Which wide angle lens

[tp81]

I am a novice, my camera is a Canon 30D with efs 17-85mm lens.

Looking to buy a mid budget wide angle lens.

I would really appreciate some recommendations on what to go for.

[miniman]

I don't use it enough, but I do love the Sigma 10-20.

[2slo]

Difficult to give advice without a bit more info. Quote a price range that your budget covers and decribe what sort of things you want to photograph? From what you're saying though, the lens you have is wide angle at the wide end of its zoom range. Your camera has a 1.6 crop sensor meaning that at full frame equivalent, your lens is effectively 27-136mm. There are UWA (ultra wide angle) options available, e.g. the Canon 10-22mm EF-S at around £620 but if you just want something a little bit wider and better quality than what you have, the Canon 15-85mm (effectively 24-136mm) is an excellent lens and can be bought new for £500. Plenty of second hand copies around too as it's a kit lens for the 7D and is sometimes separated before sale.

[tp81]

2Slo, thanks for the advice.

Budget wise £500 probably at the top end of my range, hoping to look at used units as well.

In terms of use, looking to do landscapes, portraits and lots of cars, machines, etc.

Typical, looking to do it all!

Regards

Tom

[ecsrobin]

I use a sigma 10-20mm as does many of my friends and we all can't fault it. Although I sometimes fall into the trap of always going wide when I should sometimes chuck the 50mm on

[Kermit power]

tp81 said:

2Slo, thanks for the advice.

Budget wise £500 probably at the top end of my range, hoping to look at used units as well.

In terms of use, looking to do landscapes, portraits and lots of cars, machines, etc.

Typical, looking to do it all!

Regards

Tom

I love my Sigma 10-20, but it's certainly no portrait lens unless you want portraits which look like this...

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4027/4634391541_3c5e...

[PJ S]

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 Pro DX - http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atxpro/a...

Uncle Kenny likes it on his Nikon - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/666-tokina1116f2...
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread...

Or maybe the 12-24 f4 Pro DX for a broader range, and a nifty 50 (50mm prime) for at or still under budget?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Ca...

[MudwiG]

PJ S said:

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 Pro DX - http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atxpro/a...

The Tokina is highly rated, I have a Canon 10-22mm after selling my Tamron which I hated, it was really soft in the corners, very bad.

Love the Canon though, get one on ebay, you wont go wrong

[DibblyDobbler]

I used to have the Sigma 10-20 which was great - 'upgraded' to the Canon 10-22 and really couldn't tell any difference!

So if you're on a budget go for the Sigma imho

[MartinP]

I used to have the Sigma 10-20mm and loved it. Only sold it when I moved up to full frame bodies.

[tp81]

Thanks everyone, I have placed a bid on ebay for a Cannon 10-22mm. Doubt I will get it at the current price but on the hunt. If this is unlikely then the Sigma sounds good.

[dustybottoms]

I'm a Nikon user so not familier with Canon glass; but for me the answer is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 Pro DX. Awesome lens, professional build quality and at any budget it is very hard to beat.

[RobbieKB]

I'm selling a Sigma 10-20mm that has been used about 12 times total and comes in its original carry case etc. PM me if you're interested.

[Kermit power]

M4FFU said:

Is there anyone on here that uses the 12-24 Tokina F4? I've been thinking about UWA for my Canon crop for a while after renting a 10-22 and having much fun with it. The 11-16 appeals with the 2.8 but not sure if the limiting range would annoy me. The Canon was really nice, but I can't find too much on the Tokina 12-24 to know whether I should consider it or not.

Isn't the 12-24 aimed at full frame?

Bearing in mind that the average crop sensor kit zoom will be an 18-55, there really isn't much likelihood that you're going to find yourself stuck between 16mm being too wide and 18mm too tight! The gap from 12 down to 10 (if you take the Sigma or Canon) is much greater.

As for the 2.8, are you ever really likely to need or want it with such a wide angle?

[tenohfive]

dustybottoms said:

I'm a Nikon user so not familier with Canon glass; but for me the answer is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 Pro DX. Awesome lens, professional build quality and at any budget it is very hard to beat.

I made the toss up between the Tokina and the Canon a few months ago. I don't think either lens will disappoint but the Tokina really is a bulletproof unit and I'd heartily recommend it.

