Can't decide!

I just sold my 28-135 USM IS and 20-35 USM. Today I got 70-200 4 L and obly other lense in my bag is 50mm 1.8. Now... I was surfing on the web tonight almost for 3 hours, reading reviews, oppinions etc. I m lost... I know, that I need wide angle 17-something. What is the good lense starting with 16 or 17? Canon new 16-35L looks very sweet but $$$$.

What to do? Stick witht these two lenses and save some $ for 16-35?

I am really lost now, need your help. Or maybe a doctor

You should go back and buy back the 20-35 USM you sold (an excellent lens) and you are set. If not... as you say you need to see a doctor ;-)

John

ambrio said:

I just sold my 28-135 USM IS and 20-35 USM. Today I got 70-200 4 L
and obly other lense in my bag is 50mm 1.8. Now... I was surfing on
the web tonight almost for 3 hours, reading reviews, oppinions etc.
I m lost... I know, that I need wide angle 17-something. What is
the good lense starting with 16 or 17? Canon new 16-35L looks very
sweet but $$$$.

What to do? Stick witht these two lenses and save some $ for 16-35?

I am really lost now, need your help. Or maybe a doctor

Click to expand...

I haven't tried the new 16-35L, so I'd like to hear what others think of that lense.

However, I've used the 17-35L and was very unimpressed with its sharpness and contrast. It also vignets at the corners. I was very surprised (it's a $1200 L lens!). So I checked photodo.com today, and guess what ? Its MTF's are at 3.2. This is very disapointing, even for a D30/D60 (that uses only the middle 2/3's of the frame or so) simply because it will render soft & flat images. Unfortunate.

I'm on the search for a good wide angel for my D60, 20-28 range. Doesn't have to be too fast, just super sharp and contrasty.

Cheers,

Danny

ambrio said:

I just sold my 28-135 USM IS and 20-35 USM. Today I got 70-200 4 L
and obly other lense in my bag is 50mm 1.8. Now... I was surfing on
the web tonight almost for 3 hours, reading reviews, oppinions etc.
I m lost... I know, that I need wide angle 17-something. What is
the good lense starting with 16 or 17? Canon new 16-35L looks very
sweet but $$$$.

What to do? Stick witht these two lenses and save some $ for 16-35?

I am really lost now, need your help. Or maybe a doctor

Click to expand...

I find the Canon 16-35L to be sharper than my Canon 28-105 (Photodo rating is 3.3) but it does not compare to the sharpness of Canon's 50mm 1.4. I have no scientific proof, just casual observation and review of the pictures I have taken which each of the lens.

The 16-35L has a better build quality than the 17-35 and that is why I bought it. I like the feel of the lens but it is heavy and prone to flare. I need to make more of an effort to keep the hood on! I am very pleased with the color and contrast of this lens. Fred Miranda has an excellant review of the 17-35 vs the 16-35 on his web site.

I have no experience with the Sigma 15-30 but some say it is a very nice lens for the money. If you search the forum, you will find a lot of info posted on this lens.

Best of luck.
Donna K.

Ddalal said:

However, I've used the 17-35L and was very unimpressed with its
sharpness and contrast. It also vignets at the corners. I was
very surprised (it's a $1200 L lens!). So I checked photodo.com
today, and guess what ? Its MTF's are at 3.2. This is very
disapointing, even for a D30/D60 (that uses only the middle 2/3's
of the frame or so) simply because it will render soft & flat
images. Unfortunate.

I'm on the search for a good wide angel for my D60, 20-28 range.
Doesn't have to be too fast, just super sharp and contrasty.

Cheers,

Danny

ambrio said:

I just sold my 28-135 USM IS and 20-35 USM. Today I got 70-200 4 L
and obly other lense in my bag is 50mm 1.8. Now... I was surfing on
the web tonight almost for 3 hours, reading reviews, oppinions etc.
I m lost... I know, that I need wide angle 17-something. What is
the good lense starting with 16 or 17? Canon new 16-35L looks very
sweet but $$$$.

