Wide Canon lens reccomendation

[ibakes]

Hi all

I am looking to get a 28-70L 2.8 for my 50D over the next couple of weeks. But I know I will need something wider so I am looking for a few suggestions.

I was looking at the 17-40L but have also seen the 10-22usm, which then also got me thinking of any sigma/tonkina/tamron equivalent.

So are there any suggestions for me to look for?

I have also been thinking of just the 17-55usm instead of the L, as I am fairly happy with the range of the stock lens

Many thanks for any suggestions

[XG332]

I have the Tamron 10-22/24 (can never remember)
Love it, I believe the canon gives better results as the tamron produces darkened corners. apparently.

[tinman0]

ibakes said:

So are there any suggestions for me to look for?

Tokina 11-16 is worth a look. Not the easiest lens to get on an EF mount though as they are sought after (or were a year ago when I got mine).

[RobDickinson]

IMO 28 or 24 is way too wide for me for a walk around one lens solution, even though I have a sigma 10-20.

Which is why I bought the 17-55. Its superb opticaly, IS works OK, build isnt as good as an L and zoom creep is a bit of a pain, and no lens hood!

As for wide, 17-40 wont do it, 17mm isnt realy all that wide on a crop.

I'd go for , in this order:
Sigma 8-16mm OR Tokina 11-16mmf2.8 - depending on if you use filters and want/need f2.8 or not.
Canon 10-22
Sigma 10-20f4-5.6
Sigma 10-20f3.5

[flat-planedCrank]

The slightly off-the-wall-but-seems-to-review-pretty-well-and-the-only-option-if-you-want-f2.8 choice is the Tonika 11-16 F2.8

Reduced range, but apparently the resolution is really good. I've never used it but would certainly consider it for a UWA on a crop camera

[corozin]

It's a little bit hard to think of an answer for you as recommending "wide" lenses is about as scientific as recommending "long" lenses. Without some idea of what you envision shooting the answer varies.

But on the basis of what you've written, start with the "stock" 18-55 IS lens. I have a non-IS version which I occasionally use with my 50d. If you are intending to do walkarounds at car shows and not have to stand too far away then it is a perfectly acceptable (and cost effective) lens.

If you have reasonably decent technique I doubt you'll even need the IS on something as short as that. The 18-55 kit lenses go for buttons on eBay.

Edited by corozin on Wednesday 19th January 21:20

[Speed addicted]

For wide stuff I've got the Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6.
It;s a bit too wide for a general walk about lens so I've just bought a Sigma 17-70 to replace the kit 18-55.

The 10-20 produces nice sharp images and I think it's good value for money, I'll find out more about the 17-70 when I get home tomorrow and try it out.

Edited by Speed addicted on Wednesday 19th January 21:43

[ibakes]

Cheers for all the replies so far.

Currenly I am using the 17-55 non IS from my old 400d, which I love the range and have taken some great (I like them) photos.

I currently have a canon 50 1.8 and sigma 70-300 4-5.6 dg which I am very hapy with but think the main stock lens needs upgrading to something better, sharper and works in lower light.

IF i go for the L lens i know on a crop it is not going to be wide enough which is why i posted this, if i went for the 17-55 2.8 USM this would probably cover all my needs but still get something like the tokina, that looks good.

So I suppose the question has changed a bit to shall I stick with the L or go for USM are they just as good as each other?..... Plus the tokina

[ibakes]

sorry should have stated I am looking for a faster lens for low light and ability for shallow depth of field

[RobDickinson]

As a do it all zoom the 17-55f2.8IS is very hard to beat, love mine.

[Blukoo]

I have the 16-35mm f2.8 II USM and i love it. Unfortunately i don't get the best out of it with my 450D, but it still does the job.

[RobDickinson]

Blukoo said:

I have the 16-35mm f2.8 II USM and i love it. Unfortunately i don't get the best out of it with my 450D, but it still does the job.

17-55f2.8IS is 2/3rds the price, twice the range and has IS. Whilst the 16-35 may be a touch sharper , and weathersealed, it doesnt seem a great idea unless you have or are thinking of an imidiate move to full frame?

Its a great lens for sure but does seem a bit overkill for the price.

[Blukoo]

I wasn't fully clued up on lenses when I bought it and I didn't really know the difference a full frame camera would mean. I just wanted to buy the best I could afford.
However i'm hoping to upgrade to a 5D MkII asap.

[tinman0]

ibakes said:

So I suppose the question has changed a bit to shall I stick with the L or go for USM are they just as good as each other?..... Plus the tokina

Tokina.....

[AndyKH]

Any reason why a few have suggested the Sigma 10-20 f 4-5.6 over the f3.5?

[RobDickinson]

AndyKH said:

Any reason why a few have suggested the Sigma 10-20 f 4-5.6 over the f3.5?

The f3.5 is the inferior lens overall. Its more money but softer and has more optical issues.

Its not that big a deal and if you need the extra speed but dont want the tokina then its worth a punt.

But typicaly my 10-20 shoots at f7 or f8 and mostly at 10mm.

I'd buy a 10mmf5.6 fixed focus prime if I could !

[AndyKH]

Interesting, i'm in the same boat as the O/P, i'd be using whichever I choose mainly for landscapes, but also for quirky hand held shots indoors and when out and about. I'd love some side by side comparisons. Time to get scouring the internet.