Wide Angle Lens

[John Farley]

I have a Sigma 8-16 lens also. It gives very sharp results, no problem with softness at all. However, the pictures do tend to come a little dark in low light, which can be an issue in storm photography, but you can compensate for this some by opening up the aperture.

 

[Olivier Staiger]

I currently have these lenses : all Canon, EF-S 15-85 IS , EF-S 10-22 , EF 50/1.4 , EF 85/1.8, EF 200/2.8 L .
I currently use a 550D ( T2i ), and occasionnally my former 450D ( XSi )

the lens I use most is the 15-85 IS.

If I had to choose only one lens, it would be the 15-85 IS. The IS image stabilisation works wonders, also very good in video mode. There is some vignetting with that lens but the 550D/T2i ( and later models too, I presume ) makes an in-camera correction and the vignetting disappears.

The 10-22 is excellent . But if I had to buy a superwide angle today, I might go for the Sigma 8-16, though I dislike one thing on it, it only starts at f/4.5 , and in stormchasing situations we tend to find ourselves in rather dark light.

Nick, keep in mind that the 50mm/1.8 will give you 80mm FF equivalence, that is almost the same as the teleposition i your 18-55 kit lens.

Here's my recommendation : get the 15-85 IS.

Plan B : look at the prime EF 35/2

 

[N Parker]

Thanks for the info Olivier. I actually have looked into the 15-85 along with the 17-40L. Down to between these two now as I have decided against a true wide angle. The 50mm will work fine for now with my side "hobby" of indoor events and weddings. Allows me to stand in the back of the church without disrupting anyone or the ceremony itself and also allows me to negate purchasing a flash, which would really bother people. I've also looked at some various 20 to 30mm primes. Hard to beat a $120 price tag for the 50mm though.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

The build of the f/1.8 lens is a little plastic-like. But it works like a champ. Seen some great photos from it. I went with the f/1.4 because of the better build quality. Got it for about $250. The price is nice and so are the photos with the f/1.8. Can't go wrong on the 'nifty thrifty fifty'.

 

[N Parker]

One more post and i'll quit this madness. (My eyes are bleeding at the moment from reading so much....)

17-40 is out. Was designed for a full frame and not a 1.6. 4f aperture well suited for outside, but doesn't hold up well in low-light indoors.

Now im between the 15-85 & the 17-55. From what i've gathered, the 17-55 is the god send to the APS-C cameras. The ONLY complaint I see about it is the lack of range for a walk around type lens.
15-85 is about as sharp at the 17-55, but suffers with a f/3.5 to f/5.6 aperture vs f/2.8 on the 17-55.

Now for the part that really matters,there is a $360 difference between the two. The 15-85 is already approaching the the so called limits of my budget, but I see it this way. I can get the 15-85 and a 50mm f/1.8 for $250 cheaper than just the 17-55 alone. But then on the other hand, if Im going to spend a grand, I might as well have the best I can get. I have the 55-250 to cover the upper limits, and im very happy with it, so range is not my concern. My main concern seems to be low-light capabilty.

Do anyone have any comments or suggestions between the two? Im willing to go either way, but like everyone, I want the most bang for my buck without breaking me.

 

[Brandon Jenkins]

If you are looking for the best bang for the buck, don't leave out the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC as an option, I've lost track of how many great reviews I have read about this lens (and it's quality when compared to Canon equivalents).

I have considered ditching my Sigma 10-20 in favor of the Canon 15-85 for more practical shooting but I'm having a hard time letting go of UWA.

 

[N Parker]

I have looked at it and the non-VC model and am concerned with the quality control issues with them and Sigma. Basically just luck of the draw from what ive read. They hold sharpness fairly well with the rest, but held next to the two canon's, they fall flat, but so goes the saying, you get what you pay for.

 

[N Parker]

Well, after many, many hours of further research, finally dropped the hammer awhile ago and ordered a Canon 15-85 with a 50mm f/1.8 to go with it. And just as soon as my funds recover in the next month, the Sigma 8-16 will also be on the way...

Thanks for all the help! Really appreciate it

 

[Brandon Jenkins]

Well, after many, many hours of further research, finally dropped the hammer awhile ago and ordered a Canon 15-85 with a 50mm f/1.8 to go with it. And just as soon as my funds recover in the next month, the Sigma 8-16 will also be on the way...

Thanks for all the help! Really appreciate it

Cognrats on the purchase. I actually just picked up the 15-85 a few days ago myself. I haven't had a good opportunity to test it out yet but it seems like a well built lens and the range is second to none. 15mm makes a huge difference vs the 17/18mm lenses on the market. I wish it were a bit faster but ill probably pick up a 50mm 1.4 at some point, but next up is a body replacement.