Posted by Kalin Wilson on June 19, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Well, I've been thinking about getting a wide or super-wide zoom to add to my repertoire. I got to use Jesse's 17-40L a little this weekend and it really drove home for me the difference the wider angle could make. Currently my Tamron 28-75 2.8 is my widest lens. I'm shooting with a Canon 20D.
I've been looking at the Canon 17-40 F4.0L, the Canon 16-35 F2.8L, and the Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5. I think I've pretty much decided on the 17-40 for price, weight, quality, and sharpness, plus I'd like some L-glass. But I thought it would be wise to tap into the incredible depth of experience here.
What is your favorite lens in the 10-30mm range? I'm looking to fill in below my 28-75mm.
Are there non-Canon lenses that I should take a look at? Any that give the 17-40 a run for the money?
With the 1.6x crop factor of the 20D, I'd be a big proponent of a 10-22 lens (assuming it's rectilinear and not fisheye). I love using the Nikon 12-24 on my D2X; it opens up new compositional possibilities that you can't get with even a regular wide-angle.
You might look at the Tokina 12-24mm lens. It's got a great rating, at least from Nikon users. It will cover a bit more of the range leading up to 28mm, but won't go quite as wide as the 10-22. Don't know what your price range is, so I can't offer much more in that respect.
I own a 10-22, 17-40L and 28-70 f2.8 Tokina. The Tokina is probably similar to your Tamron except that it weighs alot more.
Honestly, its a tough call. I think the best thing to do would be for you to try each of the lenses. I could meet you in the Garden of the Gods one morning to try the 10-22 and 17-40 side by side in the real world. You could snap a few shots to get a feel for each lens. I know you've already used the 17-40, but this way you could use them at the same time.
I personally could go with just the 10-22 and the 28-70. The gap isn't that large between them, and I have very few images with a focal length between 22 and 28mm. The 10-22 has very similar color and contrast to the 17-40L. But the 17-40L is slightly better in ultimate image quality and has better flare resistance. I actually find it somewhat insulting that the 10-22 costs as much as the 17-40L despite the difference in build quality and image quality, especially since you have to buy the hood separate with the 10-22 (it uses the same hood as the 17-40L). The 10-22 doesn't feel cheap, but the body is plastic instead of metal. The Tokina 12-24 is right there with the Canon 10-22 IMO and probably built better. I chose the Canon because the lens was lighter weight and wider by 2mm and I already had the other range covered.
There are two other lenses that I seriously think you should consider. They are the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Both are supposed to be sharper than the 17-40L and have equivalent color and contrast. I owned the 17-40L before either lens came to market. Today, it would be no question that I'd choose one of the EF-S lenses unless I was planning a move to full frame very soon. The extra 10mm on the long end doesn't sound like much, but it is in a critical range for portrait lengths. 40mm (64mm equiv) is an awkward focal length for people pictures. 50mm is much nicer and I use my 50mm prime quite often.
I don't think I would even consider the 16-35 f2.8. Its too heavy, too expensive and too limited in range for a crop body. Plus the new mkII has a strange filter size and would almost certainly require you buy the Z-Pro or Lee 4inch filters.
I can't really answer your question for you because I don't know the answer myself. I shoot more pictures in the 17-35mm range than I think I'll shoot in the 10mm-17mm range. But I really like having the option to go to a wider lens. With a 10-22 or 12-24 and a 28-75, you'll have more focal length coverage and you'd still cover all of the 17-35mm range. With the 17-50 or EF-S 17-55 f2.8IS, you'd have a much more natural normal zoom for a crop body with excellent optics and f2.8. With the 17-40L, you'd have a lens that is a great value among the L lenses and an even better lens on a full frame body if there is one in your future.
To directly answer another one of your questions, everything I've seen suggests the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Tokina 12-24 f4 both give the Canon 17-40L a run for the money on a crop body.
The Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS gives the 17-40L a run for its money with f2.8 and IS to boot and isn't on your list, but it costs alot more than the 17-40L, but less than the 16-35L.
I bought the 17-40L (immediately upon release) with my Canon 10D. It was the perfect lens for that camera and worth every penny. I now have a 5D. It's still my bread and butter lens with the 5D. No matter what else I buy, or what camera body I move, I will never part with my 17-40L.
One thing that's easy too overlook with L glass is how well it retains it's value. You'll be able to resell it for a large amount (it will effectively turn it into a rental fee after the sale).
Posted by Kalin Wilson on June 19, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Thanks for the info so far, guys! Great stuff.
Mel & Les, thanks for mentioning some of the other lenses. I'll have to look into them. I would like to get a 5D or successor someday, but probably not real soon.
You make excellent points, Mel, as usual. I'd like to take you up on your offer to get together and shoot some comparisons. It would also be good to see the lenses together. I've been very happy with my Tamron, I'll have to check out their 17-50 as well as the Tokina and Canon EF-S
Do you have some sources for comparisons between these and the 17-40L? I'll check dpreview.com and some of the other typical sites.
I have the Tamron 28-75 as well and have also found it slightly lacking at the wide end on my 5D. Having a more generous budget might open up a few more possibilities, but I recently picked up a Canon 24mm prime which is extremely light weight, relatively inexpensive, and highly rated. It also has hyper focal markings to help focus near-far shots. Seems like from my film camera/all prime lens set up from the "olden days", that I rarely had a need for extreme wide angles and am hoping this will fill the gap. Probably not a mainstream choice, but another option.
I've occationally entertained the idea of going to all primes with a nice macro at the long end.
Posted by Brett Deacon on June 19, 2007 at 6:29 PM
I use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 on my Sony Alpha and love it. It is extremely sharp and, more importantly to me, has excellent corner-to-corner sharpness unlike some other wide angles I've used. Highly recommended.
I shoot with a 20D and use a Tokina 12-24 and the Canon 17-40L. Both are good sharp lenses, but I really appreciate the extra wide aspect of the Tokina. Like the Canon, the Tokina is also built really well. My only complaint is that it's more prone to flare than the 17-40. My 17-40 stays home a lot these days, but that will change when I can finally afford a full frame Canon.
Kalin, I was in your shoes about 7 months ago and went with the 17-40L. I read many reviews and asked questions on different forums, including this one http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33
and made the final decision based on everything I read and heard. Just remember, the 10-22 is an EFS and won't work with your 5D when you make the jump.
I have the Tokina 12-24 to fill in below the Canon 24-105L. I decided on it over the Canon 17-40 for the extra wide angle and over the Canon 10-22 based on price alone. I've been perfectly happy with build and image quality of the Tokina. Someday I'll move up to full frame and likely sell the Tokina 12-24, replacing it with the Canon 17-40L.
Hi Kalin, I struggled with the same decision. I bought the Canon 10-22. True it is not L build nor waterproof. But it is sturdy enough to survive a 2.5' drop onto concrete (not that I advocate that sort of thing!) My copy is extremely sharp like my L's and IQ is nice and contrasty too. I can shoot fairly close into the sun without flare issues (I dont have the hood). I think it is a heck of a lens for the money. I would take Mel up on his offer for a trial shoot with it. I enjoy having that 10 mm wide end.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on June 19, 2007 at 11:39 PM
As I see it, alot of the EF full frame wide to normal lenses don't work out to very good focal lengths on the crop bodies. The primes seem to work out OK, but the zooms don't map across very well. The 28-70 normal zoom ends up a strange 42-116mm. The 16-35 ends up 26-56mm. They are too long on the short end or too short on the long end to cover the traditional array of subjects that they were meant to cover.
Unless you are planning to move to full frame within a year, I think it would be best to buy the lens that is going to work best now. You can always sell that lens with the camera body later. It might make the camera body more saleable. Most EF-S lenses are holding their values just as well as EF lenses and even L lenses. After all, there will be more EF-S bodies than full frame bodies on the market for many many years. I think the question that you need to answer for yourself is whether you need a normal zoom or an ultrawide. If it is a normal zoom, then the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Canon 17-40 f4L are going to be your best bets. If you want the ability to shoot ultrawide, then the 10-22 or 12-24 are going to come into play. I think you'll find that both compliment your 28-75 f2.8 just fine, so its a matter of what you want to shoot.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on June 20, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Great info, thanks again, guys! I knew I'd get some good discussion. I hadn't really thought about the Tamron or Tokina lenses. I'll have to do a little more research, but that's a good thing. I'm leaning to the wider side of the scale, so I'll look into the Tokina and Canon.
Mel, I'll drop you a note about getting together sometime.
"You might look at the Tokina 12-24mm lens. It's got a great rating, at least from Nikon users."
I have that lens, love it muchly.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on June 21, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I've been reading some more reviews. Looks like the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24 are the real players in the superwide, non-full frame sensor arena. I'm looking forward to getting together with Mel to try his 10-22 out.
Discussion
16 repliesI've been looking at the Canon 17-40 F4.0L, the Canon 16-35 F2.8L, and the Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5. I think I've pretty much decided on the 17-40 for price, weight, quality, and sharpness, plus I'd like some L-glass. But I thought it would be wise to tap into the incredible depth of experience here.
What is your favorite lens in the 10-30mm range? I'm looking to fill in below my 28-75mm.
Are there non-Canon lenses that I should take a look at? Any that give the 17-40 a run for the money?
Thanks to all!
