Wide angles...ARGH!

George · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: Wide angles...ARGH!

Well been round the shops and they've all said my 18-55 is worthy of the bin (it fell off my desk) so I need a replacement.

I've had 2 main lenses in mind but any suggestions (especially cheaper ones) which are the Canon 17-40 f/4 L and the 10-22.

I like the idea of a very wide angle lens, had a go in the shops and they're both excellent but not sure if the 17-40 is wide angle enough for me and that the 10-22 isn't too restrictive to replace a kit lens.

Please help...I really am torn!

_________________
MTB-Addict
Flickr

Hamish · Forum Veteran Joined: 29 Sep 2006 Posts: 1011

Buy neither.

Get something like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f2.8 instead. I have the Tamron and it's a cracking lens. The option of a constant f2.8 is much better for biking shots in low light. 17mm is plenty wide for general scenic stuff whereas 10-22mm isn't of mush use for anything other than specific wide angle shots.

I've recently got rid of my 10-20 f4-5.6 (it's slightly wider on Nikon then Canon due to the crop factor being a little different). The main reason being that I don't use 10mm enough, it's slow at 20mm. I replaced it with a 12-24 f4, which is better for low light and has a tiny bit more reach in a range I know I often use for biking pics.
_________________
Hamish

bluebomberx · Quite High User Joined: 01 Oct 2006 Posts: 134

The 17-40 is a great lens - great build, weather sealing, sharp, pretty red ring, etc. I have had mine since they first came out in 2003 and it's been great. I shot it with both digital and film, and the 1.6x crop of a Rebel or xxD series will leave you roughly with a 28-65mm. It will be 1mm wider than your 18-55, but it will be noticeably shorter on the long end. This is the reason the 10-20 or 12-24 type lenses were created. Here is everything I have on Flickr tagged with Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM: http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/tags/canonef1740mmf4lusm/

Some were taken with a 20D and some were taken with a 5D. The exif is available for most.

George · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject:

Some sweet photos and a very nice pooch!

Think the 17-40 is what I'm set on really...the 10-22 won't be enough to replace the kit lens.
_________________
MTB-Addict
Flickr

Roo · Forum Master Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 442

I've used a 20-40 the past few years as my wideangle and it's been fine, but recently I've borrowed my dads 10-20 and have actually been using it quite a bit. Although as hamish says, it's slow at 20mm, f5.6 and I usually go a stop down from wide open so that effectively means it's f8 which in cloudy forest conditions is useless. The 20-40 is dying so I need a replacement and I'm stuck in the same kind of position 17-35mm or 14-24mm (both f2. Cool

and I think I'm going to go for the 14-24. 24 on digital is not that wide and if I need longer, I have a 50mm and some legs.