pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Wideangle for canon  (Read 4738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 09, 2013, 08:14 »
0
Hi i need to buy a wideangle for my canon 50d. Have been recommended two: either Canon EF 17-40/4.0L USM or a Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM.

As you pro's know, one is twice the price of the other. Is it worth saving for the more expensive one? Would love to hear your comments
Anne


« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2013, 09:29 »
0
How wide angle do you need?  With that camera you also can use EF-S lenses so you have a couple more options.  If you want super wide angle, you could get the EF-S 10-22 mm lens.  It's pretty sharp and is small and light weight if you need to carry it around.  Perfectly fine for stock - I use mine all the time.  That one gives a focal length equivalent to 16-35 mm on a full-frame camera and it's about the same price as the 17-40.  If you're shooting large subjects in tight spaces it's very helpful.  The other lenses you mentioned are equivalent to around 25 or 27 mm so not nearly as wide.  There also is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 lens.  It is very sharp but has a problem with CA in my experience.  I use that one a lot too but have to pay special attention to remove fringing in PS.

I think the choice will depend on how it will be used.  If for travel then small and light weight may be issues - those are very important to me.  If you think you'll be doing a lot of hand-held shots in low light then f2.8 might be important.  For me I almost never shoot wide open so it is not such a big issue.  Good luck with your decision!

« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2013, 09:51 »
0
I picked up an "ultra" wide Tokina 11-16 a couple years ago and I'm surprised how often it has been by lens of choice. Very sharp and fast.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2013, 12:23 »
0
I have the 17-40 F4, and it is a perfectly good lens. I don't use it a lot though - I tend to go 24-105 first, then then 70-200, then, occasionally the 70-200 with 1.4 extender, and finally the 17-40 in terms of usage. I do carry it everywhere and sometimes it is the only solution, but you can also pan and stitch that works well for wide panoramic shots.

Bottom line - don't spend more than you need!

steve

tab62

« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2013, 14:02 »
0
love the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 lens. Great for landscape and outdoors shots!

falstafff

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2013, 14:20 »
0
I have them both and my experience is very positive with both of them. The 16-35 is slightly sharper at the widest end, corner to corner and one stop faster if you need it.  In practice, that one stop faster is really the only advantage and will also set you back lots more dollars.

« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2013, 02:42 »
0
Thank you all for good comments

I have a 50 mm and a 70 - 200. I then only have the kit zoom which is really bad, so this would be a complement to the two good ones i have. I would need it mainly for crowd photos, like receptions and weddings, and also for some interior. I don't do extreme wideangle, guess i would like one day but maybe better then to get a fish eye or the 10-22 mentioned by sgoodwin4813 at a later stage?
A.


« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2013, 03:05 »
0
If you wanna have a good wide-angle don't buy Canon.
I have the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM the 20mm the 24mm, I have used the 14mm and 17-40mm and the all are disappointing!The only decent Canon wide-angle I have is the 28mm/1.8 but it's not very wide and very soft at the edges if used wide open.
The Tokina 16-28 is supposed to be very good and its cheaper than the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM. The Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM is certainly disappoints  for it's price I'm regretting that I have bought it.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 04:00 by eclaire »

« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2013, 08:35 »
0
Oh dear... i think i decide and then i hear new comments that makes me confused again...

I want to be able to take large crowd photos, receptions, interior. Sharpness is really important. Brandname is not important. I can pay but obviously would be happy to spend under 1000 euro...

Grateful for any suggestions!!
Anne

« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2013, 10:32 »
0
As I said I would go for the Tokina 16-28 of course for Fullframe!
Consider the much smaller price but better performance than the Canon 16-35mm, wideangle is a general weakness in the Canon-system therefore many use manual wide-angle lenses (Zeiss for example). I'm pretty sure the Tokina is the best offer with AF for Canon Fullframe you can currently get.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff

Photozone-Tests are generally very good and reliable worth a read.

« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2013, 10:52 »
0
eclaire would you go for it even if not fullframe? I have a 50d

« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2013, 12:20 »
0
eclaire would you go for it even if not fullframe? I have a 50d
it depends if you are planning to go fullframe anytime in the future I certainly would buy fullframe lenses now. If you are certain that you will stay with the 1.6crop than you shouldn't buy a fullframe lens because they are more expensive, heavier and bigger. I don't have personal experience with crop-lenses but I would recommend the Photozone site to do a research for ww crop-lenses with Canon mount.

« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2013, 14:39 »
0
I cant afford upgrading my body at the moment, have decided to prioritise the lens..

Now reading that both Canon zooms have neg comments re sharpness. Does anyone here know anything about them being soft?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2013, 18:35 »
0
A 50D is a crop camera so something like a 10-22mm EF-S lens would be super wide

A 17-40mm is an EF lens and I have one for my full frame 5DMII so it's super wide on a full frame camera.

However, a 17-40 EF lens on your 50D would really be much wider than a standard 18-55mm or 18-200mm EF-S zoom.

Probably kind of confusing but do some research on EF-S vs EF lenses and full frame vs crop.

If I were you I'd go with something like the 10-22mm for your 50D.

Regarding a general statement like Canon zooms being soft, no. Some are sharper than others. My 24-70mm is awesome sharp. Every manufacturer has some sharp and not-so-sharp lenses.


« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2013, 19:07 »
0
There have been a couple of negative comments but nothing backed up with actual statistics.  I have the 10-22 and the 17-55 S series lenses and both are quite sharp, particularly the 17-55.  In an independent review it was rated better than the two lenses you mentioned in the OP.  See here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) for a review plus additional links to the other lenses.  Unfortunately he doesn't compare them to other manufacturers such as Tokina or Sigma.  The problem I have had with the 17-55 is that CA is often pretty bad so it takes another step or two to clean it up in PS, but it is very sharp.  Good luck with your decision!

falstafff

    This user is banned.
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2013, 00:06 »
0
If you wanna have a good wide-angle don't buy Canon.
I have the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM the 20mm the 24mm, I have used the 14mm and 17-40mm and the all are disappointing!The only decent Canon wide-angle I have is the 28mm/1.8 but it's not very wide and very soft at the edges if used wide open.
The Tokina 16-28 is supposed to be very good and its cheaper than the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM. The Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM is certainly disappoints  for it's price I'm regretting that I have bought it.

bad experience but no I wouldnt say they are that bad. When buying optics you have to try a few samples. It took me two samples to find a good 16-35 and a 17-40.

Its true though what they say. Nikon for wides and Canon for teles.

« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2013, 04:17 »
+1
If you can afford it try renting the lens that you are considering. It will be cheaper in the long run if you do not like the results

« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2013, 08:23 »
0

WarrenPrice

« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2013, 08:57 »
0
If you can afford it try renting the lens that you are considering. It will be cheaper in the long run if you do not like the results

I've used BorrowLens several times with no complaints ... and made my decision on a lens with that valuable input.

Plus... it made the vacation (trip) even more enjoyable.   ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
5837 Views
Last post April 03, 2006, 07:37
by leaf
5 Replies
10143 Views
Last post February 22, 2007, 06:48
by CJPhoto
15 Replies
21967 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 08:17
by RASimon
16 Replies
6767 Views
Last post April 07, 2010, 17:26
by Giuseppe Parisi
16 Replies
11353 Views
Last post August 12, 2012, 05:46
by Robic

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle