Which Wide Angle for my 20D?

After thinking about what tele to buy to replace my 100-300L Canon I realized that my most important lens needs upgrading. I use a 17-85 EFS Canon for landscapes -- in some ways this is my most important photography as I publish a conservation calendar each year that features my photos (along with others).

So what wide angle do you suggest for my Canon 20D?

I'm leaning toward a 17-40L Canon -- its the right price -- my budget is about $600.

But are there any alternatives? How about a Sigma or such? Or have I made the right choice?

Thanks,
Frank

Canon 10-22mm period!

Thanks Ashitosh. But are you sure? (Just kidding) Luminous Landscape seems to agree with you --they give very high marks to this lens. I assumed it was similar to the performance of my 17-85 but apparently it is much better.

Frank

Frank, I have heard a lot of conflicting reports about the 17-85. And it isn't really "wide" in that sense.

The 10-22mm is in a totally different league from the various 17-X lenses. Infact the 10-22mm, the 24-105mm, and the 100-300 so nicely complete the lineup on a 20D. I owned a 10-22mm until recently, and does this lens blow you away! It really make you look at things from a completely different perspective.

Try one in a local store if you haven't already. The 10-22mm is probably within your budget, and in my opinion a much better fit than the 17-40 for the 20D.

I would never be happy with a lens that went no wider than 17mm, but maybe that's just me. The 18-70mm range is the one I use least. There is a learning curve to a 10-20mm, but after awhile it just becomes natural.


Kent in SD

Thanks, Kent.

What is it that you need to learn?

Thx,
Frank

I love my 10-22! It's on my camera 90% of the time.

The biggest challenge is polarizers so far. It's so wide that polarization can be very uneven so you have to back it off or plan to spend time in photoshop correcting it.

You also have to be very careful with filters, the edges and holder have a tendency to get into the shot as well as an occasional finger.

Thanks Rob.

I'm not a big fan of filters so maybe that helps?

Frank

Frank,

A somewhat cheaper alternative for you with that would get you the same results as the Canon is the Sigma 10 - 20! I've had mine for 2 yrs. Is very sharp and color saturation is spot on. I think it may save you @ $200 over the Canon which you could use for other goodies! I truly do not think the 17 -40 is truly wide enough for most wide angle shot users we 1.6 croppers are looking for.

Thanks Mitch -- I just saw a photo taken with that lens -- do you think its as good as the Canon?

Thx,
Frank

The filters I'm referring to are my neutral density filters used for landcapes. I usually hand hold them to adjust the split or graduation, but the wide view and size of the lens, it's hard to keep your fingers out.

You also have to watch the distortion if your subject is close and falls along the edge of the frame. I did some shots in a cave, with very close proximity to my subject, and there was a lot of noticeable wide angle distortion. I haven't noticed it as much shooting landscapes, though it is there.

I bought the Canon 10-22 from Ashutosh and will concur that it is a great lens.
Rick T

I also have the 10-22 and 17-40L. For the ultra wide field of view, the 10-22 is better than its third party rivals according to every review I've ever seen. The Tokina 12-24 is usually placed second, and the Sigma 10-20 is usually next though sometimes is reversed with the Tokina. Tamron seem to have missed the mark with their 11-18 lens and it has come in last in every review I've seen (odd for tamron).

One of the biggest reasons why I chose the 10-22 over the Tokina is that it is significantly lighter. The extra 2mm on the wide end is a big difference in field of view, but you would still get the UWA effect with either lens. The weight of all the lenses we carry starts to add up when hiking.

Also, for the 17mm range, the EF-S specific 17-50f2.8 lenses are supposed to be better than the older 17-40L in resolution and equal in contrast and saturation. The Canon EF-S 17-55f2.8IS is king of the hill, but above your price range. Both the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the new Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro are supposed to be very good and are both under 600. But I don't really expect much difference between these and the excellent 17-40L.

I would strongly recommend that you get to a store and try these lenses. The UWA lenses are much different than the 17-XX lenses. Your landscapes may be better served by a normal zoom range, but there are places where only an ultra wide angle can capture the scene. The learning curve is that ultra wide angle has an effect on the scene. Giant mountain become minuscule. Foreground rocks get stretched to monstrous dimensions. You have to be much closer to your subject than you would need to be with a normal lens.

Mel-

I've heard a few good things about Sigma and Tamron lenses. My only problem with them is that anytime you have to send your lens for free re-chipping, you are left without a lens for atleast 4 weeks (in Montreal, Canada). Since I don't have multiple copies of lenses, I cannot afford this, and hence I have made it a matter of principle to stay with Canon lenses.

I also have the EF-s 10-22 and it measures right up there with my Canon L's except it is not weather sealed. I love this lens! I use DXO Optics Pro to deal with any distortion issues when it is noticable.
John

I use the Tokina 12-24 on my 20D. I really like it. Back when I was looking for a wide-angle, it got really good reviews vs the Canon. It's about $500, and it seems like others on here, and a friend who's a pro, were pretty happy with it.