DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

Started Apr 2, 2013 | Discussions
slyweazal New Member • Posts: 2
Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

After weeks of research I've completely stalled out. My Italy trip is looming and I need to make a decision quick. I turn to you in this dark hour...

CRITERIA:

  • Canon T2i (have 18-55mm kit + 50mm)
  • Frustrated w/ 50mm tightness, but adore it's depth of field - I need a wide lens that'll give me dat sweet bokeh.
  • Low light performance is important!
  • Sub $1000 budget (any more I'd sooner in a full-frame body)
  • Auto-focus is a must

All of photozone's wide prime reviews stink except the $1200 Canon 9_9

TOP CONTENDERS:

  • Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 ($600)
    • Right price and image quality
    • Bad quality control user reviews scare me. Is it worth the risk? What if it fails in the middle of my trip?
    • Could use 50mm for real low light.
  • Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($500)
    • Right price, image quality, and low light performance
    • Again, bad quality control user reviews scare me. Maybe it's been improved and those bad reports are now old?
    • Nervous being limited by prime in Italy where I'll be shooting architecture and landscapes. Maybe it's wide enough?
  • Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 ($1000)

    • As good as I can get quality
    • Resistent to spending that much when I should put it towards a full-frame body (which I don't have the funds to invest in now)
  • Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($500)

    • Slightly cheaper, lower quality version of the Sigma. Noisy focus
    • But is it free from Sigma's poor quality control issues?
    • Is the downsides of this one worth avoiding the potential downsides of Sigmas?
tonyjr
tonyjr Veteran Member • Posts: 5,295
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

I have the 17-55 and it does OK in low light - IS helps a lot .

 tonyjr's gear list:tonyjr's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +14 more
Lenny_D Forum Member • Posts: 55
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

By far the best (ultra)wide zoom for crop is the Canon -EF-S 10-22mm. This lens is ideal for city trips and landscape. It is below $1000 and is highly praised. Believe me, it is not too wide. It practically lived on my 20D for years until I made the step to full frame.
I still miss it and am looking for a replacement.

Lenny

 Lenny_D's gear list:Lenny_D's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +5 more
Alastair Norcross
Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 9,874
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

Lenny_D wrote:

By far the best (ultra)wide zoom for crop is the Canon -EF-S 10-22mm. This lens is ideal for city trips and landscape. It is below $1000 and is highly praised. Believe me, it is not too wide. It practically lived on my 20D for years until I made the step to full frame.
I still miss it and am looking for a replacement.

Lenny

Hi Lenny, have you tried the 17-40 as a replacement for the 10-22 on full frame? I had the 17-40 on crop, and loved it, but sold it when I got the 10-22 and 24-105. My plan is to get it again when I eventually move to full frame.

-- hide signature --

Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R7 Canon EOS R6 Mark II Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +24 more
Lenny_D Forum Member • Posts: 55
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

If you want to switch to full frame the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L is a good option as well (below $1000) . I realize that both EFS 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and the L are limited regarding low light capabilities. But going to f/2.8 means for Canon lenses breaking the bank.
An alternative might be Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 but it is heavy and doesn't allow filters, it is optically good though.

cheers

Lenny

 Lenny_D's gear list:Lenny_D's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +5 more
Lenny_D Forum Member • Posts: 55
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

Hi Alastair, I didn't see your post while writing the earlier reply, indeed I'm seriously considering buying the 17-40mm. I am still considering the 16-35mm f/2.8 but cannot really justify the difference in costs.
Any thoughts?

Lenny

 Lenny_D's gear list:Lenny_D's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +5 more
rman18 Regular Member • Posts: 207
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses
2

I love my Sigma 30 1.4 -  I got it off ebay for a great price and I guess I got lucky with a "good copy" because it is superb.

That being said it takes a lot of practice to get it right.  I think many of the "bad copy" people simply don't realize how thin DOF is at 1.4.