What to do? Stick witht these two lenses and save some $ for 16-35?

I am really lost now, need your help. Or maybe a doctor

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I've just received my 2nd 16-35L sample. The first I've got was terrible... This one seems much better, but it is still soft at f/2.8 from 16mm to 24mm. At 35mm f/2.8 it is good.

Stopped down to f/4 the lens jumps up in quality but it is really perfect even at corners only from f/6.3.

It isn't prone to flare for what I've tested (spot lights), but today it's cloudy here, so no field feedback.

IMHO the 16-35L is definitely better than the previous 17-35L, but there's a lack of quality control (big variation between samples).
However I think that the problem of wideangles quality is in the digital sensor:

• we still use little sensors (the 1D is partly better) which forces us to use a hardly-designed 16mm (f/2.8 zoom lens) to obtain the fov of a much less difficult 26mm.
• my D30 is really outstanding when I shoot at 50mm and above, but in wideangle range it isn't a very good performer and not only for its limited resolution. Probably not-straight rays in wideangles ARE a real problem for present digital chips.

So the solution IMHO will be either full frame chips (less need to use such difficult lenses) and a better chip's sensitivity to not-straight rays.

Returning to your topic, I can only suggest you to save for the 16-35L or buy the 20/1.8 EX Sigma, which has received here very good feedbacks.

Regards
Marco

You may wish to consider the Simga 20-40mm 2.8 lens. It's much more affordable then the Canon L wide lenses and gives you 5mm on the upper end. From what I've seen and heard, the Sigma is only sharp at F2.8 from 20-30mm. From 30-40mm you'll need to use F4.0 to get sharp images. If you can live with that then this lens may be what you're looking for (32mm-64mm is a good "standard zoom" range - at least on the D30/D60). Btw, I've given up on getting a extreme wide lens because of the quality of the photos are not as good. Not to mention, a really wide lens on the D30/D60 isn't wide enough (15mm becomes a 24mm!!), along with the fact that wide lenses are very expensive and not as good optically as non-wide lenses are. If people need the really wide end then I'd recommend getting the 1D or waiting for a D?? with a 1:2 or 1:1 image sensor. I just can't see spending all that money on the glass when the camera is the limiting factor - usually it's the other way around!

Jeff D.

ambrio said:

I just sold my 28-135 USM IS and 20-35 USM. Today I got 70-200 4 L
and obly other lense in my bag is 50mm 1.8. Now... I was surfing on
the web tonight almost for 3 hours, reading reviews, oppinions etc.
I m lost... I know, that I need wide angle 17-something. What is
the good lense starting with 16 or 17? Canon new 16-35L looks very
sweet but $$$$.

What to do? Stick witht these two lenses and save some $ for 16-35?

I am really lost now, need your help. Or maybe a doctor

Click to expand...

Get Sigma's 17-35 or even better 15-30.
16-35 is nice but too expensive for what you get from it (IMHO)
Wojtek

dobiesj said:

Jeff D.

ambrio said:

I just sold my 28-135 USM IS and 20-35 USM. Today I got 70-200 4 L
and obly other lense in my bag is 50mm 1.8. Now... I was surfing on
the web tonight almost for 3 hours, reading reviews, oppinions etc.
I m lost... I know, that I need wide angle 17-something. What is
the good lense starting with 16 or 17? Canon new 16-35L looks very
sweet but $$$$.

What to do? Stick witht these two lenses and save some $ for 16-35?

I am really lost now, need your help. Or maybe a doctor

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have a Tokina 17/3.5 that has been doing great. I use it in low light at 3.5 almost all the time. It's not very expensie and it works out to be 27mm on a d30/60.

The Sigma 20/1.8 should be good but the difference in field of view between 27mm and 32mm is pretty big.

That Sigma 15-30 sounds good too but it's WAY too slow for my needs.

And there is a reason to get the 16-35/2.8L: that would be f/2.8!!! Some of us need that fast aperature. Not everyone is shooting in broad daylight and every little bit counts. On camera flash just sux. Try to avoid it or tone it WAY down and get as much exposuer from the ambient light around you.

Personally I want a Canon 14/2.8L.. $2k... well, that's about the same as the D60 I just bought. Maybe the Sigma 14/2.8....

--Teymoor--

wojtek said:

wojtek32666 said:

ambrio said:

I just sold my 28-135 USM IS and 20-35 USM. Today I got 70-200 4 L
and obly other lense in my bag is 50mm 1.8. Now... I was surfing on
the web tonight almost for 3 hours, reading reviews, oppinions etc.
I m lost... I know, that I need wide angle 17-something. What is
the good lense starting with 16 or 17? Canon new 16-35L looks very
sweet but $$$$.

What to do? Stick witht these two lenses and save some $ for 16-35?

I am really lost now, need your help. Or maybe a doctor

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

-- http://www.pbase.com/teymoor

Just by the 15-30 sigma...its better than both those Canons.

ambrio said:

I just sold my 28-135 USM IS and 20-35 USM. Today I got 70-200 4 L
and obly other lense in my bag is 50mm 1.8. Now... I was surfing on
the web tonight almost for 3 hours, reading reviews, oppinions etc.
I m lost... I know, that I need wide angle 17-something. What is
the good lense starting with 16 or 17? Canon new 16-35L looks very
sweet but $$$$.

What to do? Stick witht these two lenses and save some $ for 16-35?

I am really lost now, need your help. Or maybe a doctor

Click to expand...

--Andy C

The trouble with the Canon 16-35 is that it is very soft at 2.8 whereas the
Sigma lens is quite sharp wide open.

Teymoor said:

The Sigma 20/1.8 should be good but the difference in field of view
between 27mm and 32mm is pretty big.

That Sigma 15-30 sounds good too but it's WAY too slow for my needs.

And there is a reason to get the 16-35/2.8L: that would be f/2.8!!!
Some of us need that fast aperature. Not everyone is shooting in
broad daylight and every little bit counts. On camera flash just
sux. Try to avoid it or tone it WAY down and get as much exposuer
from the ambient light around you.

Personally I want a Canon 14/2.8L.. $2k... well, that's about the
same as the D60 I just bought. Maybe the Sigma 14/2.8....

--Teymoor--

wojtek said:

Teymoor said:

ambrio said:

I just sold my 28-135 USM IS and 20-35 USM. Today I got 70-200 4 L
and obly other lense in my bag is 50mm 1.8. Now... I was surfing on
the web tonight almost for 3 hours, reading reviews, oppinions etc.
I m lost... I know, that I need wide angle 17-something. What is
the good lense starting with 16 or 17? Canon new 16-35L looks very
sweet but $$$$.

What to do? Stick witht these two lenses and save some $ for 16-35?

I am really lost now, need your help. Or maybe a doctor

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/teymoor

Click to expand...

--Andy C

Unless you have tons of money, just buy the Sigma 17-35mm EX HSM at 1/4 the price of the Canon 17-35mm L lens and in some ways better.

I love my Sigma. Wouldn't be without it. The 15-30 Sigma is good too but more expensive.

By the way, you should have kept the 28-135mm IS.

Walt

Andrew Chiciak said:

Just by the 15-30 sigma...its better than both those Canons.

Click to expand...

Ambrio,

I found the 28-135 to be a nice lens, but soft. I returned mine and got a 16-35L.

I don't think there are many Sigma owners that wouldn't swap out their wide zooms for a Canon 16-35 in a heartbeat. The 16-35L is very expensive and built like a tank. I have not had the opportunity to do a direct comparison to Sigma glass. However, I am sure the lens outperforms the Sigma product. Does it outperform it by $900, I don't know.

Fred Miranda's comments on this lens sold me on it. When I place it on my EOS RT I am in awe what a 16mm lens looks like. On my D-30 it looked good. I do question the amount of flair, I don't know how much flair is normal. I would still purchase it again if I had to purchase a new wide angle lenses. After all, is a Canon camera with a third party lens still a Canon camera?--Jeff MorrisAdams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.