Which wide angle lens for my 400d?

nice1franko

I have a 400d with the nifty-fifty for about 9 months and now I want a new lens. I'm a sucker for those wide/ultra wide landscapes so I was thinking on getting either:

Sigma 10-20

Tamron 17-50

Canon 17-40

I'm not sure why I even put the Canon 17-40 in cos it's beyond my budget but if anyone can *really* convince me it's worth it then I'll try and find the money somewhere I spose!

The other thing is, when I spend this kind of money, I'm expecting it to be a lens for life! Could I stick any of these onto my fullframe 5d when I get it in 15 years or so?

decsramble

I have a Sigma 10-20 and think it's great. That said I have never used the tamron or canon lenses so can only say that I am happy with the Sigma. Gets good reviews and it seems to be hard to beat it for the money. Feels pretty solid and it;s a nice size for the camera, I use it on a 350D.

Dont know from my own experience if you can use if on a 5D but google tells me it will fit but with AWFUL vignetting.

Paddy@CIRL

A Sigma 10-20 on a 400D has the focal length of a 16-32 because of the crop sensor. Al here has used one on a 5D but its a bit too wide, as in, it can see inside the barrel of the lense ...

I have one on a 40D and love it, just don't use it for people shots as the barrel distortion is terrible !

Duchovny

Well you didn't mention there but i will tell you anyway, i would go for the Canon 10-22

The other ones are not really wide, you have other options like the 12-24 or the 11-16.

Eirebear

Im really beginning to love the Canon 10-22, ive had it for well over a year now and it took me a long time to get used to it but now i bring it everywhere with me.

jackdaw

Well if you are going to get the Canon 17-40 don't .. the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DII
is just as good (maybe better) and way cheaper...

snellers

Tokina 12-24 f4 gets my thumbs up.....I have had excellent results with it & very solidly built.

sasar

I have both tamron 17-50 & sigma 10-20.
Two totally different lenses, one dark and more for landscapes, the other more for daily use. Sigma is quite soft compared to tamron which is pin sharp.

Tamron is f/2.8 compared to Sigma f/4-5.6.

And I would never trade my tamron for canon f/4.

Freddie59

snellers wrote: »

Tokina 12-24 f4 gets my thumbs up.....I have had excellent results with it & very solidly built.

Same here. Excellent lens. Delivered from Kea Photo for 336.:)

elderlemon

Scratch the 17-40L off your list. I have the Canon 17-55 2.8 on my 40d. Nice lens but not wide enough. Will go for the Canon 10-22 next - its well wide and nice quality.

m_stan

I have the sigma 10-20mm and while it's a little on the soft side, I love it and am quite happy with the results so far.

rabbitinlights

Canon 17-85mm??

CabanSail

I have the Sigma 10-20 on my Nikon bodies. Quite happy with it for the money (about €400) you can't beat it.

rahtkennades

snellers wrote: »

Tokina 12-24 f4 gets my thumbs up.....I have had excellent results with it & very solidly built.

+1 for me. Same reasons as above, and for cheap! Got mine for half the price of a Canon 10-22. That lens just Can't be twice as good as the Tokina!

nice1franko

Thanks everyone for your help.

Duchovny wrote: »

Well you didn't mention there but i will tell you anyway, i would go for the Canon 10-22

The other ones are not really wide, you have other options like the 12-24 or the 11-16.

I left that one out because the reviews/comparisons with the sigma 10-20 are extremely varied - some saying the canon is slightly better but not worth the what it costs above the sigma and some even saying the sigma is better... it seems to me to be more-or-less a matter of personal taste?! In such a case, I'm afraid the price is the decider for me... also, it's ef-s so in X years when upgrade to a full frame I can't take it with me.

jackdaw wrote: »

Well if you are going to get the Canon 17-40 don't .. the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DII
is just as good (maybe better) and way cheaper...

ok, that one's gone!

snellers wrote: »

Tokina 12-24 f4 gets my thumbs up.....I have had excellent results with it & very solidly built.

rahtkennades wrote: »

+1 for me. Same reasons as above, and for cheap! Got mine for half the price of a Canon 10-22. That lens just Can't be twice as good as the Tokina!

ok, that one's added to the list

sasar wrote: »

I have both tamron 17-50 & sigma 10-20.
Two totally different lenses, one dark and more for landscapes, the other more for daily use. Sigma is quite soft compared to tamron which is pin sharp.

Tamron is f/2.8 compared to Sigma f/4-5.6.

And I would never trade my tamron for canon f/4.

oh oh. I thought the tamron @ 17 would be pretty wide.... how would the tamron 17-50 fare on a full frame do you know?

How would the Tokina 12-24 fare on a full frame?

Duchovny

Well the 10-22 is consider a lens with almost a L quaility, i also read that the sigma lens constructions are not great.

The difference was 100€, and to be honest i prefer to pay 100€ more then buy a 3rd party lens, I'm not a big fan of 3rd party lens but that's just me

sasar

nice1franko - from the listed three lenses only Canon can be used on FF camera.

nice1franko

sasar wrote: »

nice1franko - from the listed three lenses only Canon can be used on FF camera.

ok, thanks for pointing me in the right direction, sasar.

I've read a couple more reviews...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-40mm-performance.htm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx wrote:

Good full-frame compatibility and performance make the 17-40 L an especially good lens for those thinking of upgrading to such a body in the future.

Full-frame compatability is important for me when spending 500+ - Jaysus, lenses are mad money :mad: - at least with the 17-40 I'd have it for life I suppose.

I'll mull it over a little bit more, do some more homework, check behind the sofa for fallen money etc and then get the 17-40 I think!

Fajitas!

Well, if 17 is good with you, don't get the 17-40 - Just get the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS (Or Tamron)- Fair enough you can't use it on a full frame camera, but if you're thinking of upgrading to full frame in 5 years time, then you'll get your moneys worth out of the 17-55 - If you DO want to go for a superwide, I'd be saying go for the 10-22 EFS though.

As I said, if you're not planning to upgrade for 5 years, then don't worry too much about it - Besides, in 5 years time, you might just want to stick to the 1.6 cropped cameras

The great thing about the 17-50's is that you've got a constant aperture of f/2.8 - So you'll have a great general purpose lens that'll do wide angle to short telephoto. It'll be much better in low light thatn any of the alternatives too.

snellers

should have mentioned FF at the start - would have clarified things.......

just remember the crop factor of your 400d when using, say, a 17-40mm .....it won't be that wide at all..... roughly speaking you will get over 2/3rds more in your picture when shooting at 10mm than you would at 17mm ......that is an enormous difference and one you can only truly appreciate when you test the lens' side by side.


a couple of the lens mentioned to you are well below €400 brand new and could be picked up cheaper 2nd hand - I would definately consider this option, particularly if you don't plan to go FF for a while...

deRanged

nice1franko wrote: »

then get the 17-40 I think!

It's a lovely lens.
The others are right though, it's not that wide on a crop body. Then again, if your motivation is compatibility with a full frame sensor ...