I highly recommend this lens, its on my camera 75% of the time.

 rman18's gear list:rman18's gear list
Samsung NX300 Samsung NX500 Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 20-50mm F3.5-5.6 ED +8 more
Alastair Norcross
Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 9,874
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

Lenny_D wrote:

Hi Alastair, I didn't see your post while writing the earlier reply, indeed I'm seriously considering buying the 17-40mm. I am still considering the 16-35mm f/2.8 but cannot really justify the difference in costs.
Any thoughts?

Lenny

I think the 17-40 should be fine. When I'm shooting ultra-wide, I usually stop down to F5.6 or F8, so the difference between F4 and F2.8 isn't a big deal. 16 vs 17 also isn't a big deal. From what I have seen of the 16-35, it isn't significantly better in IQ. I agree that I would find it hard to justify the extra cost of the 16-35 over the 17-40, unless I was shooting it a lot in low light. The 16-35 is also bigger, heavier, and takes a larger filter.

-- hide signature --

Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R7 Canon EOS R6 Mark II Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +24 more
Lenny_D Forum Member • Posts: 55
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

Hi Alastair,

Thanks for sharing your opinion, I'm thinking along the same lines and will now probably go for the 17-40. It might interest you that I also own the 24-105mm.On the 20D I was slightly disappointed with this lens, however somehow on my new 6D it is superb. Funny it is apparently designed for FF. When I bought it (approx 3 years ago), I already anticipated to switch to FF, so no regrets anymore.

Best regards

Lenny

 Lenny_D's gear list:Lenny_D's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +5 more
Ember42 Contributing Member • Posts: 697
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

slyweazal wrote:

After weeks of research I've completely stalled out. My Italy trip is looming and I need to make a decision quick. I turn to you in this dark hour...

CRITERIA:

  • Canon T2i (have 18-55mm kit + 50mm)
  • Frustrated w/ 50mm tightness, but adore it's depth of field - I need a wide lens that'll give me dat sweet bokeh.
  • Low light performance is important!
  • Sub $1000 budget (any more I'd sooner in a full-frame body)
  • Auto-focus is a must

All of photozone's wide prime reviews stink except the $1200 Canon 9_9

TOP CONTENDERS:

  • Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 ($600)
    • Right price and image quality
    • Bad quality control user reviews scare me. Is it worth the risk? What if it fails in the middle of my trip?
    • Could use 50mm for real low light.
  • Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($500)
    • Right price, image quality, and low light performance
    • Again, bad quality control user reviews scare me. Maybe it's been improved and those bad reports are now old?
    • Nervous being limited by prime in Italy where I'll be shooting architecture and landscapes. Maybe it's wide enough?
  • Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 ($1000)

    • As good as I can get quality
    • Resistent to spending that much when I should put it towards a full-frame body (which I don't have the funds to invest in now)
  • Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($500)

    • Slightly cheaper, lower quality version of the Sigma. Noisy focus
    • But is it free from Sigma's poor quality control issues?
    • Is the downsides of this one worth avoiding the potential downsides of Sigmas?

The Tamron is definitly not free of QC issues.  I had that one, returned it, and after a few years bit the bullet and got the 17-55.

 Ember42's gear list:Ember42's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Fujifilm X-T1 +13 more
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Current state of wide (zoom) lenses

Although I am mainly a FF shooter, I did choose Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS as the walk-around zoom for my 60D.  I have a few shots from that combo in my last year's Italy trip

It's no brainier to me at $600 that its IQ can match to Canon 17-55/2.8 IS but $400-$450 cheaper (when I bought the lens it's about $430 cheaper).  I bought from Amazon.  The first copy has BF issue.  But thanks Amazon hassle-free exchange/return policy, they sent me 2nd copy thru 2-day delivery before I even returned 1st copy (with free shipping label).  With two copies in hands and compared side by side, my 2nd copy is clearly better.  I had another similar experience thru Amazon in last Dec to swap Canon 17 TS-E lens with the same happy hassle-free experience.

Florence

Florence 

Rome

Rome

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads