As a 350d owner I have a cropping (1.6x) APS-C sensor. One of the problems with these is the difficulty getting wide. I am well equipped now on the long end with my new 70-300mm IS but I need something on the sub-50mm.
Looking over the choices it looks like it will be an expensive purchase (unless I can get a trip to USA or Canada into the itinerary), £514 for the 10-22mm, £869 for the new 17-55mm, that is more than the EF 17-40mm f4 L which is £533! The best of the bunch in terms of quality seems to be the EF 16-35mm f/2.8: USM but it should be at £999! A 24mm prime would be £309, while the 28mm prime is £134..
I have the choice of mega-wide, with the 10mm, or lenses that effectively replace my normal kit lenses (I have two kit lenses from my two EOS cameras, a EFS18-55mm and a EF28-80mm).
What will I be using it for? Well landscapes mostly. I potentially have a wedding to photograph in August so might need the wide for group shots. Would be nice to replace the soft kit lense with a sharper, faster walkabout.
Perhaps though the difference with these will not be so noticeable to be worth it. Should I get a wide prime? Probably just as sharp and cheaper also. I could probably get a prime and a flash for the same money…
I’m loathe to buy a EF-S lense though as I know I will upgrade eventually, and it would be nice to have an L series lense even though the price increase might not be reflected in what I get out of it. What do you guys think? Worth the expense or stick with the kit lense?
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS Review
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS is not a perfect lens but it lives quite well up to the very high expectations of the user base. The resolution figures are among the very best seen so far for an APS-C standard zoom lens. The center resolution is nothing short of outstanding and the even borders can keep a very good to even excellent quality level.
this lens is capable of producing some very fine results in terms of prints. I wouldn’t hesitate to use the Canon 10-22mm for any professional application.The real conundrum is whether an investment in a lens such as this, which is limited to Canon bodies with 1.6X factor APS size sensors, makes sense. If you don’t expect that you’ll ever buy a 1.3X format camera like the 1D Mark II, or a full frame camera like the 1Ds Mark II, or a film body, or a future Canon with a larger imaging chip, then sure – if your work needs this kind of coverage, this lens makes sense. It is probably the highest quality super-wide zoom that one can currently buy for a Canon DSLR of this format.
Technorati Tags: canon, wide, lense, 350d, photography
10 Comments
Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I do have the Tokina 12-24. I don’t believe 17mm is wide enough so the 17-40 as an ultrawide zoom isn’t going to do the job right. I would stick with a 10-20 or a 12-24.
I chose the Tokina based on excellent reviews and of course the sample images I’ve seen on the web. Bonus points for excellent build quality, decent price, and the Tokina is the only ultrawide zoom with a constant f/4 aperture. All the other lenses are variable aperture. I would have liked the Canon 10-20 myself but the price was a bit steep for what you get, and although I like the Sigma, I was a bit worried about the gamble you take with the (lack of) quality control in their lenses.
Looks like the Tokina is well worth investigating then, thanks Bernard! It is also intended for APS-C sensors but about £200 cheaper … MMmmmmmmmm
May I suggest the Tokina 12-24mm? You won’t be disappointed.
I never considered Tokina, do you have the lense yourself? My problem is there arent any camera shops around here where I can try lenses out so have to rely on web reviews :O(
I use a 17-40mm which is stunning (but expensive),
I have a mate who has teh 10-22mm who raves about it. He uses it for semi-pro shoots and gets some great results. Havn’t played with it myself but it looks like a more affordable option and is super wide….
Perhaps one of the prime lenses? The 20mm f2.8 seems to get good reviews…
interested to see what you end up with
Thanks Darren, it’s good to know the 17-40 and 10-22mm are good lenses. I am majorly conflicted over this purchase, especially as I told my wife the last lense purchase would do me for quite a while (I don’t think she really believed me but I said it so can be used as evidence).
Do you use the 17-40mm much?
I’ve been struggling with this very decision myself. I rented the 10-22 and had some great fun and success with – fantastic for pet photos it turns out. The 17-40 would make a more complete walk around lens though, and currently with a rebate in the states. I’m just not sure which to settle on.
I’m also getting big into panoramas, 20mm being prefered,so again either would do it.
One offers greater creativity, the other being more multi-purposed. I almost wish one was a leader quality/performance-wise to make the decision easier
Tricky isn’t it? I am starting to lean towards a prime for the widest focal length and a general purpose crisp, sharp and fast zoom. And a flash. and … ;O)
Amazingly tricky, yes!
Pity we’re not all rich. I gave it a lot of serious consideration last night (your blog entry is the catalyst I needed to make a decision it seems). I’ve pretty much settled on getting the 17-40L now, taking advantage of the rebate. I’ll save for a bit and in a few months -fall?- I’ll get the Sigma 10-20 to satisfy my very wide desires (I’m still trying to work out though if this is a good lens like recent print reviews indicate, or if it has problems like are mentioned on fredmiranda.com’s user reviews). I believe I’d have an amazing amount of fun right out of the shoot with the wider lens, but the 17-40L will be a much more practical lens for the wild running around of the summer months (festivals, backyard BBQ’s, and the like).
Of course I might change my mind again!
Yeah a good lottery win would make this so much easier ;O) I have pretty much decided after looking at about a thousand pics the 10 is too wide for my purposes.