Wide Angle and Versatility On A Budget

[Jason Persoff]

Just wanted to see what people's experiences have been. I'm struggling to finally add a wide-angle (non-fisheye) lens to my Canon Digital Rebel (which I love). I have a nice 28-200 Tamron which provides the versatility on like. I'm not a pro, and I get decent results (see my website). Since I'm not into HDR images yet (mostly due to time constraints on my photo editing), I'm looking largely for a well-rounded lens (around 17-40mm) for my Canon.

I came across the Tamron 18-250mm on eBay and thought, "That's some serious range." Anyone shoot with such a lens? It seems versatile (and I know I'm being a bit cheap, here, but I simply can't fork over the dough needed for a "real lens" ).

 

[Chris Foltz]

Jason, what's the max you want to spend on the lens? I bought the 30D a few months back and, rather than going with the kit lens, went with a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm...3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1178847508&sr=8-1

You can find it for close to $300 on Ebay but I'm always leary about purchasing stuff like this on there.

 

[Brett Roberts]

I also use the Sigma 17-70mm - just purchased it this winter as a replacement for the kit lens, which I regret ever having to begin with. It's not an L lens, to be sure, but it's much sharper that the kit at most focal lengths, the build quality is superior, and it actually has a marked focus ring (which helps a lot with nighttime photography where autofocus can be useless). Very highly recommended if you're looking for a solid wide-angle lens for a Canon crop camera and don't want to spend $500+.

I'm pretty sure the Sigma 17-70mm can be had for under $350 on Sigma4Less.com.

Here are a few shots I've taken with it so far this spring on my 300D (with some post-processing, in the interest of full disclosure):

http://www.skyinmotion.com/chase/albums/2007-05-06/2007-05-06_0858.jpg
http://www.skyinmotion.com/chase/albums/2007-03-28/2007-03-28_0587.jpg
http://www.skyinmotion.com/chase/albums/2007-03-21/2007-03-21_0520.jpg
http://skyinmotion.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/2007-05-03_0776.jpg

 

[Jason Persoff]

These are great suggestions ! Thanks guys. 17-70 sounds like an ideal range with a dedicated 70+mm lens for the distance shots. But since I'm usually near the RFB and want structure shots, having the 17mm is great. TY !

 

[Chris Gullikson]

I use a 15mm Sigma 2.8 EX fisheye which is comparable to a 12mm lens in FOV. The fisheye effect is minimal on the 1.6 crop DSLR cameras and is easily corrected with software. This lens is sharp, fairly inexpensive and the 2.8 is nice in low light.
Otherwise my standard wide angle zoom is a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 EX

 

[Dick McGowan]

I shoot with the Sigma 10-20 for structure shots when we are close. Darin shoots with the Sigma 17-70 for the further away stuff. The 10-20 is an awesome lens, and it's sharpness and colors are superb (as well as the Sigma 17-70). We just need one more body for the telephoto lens now lol.

I would argue that the Sigma 17-70 is close to an "L" lens. I find that at 2.8 it's not so sharp, but if you stop it down, it beat the 17-40 in sharpness.

Here is a comment I received about a test a guy ran between the two:

http://stackedplates.blogspot.com/2007/02/canon-17-40-f4l-vs-sigma-17-70-2845.html

 

[Eric Flescher]

I too have a canon

I also have a canon rebel XT that I purchased. So far so good especially with the storms in Kansas that I photographed Tuesday.
I bought a tamron 28-200mm and like it. I am trying to find ways to make the imaging a little sharper but so far the images are good. I bought it as the had good reviews compared to the canon and was hundres dollars less (I bought it for $100).
But after Tuesday, I wish I had a wide angle too so I am looking at the tamron wide angles.
Still trying to get the hang of all the bells and whistles it has especially when shooting when it gets darker.
I need to maybe 200 asa when It gets darker .

**

Just wanted to see what people's experiences have been. I'm struggling to finally add a wide-angle (non-fisheye) lens to my Canon Digital Rebel (which I love). I have a nice 28-200 Tamron which provides the versatility on like. I'm not a pro, and I get decent results (see my website). Since I'm not into HDR images yet (mostly due to time constraints on my photo editing), I'm looking largely for a well-rounded lens (around 17-40mm) for my Canon.

I came across the Tamron 18-250mm on eBay and thought, "That's some serious range." Anyone shoot with such a lens? It seems versatile (and I know I'm being a bit cheap, here, but I simply can't fork over the dough needed for a "real lens" ).

 

[Chris Foltz]

I shoot with the Sigma 10-20 for structure shots when we are close.

I'm hoping to add a super wide angle lens like this one or the Canon 10-22mm. I'm thrilled with both the build and photo quality of my Sigma 17-70 and like idea of saving about $200 over the cost of the Canon lens. Anyone have the Canon 10-22mm? If so, is it worth the extra $$?

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I'm hoping to add a super wide angle lens like this one or the Canon 10-22mm. I'm thrilled with both the build and photo quality of my Sigma 17-70 and like idea of saving about $200 over the cost of the Canon lens. Anyone have the Canon 10-22mm? If so, is it worth the extra $$?

I've tried both the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 10-22. I believe that if you get a good copy of the Sigma 10-20, you'll be happy and it'll cost less. The Canon 10-22, however, is hands-down a stellar quality lens.

I ended up with the Canon because the Sigma lens had a centering issue that caused everything on the left hand side of all photos to be soft. This is a manufacturing defect that apparently has affected a good number of these lenses. If you get the Sigma, make sure to check it out real well. The good news is that Sigma will fix your lens for free if it has this issue.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

My wide-angle shots are from a new Tokina 12-24mm f/4 lens, and my "walk-around" lens is a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens. My experience with the 12-24mm lens is very good, and I'd recommend it to anyone. I'm busy post-processing some wedding pics, but I'll try to get up a good example shot from the 12-24mm lens later this weekend.

 

[Court Hubbard]

I've tried both the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 10-22. I believe that if you get a good copy of the Sigma 10-20, you'll be happy and it'll cost less. The Canon 10-22, however, is hands-down a stellar quality lens.

I ended up with the Canon because the Sigma lens had a centering issue that caused everything on the left hand side of all photos to be soft. This is a manufacturing defect that apparently has affected a good number of these lenses. If you get the Sigma, make sure to check it out real well. The good news is that Sigma will fix your lens for free if it has this issue.

I too chose the Sigma first and had this issue right off the bat. Sent that puppy back and forked out more money for the Canon 10-22 and could not be happier. I agree if you get a good copy of the Sigma its well worth it, or are willing to send it in for repair if you have that focusing issue, but my patience is very thin so I opted to just get the Canon.

 

[Dick McGowan]

I have the Sigma 10-20 4.0-5.6 EX and love it. I haven't had any problems with it at all! It's sharp, the colors are great, and it's MUCH cheaper than the Canon. It also comes with a lens hood, and a nice case....the Canon does not.

I've been recommending this lens to everyone, as well as the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. I have examples of both lenses on my blog below. The autofocus is silent on the 10-20 and VERY fast. It's up there with the Canon "L" series lenses.

An example from 5-5-07:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/DickTwister/pratt1web.jpg

 

[Cris Schroeder]

I had a chance to play with the Canon 10-22 back in April when I was trying to decide between it and the 17-40L. I went with the 17-40 because I thought I'd get more use out of it when not shooting storms. However, I'm still lusting after the 10-22. 17mm on a Rebel XTi just isn't as wide as I'd like for my landscape work.

I'll admit I passed up a chance to look at the Sigma 10-20. I went with a Sigma 28-80 zoom when I bought my first SLR (Rebel G). The autofocus has quit on it twice, and the cost to fix it the first time was almost the same as a new lens. That gave me a bad taste in my mouth for Sigma, although I'm sure they have some good glass. I'm just more comfortable sticking with Canon for my Canon SLRs.

 

[Eric Flescher]

wished they had a wide angle for 5/22/2007 storms near Hays

Thanks for the comments.
I am sure many, like myself, would have wished they had a wide angle for 5/22/2007 storms near Hays.
I will look over sigma and Tamron wide angles.

 

[Tom Mitchell]

I have played with the Sigma 17-70, and it is a nice lens. However, I like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 better. It is sharp through it's range, it focuses quickly and more accurately.

I have always had trouble with Sigma's lenses focusing. I find they aren't consistent.

I didn't like the Sigma ultra wides. The copies I tried did not handle flare and lost contrast in bright opposing light. I know all lenses lose contrast in difficult lighting, but the sigmas were extreme.

I used the Tokina only for one day on a D80. It was a really nice lens. It flared more easily than the Canon, but it was reliable focusing, and gave very consistant results.

I have used the Canon 10-22 quite a bit, and it honestly outperforms the other lens in its class by quite a bit. They other lenses will give you great images, don't get me wrong, but difficult lighting requires substantial post processing IMHO. The Canon will give consistent results, all the time, which is important when you have 1000 images from an event to process. But if you have the time, or are selective in your processing, any of the lenses mentioned so far will give you results that will be almost indistinguishable from each other.

All that being said, I don't actually own any ultrawides! I am just lucky to work with photogs that have them, and give me the opportunity to shoot with varied equipment in varied situations.

Have a great day!

Tom