Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Hi all, I have had a read over some of the recent posts and can't find one that asks the general question...'which wide angle lens?'. I am after a wide angle lens to shoot landscape shots with. I own a Canon 30D and have 28-135mm IS USM and 70-300 IS USM lenses.
I have looked at both Sigma and Canon and see diferring points of views on each. I ideally want a lens that will go to a full frame camera to account for a body upgrade in the future sometime. In addition I don't want to go much higher than 300-400 pounds.
Can you give me your advice and views on this? Plus if you have any links to sites that have attempted to answer the same question then please let me know.
Thanks in advance.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Canon 16-35L or 17-40L
A few options to ponder (zoom lenses)
1) Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 (Not full frame)
2) Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0
3) Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 (I think)
4) Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (Not full frame)
1) Canon 20-35 f/2.8L
2) Canon 17-40 f/4L (Though likely to be >400
A lot of users here will support the new sigmas 1) and 4) above but I think they are for crop cameras only - though might be able to use above certain focal lengths.
Andy - where do you get a 16-35L for 300-400 - or did Keith sell you one cheap - as I'd happily pay 500 for one (Well one that aint broke )
Firstly Andy, thanks for your suggestions, however both those canon lenses (16-35 and 17-40) are out of my price range.
Secondly, Mike, you are right both the Sigma's are quoted as digital only and are therefore not able to go on full frame, therefore these two ae rules out. The Canon 20-35 is a possibility but it will it give me the best wide angle as most reviews I have seen go for 17mm or below. Finally the Tamron, which as a make is not one I have considered.
I have also looked at the Sigma 17-35mm are there any views on this...I believe some have said it has some chromatic aberration?
Any views on these lenses?
2nd hand 17-40mm L
I had a Sigma 20-40 2.8 EX which was very good. I replaced it it wasn't really wide enough.
You could get a 2nd hand 17-40mm for around 400 secondhand I would not pay much more than that for one secondhand though.
Another option could be the 20-35mm 2.8 L for around 300, this could obviosuly then be used on full frame.
If you are planning on going full frame then you may as well spend the extra now and get a decent lens you will want to keep for years and years.
Al, what did you replace it with?
Chris, is the 20-35 wide enough though? I agree with you on the full frame point you make.
Mike? Did you mean Martin. S/H prices for 20-30 f/2.8L and 17-40 f/2.8L are usually around 350-400 and 400-500 respectively if you get them from a supplier with a 12 month guarantee - probably nearer 300 and 400 if you use *bay. Agree with Chris if you are serious about going full frame - you might need to revise your budget as glass is far more important than the body. Keep an eye on the classifieds here and check Amateur Photography listings if you are happy with second hand. Of course you can always look at primes - I got my 20 f/2.8 and 35 f/2 primes for less that 400 - not seriously wide on a crop camera but taken many sucessful landscapes with them - you can always stitch for a wider view and the primes will serve you well on full frame.
Thanks Mike, useful advice. Going back to the Sigma's, does anyone have a point of view on these and image quality against the canons?
This is the point at which 6 people say Canon's are best and 6 others claim Sigma's are their equal....and then you have to choose who to believe.
... and number thirteen will throw in a Tamron for good measure ...
My advice would be to choose the best you can afford....
Quote: 2nd hand 17-40mm L
Yep, that's my advice.
Quote: If you are planning on going full frame then you may as well spend the extra now and get a decent lens you will want to keep for years and years.
That's what I think.
Quote: you might need to revise your budget as glass is far more important than the body
same advice again.
For the record, I currently do not own a 17-40L lens, I would like to and I've had experience wasting money on cheaper lens only to replace them when I got more money. Now I just wait until I can afford something that does the job better and lasts longer. In the long run it turns out to be cheaper overall.
Of course you are at liberty to ignore this advice as you seem to be doing anyway.
Anyone want to buy a second-hand Sigma 18-200mm lens?
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st July 2014 - 31st July 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View July's Photo Month Calendar