quality," but is better than the kit, and as good as any of my other lenses from Canon.
The wide range is enough for most applications, though I wish I had a wider aperture.
(If you've got the money, though, go for "L" glass.)
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I love my 10-22, really great lens :)
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, the Tokina sounds like a good alternative seeming as the Canon 10-22 is a bit hefty in price, and with the London markup being ridiculous compared to the US pricing, I'm gonna have to hold out for a bit with the Canon 18-55 until my pay comes through!
Thanks for the advice!
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i have the sigma 10 - 20 on an XT... and i love it. (i would have gotten the canon, but the $200+ i saved was worth it to me).
www.flickr.com/photos/puja/tags/sigma1020/
i think about getting the 17-40L, but as someone mentioned above... it does seem kind of boring. plus the f/4 doesn't seem to be fast enough for me.
i have a few lenses... but the most used lens is the 10-20, followed by the 50mm prime.
you should look into renting... i know a lot of people really aren't into the ultra wides. it definitely requires the user to "get closer" to the subject, which might be difficult to do at times.
but if you are at all interested in the sigma wide, check out my stream. i use it a lot, and am really happy with the results. i also have examples of using it on a canon film body, so you can see how that works as well.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree with puja with respect to the 10-22mm being my favorite lens and my 50mm 1.8 being a close second. I have the Canon 10-22mm and you can see some photos from it on my stream.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
puja, do you get much vignetting with that lens as some photos you have look like you do...or is that just my eyes ;-)
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i got the canon 10-22 for myself because of the quality, 10mm wide, and f/3.5 wide open
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
Tyrant505 edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
im absolutley loving the sigma 10-20mm, i couldn't recommend it highly enough.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
does anyone experience vignetting with the sigma 10-22?
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Me Likes the Canon:
Personally I shoot with the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 EF-S and like it a whole lot... the variable aperture is frustrating if you shoot in Av or manual mode, and it isn't stellar for low light work (that's to be expected). But the optics, USM and range are really great.... It has very similar color/contrast and sharpness to my Canon L lenses. For me if you can swing the cash the Canon is the best ultra-wide lens on the market.
Popular Photography has an article right now on the right lens for the job, it talks about ultra wide lenses and while they recommend the Tokina 12-24 (which is the 2nd best lens) the big two page photo they have for the article was taken with the Canon 10-22mm (a photo that I took and they bought off of me) which I found pretty funny.
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 is also Amazing:
The Tokina is also a really great lens, if you can't quite swing the cash of the Canon 10-22 the Tokina is definitely the 2nd best when it comes to optical performance and is almost equal to the Canon and is built much better in fact.
Not as Hot on the Sigma:
For me the Sigma is an okay lens and is better than no lens, but i find their quality to be spotty and if you sample 10 different lenses of the same type you will see that they are not all equal with some being sharp and other's being far from it. I also find the wide end distortion to be a bit distracting (all wides distort, all of them, but the Sigma isn't as 'pleasant' about it IMHO).
In the end the only thing the Sigma 10-20mm has going for it is price.... I'm curious to those who love the Sigma if they have given the other lenses (Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 12-24mm) a serious try, and if so why they choose the Sigma over the Canon of Tokina?
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
fensterbme (a group admin) edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
I love my Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. See
here for examples (I've only had it a month)
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
Speedy_MSD edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
carolina...
i add a lot of vignetting to my photos. there is a little bit (easily fixed shooting raw)... but not as bad as i make it look.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
fensterbme...
sigma definitely got me by its price, no doubt. i don't make a lot of money, but love what i do... and thats the fact of my hobby.
however, sigma also got me because of its weight (lighter).
and also... for the price, i didn't feel like i was losing that much quality.
i have shot with the canon 10 - 22mm, and yah, i would recommend it over the sigma. of course. the f/3.5 would help just a tad more than the f/4 i have to use at my wide end... and it has good sharpness and contrast.
i have also used the tokina quite a bit... on the d70 and d200 (no experience on canons) the lens body definitely feels a little less plasticy (and more heavy)... but i have never found the quality of the tokina to make me regret the sigma. i also liked the 10mm wide over the 12mm wide (fullframe 16mm to 19mm).
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I just came back from Leo's camera in Vancouver after trying out the Canon 24mm f/1.4. Even on a cropped sensor, I like the wiiiiiiide view it gives.
*Drool*
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I just ordered myself a Tokina 12-24 lens. THANKS to all for the recommendations! Much appreciated!
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Congrats, caroline. Enjoy the W-I-D-E view!
I also got my dream lens, the Canon 24mm f/1.4. Love it! The best ever.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
_mpd_ [deleted] says:
@Waxy ... Awesome. I'm still wavering between that the 16-35 2.8 (again though, I'm not a zoom person).
Please go on about how awesome it is so it will be easier to make up my mind :)
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@mpd. You NEED the 24mm f/1.4. You really do.
I agree that primes rock, especially on the wide end. I own the 17-40L and it is most certainly the most boring (yawn!) lens I own. I imagine the 16-35 makes pictures somewhere between the 24mm prime and the 17-40mm zoom. If you like bokeh -- and I know you do from your recent JPG publication -- just look at the color, contrast and bokeh this thing produces:
Do yourself a favor and get yerself this lens. This was taken with a 30D.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
_mpd_ [deleted] says:
Yeah, that'll sell it :)
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am thinking about super-gluing it to the body. *smile*
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
_mpd_ [deleted] says:
Now that is a good sign.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
caroline, i use the sigma 10-20 and am able to get shots that were impossible without such a wide angle. there is no vignetting even with a filter on as long as i use a special wide angle thin filter, in my case, a polarizer.
excellent lens for architectural work.
enjoy!
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm the odd wo(man) out.
I love, love with passion, can't pry it from my cold dead fingers love my 17-40. Having shot with the 10-22 (on a 20D), I found it fun, but so wide that it felt gimmicky. It was too wide for almost any portrait work but full party mode, since faces and anything at the edge of the frame are quite distorted. Anything placed near the edge, even a quarter of the way in from the edge, is quite bendy. (And yes, bendy is the technical term.) ;)
If someone gave me a 10-22, I would use it and enjoy it, but only for landscapes, and only certain landscapes at that. I might break it out at a wedding for some extreme wide shots, but my 17-40 is a workhorse. I shoot everything with it and especially love the wide angle portrait with it since it isn't too distorted at the wide end. Put it on a full frame, and it's amazing.
I do sometimes miss a wider aperture (f/4 just doesn't always cut it) and it's not going to give you a smooth bokeh unless shooting pretty close in, but in terms of bang for the buck (and by bang I mean good, solid, sharp, rich images without much wiggliness) I don't think it can be beat.
But I'd jump all over a 12mm prime. Yum.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sara, I agree with a lot of what you say. Maybe I didn't emphasize it enough -- but I will now with a caveat. The 17-40 is an awesome lens for event work with adequate light or paired with a 580EX. Like you say, sharp, solid, rich, etc. I use it a great deal for events I photograph. It's a workhorse for me too. However, and now for the caveat, I find it terribly limiting for what I like shoot for fun. If I did more landscapes, I might say differently, but I like the bokeh with the 24mm f/1.4. I like the 24mm whole lot more. It is MUCH more fun and probably has better image quality being a prime. It just doesn't have the flexibility a zoom has.
By they way, I think there is a 14mm f/2.8 prime.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Photographer's Tech Resources /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Photographer's Tech Resources discussion threads