With the 1.6x crop factor of the 20D, I'd be a big proponent of a 10-22 lens (assuming it's rectilinear and not fisheye). I love using the Nikon 12-24 on my D2X; it opens up new compositional possibilities that you can't get with even a regular wide-angle.
You might look at the Tokina 12-24mm lens. It's got a great rating, at least from Nikon users. It will cover a bit more of the range leading up to 28mm, but won't go quite as wide as the 10-22. Don't know what your price range is, so I can't offer much more in that respect.
I own a 10-22, 17-40L and 28-70 f2.8 Tokina. The Tokina is probably similar to your Tamron except that it weighs alot more.
Honestly, its a tough call. I think the best thing to do would be for you to try each of the lenses. I could meet you in the Garden of the Gods one morning to try the 10-22 and 17-40 side by side in the real world. You could snap a few shots to get a feel for each lens. I know you've already used the 17-40, but this way you could use them at the same time.
I personally could go with just the 10-22 and the 28-70. The gap isn't that large between them, and I have very few images with a focal length between 22 and 28mm. The 10-22 has very similar color and contrast to the 17-40L. But the 17-40L is slightly better in ultimate image quality and has better flare resistance. I actually find it somewhat insulting that the 10-22 costs as much as the 17-40L despite the difference in build quality and image quality, especially since you have to buy the hood separate with the 10-22 (it uses the same hood as the 17-40L). The 10-22 doesn't feel cheap, but the body is plastic instead of metal. The Tokina 12-24 is right there with the Canon 10-22 IMO and probably built better. I chose the Canon because the lens was lighter weight and wider by 2mm and I already had the other range covered.
There are two other lenses that I seriously think you should consider. They are the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Both are supposed to be sharper than the 17-40L and have equivalent color and contrast. I owned the 17-40L before either lens came to market. Today, it would be no question that I'd choose one of the EF-S lenses unless I was planning a move to full frame very soon. The extra 10mm on the long end doesn't sound like much, but it is in a critical range for portrait lengths. 40mm (64mm equiv) is an awkward focal length for people pictures. 50mm is much nicer and I use my 50mm prime quite often.
I don't think I would even consider the 16-35 f2.8. Its too heavy, too expensive and too limited in range for a crop body. Plus the new mkII has a strange filter size and would almost certainly require you buy the Z-Pro or Lee 4inch filters.
I can't really answer your question for you because I don't know the answer myself. I shoot more pictures in the 17-35mm range than I think I'll shoot in the 10mm-17mm range. But I really like having the option to go to a wider lens. With a 10-22 or 12-24 and a 28-75, you'll have more focal length coverage and you'd still cover all of the 17-35mm range. With the 17-50 or EF-S 17-55 f2.8IS, you'd have a much more natural normal zoom for a crop body with excellent optics and f2.8. With the 17-40L, you'd have a lens that is a great value among the L lenses and an even better lens on a full frame body if there is one in your future.
The Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS gives the 17-40L a run for its money with f2.8 and IS to boot and isn't on your list, but it costs alot more than the 17-40L, but less than the 16-35L.
Mel-
One thing that's easy too overlook with L glass is how well it retains it's value. You'll be able to resell it for a large amount (it will effectively turn it into a rental fee after the sale).
Mel & Les, thanks for mentioning some of the other lenses. I'll have to look into them. I would like to get a 5D or successor someday, but probably not real soon.
You make excellent points, Mel, as usual. I'd like to take you up on your offer to get together and shoot some comparisons. It would also be good to see the lenses together. I've been very happy with my Tamron, I'll have to check out their 17-50 as well as the Tokina and Canon EF-S
Do you have some sources for comparisons between these and the 17-40L? I'll check dpreview.com and some of the other typical sites.
Thanks again!
I've occationally entertained the idea of going to all primes with a nice macro at the long end.
Kalin, I was in your shoes about 7 months ago and went with the 17-40L. I read many reviews and asked questions on different forums, including this one http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33
and made the final decision based on everything I read and heard. Just remember, the 10-22 is an EFS and won't work with your 5D when you make the jump.
Unless you are planning to move to full frame within a year, I think it would be best to buy the lens that is going to work best now. You can always sell that lens with the camera body later. It might make the camera body more saleable. Most EF-S lenses are holding their values just as well as EF lenses and even L lenses. After all, there will be more EF-S bodies than full frame bodies on the market for many many years. I think the question that you need to answer for yourself is whether you need a normal zoom or an ultrawide. If it is a normal zoom, then the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Canon 17-40 f4L are going to be your best bets. If you want the ability to shoot ultrawide, then the 10-22 or 12-24 are going to come into play. I think you'll find that both compliment your 28-75 f2.8 just fine, so its a matter of what you want to shoot.
Mel, I'll drop you a note about getting together sometime.
Thanks again, everyone!
I have that lens, love it muchly.
Thanks again to all who chimed in!