Recommend me a new wide-angle!

[fatsteve]

I'm after a new wide-angle (for landscape stuff) lens to replace the 300D kit 17-55 EF-S, mainly because I want a fixed front element.

Given that the 17-55 is an EF-S lense, it takes into account the 1.6 crop factor.

I was reading on another thread about the Sigma 12-24 EX DG which sounds great, however it seems that the hood is non-removable - which I need it to be so I can attach filters.

In terms of focal length, it needs to be 17mm (including the crop factor) or less at the wide end. Zoom end, not fussed since I have that covered with 28-300 and 100-500

IS would be nice

Steve

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

fatsteve said:

I was reading on another thread about the Sigma 12-24 EX DG which sounds great, however it seems that the hood is non-removable - which I need it to be so I can attach filters.

They probably fit in the back of the lense so no problem.

fatsteve said:

IS would be nice

IS is almost pointless of wide angle.

Martin's got a 12-24 I think?

[fatsteve]

Thanks, good point about IS.

I've just looked the the Sigma site and they do a 18-50 EX DC (£369), it's the EX version of the cheepy £99 18-50 DC that I've seen in Jessops. The EX goes down to f2.8 too, which is nice (although irrelevant for landscape)

www.jessops.com/search/viewproduct.cfm?PRODUCT=SIG185028DCCAF&BRAND=CAN,SIG,TAM&CONTINUE=false&FEATS=&FIRSTPRICE=0&KEYWORD=&LEVEL=&MODELNUMBER=&NEWQUERY=True&NODE=143&ORD=ASC&ORDERBY=&QUANTITY=10&RECENT=0&REFINE=&SEARCH_FOR=&SEARCHNODE=0&SEARCHURL=dointellisearch.cfm&SECONDPRICE=999999&SHOWCASEID=&STARTROW=11&SUBS=52583,52762,263,256&WORD_SEARCH=N&

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

I've got the Sigma 15-30. It was the best per ££ at the time. The only thing I don't like about it is the manual focus to Auto focus switching (which is two stage).

I'd probably go for the 12-24 now as it's that bit wider.

[Bee_Jay]

What about the EF-S 10-22mm???

That works out at 16mm, and is designed for your camera. Apparently it's not half bad, and should not have a rotating front element due to being USM.

www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/ef_lenses/zoom_lenses/index.asp



>> Edited by Bee_Jay on Tuesday 18th January 14:15

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

Bee_Jay said:

What about the EF-S 10-22mm???

Good call. I must admit I tend to overlook it as I can use EF-S lenses myself.

[fatsteve]

Marvellous,

Not sure that 10mm is too w-a. However, going down the EF-S route, the 17-85 IS USM could be the jobbie since it's got the w-a range I need plus the telephoto end is pretty good to - 85mm. The IS is nice.

I think what I'm trying to say is that this could be the ideal all-rounder lens the IS will be handy for portrait shots around 50mm and the 17mm w-a end is fine for landscapes.

Sounds a bit too good to be true?, or am I missing something?

Steve

[luca brazzi]

Reviews of the:

Canon EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM:

www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&thecat=27

Not great - 3/5 in summary

--------------------------------

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=221&sort=7&thecat=27
Fantastic - 5/5 in summary

The above reviews are owner's opinions (I have neither lens, but would jump at the chance to get the 10-22mm)

No experience of the particular Sigma mentioned earlier in the thread, but the ones I have heard and tried, have all been noisy, and hunted around much more than the equivalent Canons. I'm not a Canon snob either, as I got the Tamron 28-75 2.8, and love it.

HTH
LB

[gravymaster]

17-40mm L is awesome.

Matt

[V6GTO]

fatsteve said:

I was reading on another thread about the Sigma 12-24 EX DG which sounds great, however it seems that the hood is non-removable - which I need it to be so I can attach filters.

Steve,
I read this paragraph and nearly spilled my wine!

I ran straight to my camera bag, whipped out the lens and...you're right! There is a peice that fits over the hood (a peice of straight tube) that carries the lens cover, but the hood is non removable. I hadn't thought about this before and it worried me, but, having pondered, I'm not so worried because I can do all that stuff in PS now so "no problem!"

Martin.

PS - I only need half a chance to show off my car so here is a straight shot (no PS at all) of the Noble using the Sigma 12-24.

[fatsteve]

V6GTO said:

Steve, I read this paragraph and nearly spilled my wine!

sorry chap!, I picked up on it immediately because (as I say) the only reason I want (rather, can justify!) a new w-a lens is because the front element moves on my EF-S 17-55, hence my lovely new Cokin filters swivel around when I focus . My Tamron XR 28-300 (rather the 28mm end) is not quite wide enough.

Steve

[fatsteve]

Oh, slightly OTT, but this is doing my head in..

I thought the idea of Canon's EF-S range was that the focal range is NOT ofset by the crop factor, ie; a 17-55 EF-S on a 300D,10D etc, will be 17-55, whereas the same lens on a 1DS or standard 35mm body would NOT be 17-55.

The inverse would then apply to my standard Tamron 28-300, which on a 35mm body would yield a 28-300 range, whereas on my 300D it yields 45-480.

Correct me if I've got this hopelessly wrong..

Steve

[luca brazzi]

Fraid so matey. EF-S has been designed to with certain digi-cams in mind, those that have smaller mirrors, and where the rear element may get closer to the film plane I think.....but all that is secondary in this query.

Any lens on the:
300D
10D (which won't accept the EF-S lenses)
20D
should be multiplied by 1.6 to get the focal length.

Other Canons have different multipliers, some with none.

But for the 300D:
10-22 = 16-35
17-85 = 27-136
18-55 = 29-88
17-40 = 27-74

LB

>> Edited by luca brazzi on Wednesday 19th January 08:43

[Steve_T]

I'm not sure the EF-S series will fit a 10D - think it's EF lenses only.

[luca brazzi]

Yup Steve , correct..my mistake.

300D and 20D for the EF-S stuff.

Ta
LB

[fatsteve]

Thanks, that's cleared that one up then!!. I shall continue to apply the 1.6 multiplier then looking for lenses.

Steve