Wide-angle analysis

[Herschel]

I'd be interested in others' views on this subject which I've been discussing with a colleague over my lunchtime. (As a bit of background, I have a 40D and mainly use a 24-105L (f4) although I have a 50mm f1.8 too. I'm slowly building up to getting a wide-angle lens.)

Having studied the whole range of wide-angle lenses, Canon and non-Canon, I think (a) Canon is best and (b) these are the 3 in the running (within my budget):

(a) EF 16-35 L f2.8 - roughly £1100+ (having scouted round the internet)
(b) EF 17-40 L f4 - roughly £500
(c) EF-S 17-55 f2.8 - roughly £650-750

My analysis is that (a) is probably the best lens, in terms of speed and wide angle, but costs a hell of a lot.

So that leaves (b) and (c). (b) is an L class lens but not as fast as (c). (c) is an EF-S lens which I seem to have a (probably irrational) prejudice against on the grounds that if I ever move to full-frame I'll have to sell it (then again, will I care?) and it's not an L. It does have IS though.

(b) is cheapest.

My main interests when in pure "I'm a photographer" mode are landscapes and buildings, which (b) is well-suited to. However I'm also likely to end up taking family photos indoors and outdoors, and my 24-105L struggles indoors at times and that of course is an f4 lens too. Then again, that's why I bought my toy 50mm f1.8 lens which works well indoors (although getting far enough away from the subject can be a problem).

So really I need both (b) and (c).....but I think (b) is slightly ahead and would make the most sense, not least on grounds of cost.

What do you think? Has anyone been through this before? Out of interest, how much better than the 17-40 is the 16-35, if at all?

Regards,

Mark

[Espen]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

Whether the 16-35 or the 17-40 are the best lens, depends on who you talk to.

I have the 16-35 L II and I'm very pleased with it. However I don't doubt for a second that the 17-40 will do the job just as good. The 17-40 has a very good reputation.

Comparing price against quality, I think you will be best of with the 17-40. The money you save, you can always put aside for your next lens.

I don't know very much about the EF-s lens, so I rather not comment on it. One thing I always mention while talking EF-s though, is that if you later choose to update to a camera with a larger sensor than the 1,6 factor, you will not be able to use an EF-s lens. I think that is important to consider before buying one.

[holmbridge]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

What are you using the lens for...if landscapes is speed of any major benefit?

If indoor shots then the extra stop might help.

I have the 17-40 and have nothing but praise for it, though I am not a dedicated landscaper


Andy

[nigelch]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

I have the 17-40 and have nothing but praise for it, though I am not a dedicated landscaper


Andy

I agree the 17-40 is superb, but since you already have the 24-105, might not the 10-22 give you more variety?
N

[Dave]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

I have the 16-35 and use it on a full frame body. It's a mark one example and pretty disappointing wide open at 16mm. I wish I had gone for the 17-40. Ho-hum!

[Herschel]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

Thanks for all the replies.

The vibe about the 17-40 is pretty strong I think - it's a very good lens. I can't see myself affording a 16-35 anyway so in some ways it is a moot point, although interesting to hear people's views.

I do think I'd mainly use it outdoors so the speed isn't really an issue.

Nigel - the 10-22 you refer to, I assume you mean the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5? I'd not considered that, although I had considered the Sigma equivalent. A few things I've read suggest the Canon is of a slightly better quality so that might be an option - similar price to the 17-40 too. Cons are it is not suitable for full-frame. So could be of interest and I'll look into it further. I tend to drift towards the 17-40 simply because people seem to really rate it, and it's overlap with my 24-105 doesn't bother that much as I tend only to go off with the one lens fitted anyway.

Cheers,

Mark

[doktorstamp]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

I have the 16-35 and use it on a full frame body. It's a mark one example and pretty disappointing wide open at 16mm. I wish I had gone for the 17-40. Ho-hum!

I have this lens and have found no problems with it at the extremes. Different batch probs possibly much like the 100-400LUIS

regards

Nigel

[Eric]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

If you are even thinking of upgrading to full frame in the near future then the efs is pointless, and out of the 2 remaining, I would go for the 16-35 L f2.8.

It is wider at the end that matters, not as wide at the end that overlaps with your 24-105, and is faster at 2.8.

FWIY http://www.apertureuk.com/ sold the same lens recently for £670.00 and as its a shop it will come with a warrranty of some kind.

Might be worth considering S/H as someone else has taken the hit on the depreciation.

[Gary - Fulham]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

I have the 17-40L, which is a great lens but a bit slow (f4). In your case, I'd be tempted by the 18-55 f2.8 or the excellent Sigma EX DC 18-50 f2.8. I have the Sigma lens and it is superb optically and might suit your needs if you want to stay EF-S format. Gary

[Donald]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

I have just taken delivery of the Canon EFS 10-22, and trying it out, am experiencing "gross over exposure" except when using a Weston 5 - Back to the good old days.
Any suggestions to bring me back in to the 21st cent. would be appreciated.

[Gary - Fulham]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

Some of these lenses 'see' a lot of the foreground, which adds to metering problems. I still tend to use manual and partial metering.
Gary

[Herschel]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

Just catching up - thanks for all the replies on this, all good food for thought.

[Gary - Fulham]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

Seriously, consider the Sigma - it is a great lens

[chrisforshaw]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

When you say wide what do you actually mean? Wide on a 40D or any other crop camera isn't in the 17-40, 16-35 or 17-55 focal lengths it's in the 10-20, 10-20 & 11-16 focal lengths or one of the variants on those. As for the EF/EFS debate, in my opinion you need to concentrate on the camera you have now and what you want to achieve with that. The 2nd hand market in lenses & bodies is thriving and you should always be able to recoup a decent amount of money on any well-looked after gear.

[Gary - Fulham]

Re: Wide-angle analysis

10-20mm is a good wide on an EF-S body