I made the Canon 10-22 vs. Tokina 11-16mm choice awhile back (I dismissed the Sigma due to a) concerns over quality control, and b) to avoid the nagging doubt that I should have spent that bit more and got the better quality) and the Tokina pipped it in the end. A very sharp lens and the build quality is excellent - it feels bulletproof.

I can't see you being disappointed with either Tokina or Canon (assuming you get a good unit) but my vote goes to the Tokina. I got mine second hand for £400.

[PJ S]

Kermit power said:

Isn't the 12-24 aimed at full frame?

"The 12-24/4 is Tokina's offering in the popular "superwide zoom" category for APS-C format digital cameras. In this category it competes with the Sigma 10-22, Tamron 11-18 and Canon 10-22. None of these lenses has full frame 35mm coverage and so all are specified for use only on cameras with APS-C sized sensors."

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tokin...

Kermit power said:

As for the 2.8, are you ever really likely to need or want it with such a wide angle?

Already asked and answered in the Talk Photography link I posted previously.

[Kermit power]

PJ S said:

Kermit power said:

As for the 2.8, are you ever really likely to need or want it with such a wide angle?

Already asked and answered in the Talk Photography link I posted previously.

Not really!

Someone suggested using it to shoot a wedding in low light. What's the point of shooting a wide angle shot of a wedding with limited depth of focus? Portraits of the bride and groom, fair enough, but not the whole church and congregation!

All my lenses except for my UWA zoom are at least f2.8, and for those it makes lots of sense. The shots I can get hand held with the 28mm at f1.8 in low light are just amazing, but I've never once felt that I'm missing out on the UWA. That's invariably on a tripod and used at around f8-f16 anyway.

[tenohfive]

I'm not sure what your point is Kermit - are you saying f/2.8 is pointless or wider than 28mm is pointless? If the latter the only answer I have is that there is a big and popular market for UWA's.

For the former there are still applications for f/2.8 - night time shots spring to mind - and frankly I'd rather have it and not need it. There are occasions when you'll come across an application for it - not a common enough application to justify a lens purchase but enough to make you glad the door is still open, and possibly to swing you from a similar slower lens. If you want an example of that unusual scenario, I've used it nearly as much as my nifty fifty for indoor action shots of my daughter. I wouldn't buy it for that but if I've got the option and it means I can get the shot I want then I'll happily take it.

[PJ S]

Kermit power said:

Not really!

Someone suggested using it to shoot a wedding in low light. What's the point of shooting a wide angle shot of a wedding with limited depth of focus? Portraits of the bride and groom, fair enough, but not the whole church and congregation!

All my lenses except for my UWA zoom are at least f2.8, and for those it makes lots of sense. The shots I can get hand held with the 28mm at f1.8 in low light are just amazing, but I've never once felt that I'm missing out on the UWA. That's invariably on a tripod and used at around f8-f16 anyway.

Yes really!
Someone asked the same question, and someone offered an example or two.
That you wouldn't use it such an instance is totally irrelevant - how you choose to utilise them is a personal preference, not some dictum that must be adhered to without deviation.
Who's to say such a user wouldn't use a tripod in a church?

It was but one example, to which I'll throw in a midst of a woodland as another potential example, but it's immaterial as the whole of photography is entirely subjective anyway.

[Kermit power]

tenohfive said:

I'm not sure what your point is Kermit - are you saying f/2.8 is pointless or wider than 28mm is pointless? If the latter the only answer I have is that there is a big and popular market for UWA's.

For the former there are still applications for f/2.8 - night time shots spring to mind - and frankly I'd rather have it and not need it. There are occasions when you'll come across an application for it - not a common enough application to justify a lens purchase but enough to make you glad the door is still open, and possibly to swing you from a similar slower lens. If you want an example of that unusual scenario, I've used it nearly as much as my nifty fifty for indoor action shots of my daughter. I wouldn't buy it for that but if I've got the option and it means I can get the shot I want then I'll happily take it.

I'm saying f2.8 on such a short lens is pretty pointless. I have a UWA zoom (a Sigma 10-20) which I love!

Yes, I'm sure, if you really, really set your mind to it, you'll be able to find the occasional contrived situation where you absolutely have to have a wide angle shot in low light with shallow depth of field for which you can't use a tripod, but, especially given the ISO performance of modern bodies, I really can't see how anyone can possibly recommend it as being a useful consideration for the typical UWA user.

It's hardly surprising that there are so few f2.8 UWA zooms.