Wide angle lens for the 10D

[markf176482]

I have now added the 70-200 f2.8L IS to my 28-70 f2.8L and now need some advice as to a wide zoom or prime. The 17-35L is attractive to me but possibly not wide enough on the 10D.

What do you think??

 

[Jamie H.]

There is very minor distortion at full wide angle, but 15mm is awful wide. The price is right as well, I got mine for $460. The lens is also very sharp, it makes a very logical alternative to expensive L glass.

 

[bimmerman]

Depends on how wide you want. If you want the equavalent of 24mm on a 1.6X crop body, your choices are limited to the ultra expensive Canon 16-35/2.8L. I went for the Sigma 15-30 and i'm quite pleased with it overall. Consider the Canon 17-40/4L which works out to be a 27-65 on a 10D.

If you want wider, wait for the Sigma 12-24 shipping soon.

I have now added the 70-200 f2.8L IS to my 28-70 f2.8L and now need
some advice as to a wide zoom or prime. The 17-35L is attractive to
me but possibly not wide enough on the 10D.

What do you think??

 

[markf176482]

Any idea how much it will hit the streets for. I have also considered Canon's 14mm prime. Any thoughts?

If you want wider, wait for the Sigma 12-24 shipping soon.

I have now added the 70-200 f2.8L IS to my 28-70 f2.8L and now need
some advice as to a wide zoom or prime. The 17-35L is attractive to
me but possibly not wide enough on the 10D.

What do you think??

 

[Jamie H.]

Any idea how much it will hit the streets for. I have also
considered Canon's 14mm prime. Any thoughts?

The Sigma 12-24 will be over $900

 

[bimmerman]

No idea bro but i't has HSM so expect it to cost significantly more than the 15-30. Sigma often does not include HSM to cut cost like what they did to the 80-400OS.

If you want wider, wait for the Sigma 12-24 shipping soon.

I have now added the 70-200 f2.8L IS to my 28-70 f2.8L and now need
some advice as to a wide zoom or prime. The 17-35L is attractive to
me but possibly not wide enough on the 10D.

What do you think??

 

[detefon]

I have now added the 70-200 f2.8L IS to my 28-70 f2.8L and now need
some advice as to a wide zoom or prime. The 17-35L is attractive to
me but possibly not wide enough on the 10D.

What do you think??

 

[David Gore]

I have now added the 70-200 f2.8L IS to my 28-70 f2.8L and now need
some advice as to a wide zoom or prime. The 17-35L is attractive to
me but possibly not wide enough on the 10D.

What do you think??

--
Dave,

The only non-canon lens I own is the wonderful Sigma 14m aspherica lens...on a full frame camera it may suffer slightly from corner sharpness but on a 1.6 or 1.3 factor body it is terrific.luminous landscape has a great review.

http://www.pbase.com/dsg2/daves_pictures

 

[Donna K]

I have the 16-35 f/2.8L. I really like this lens and the 17-40 f/4L has received great reviews. I cannot compare either one to the Canon 14 mm. However none of them are wide enough as far as I am concerned. I've added the Canon fisheye and have the new Sigma 12-24 on order. I purchased it for $649.94 from Canoga Camera.

Here are some sites that will provide you with more information:

http://wwww.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml

http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html

Donna K

I have now added the 70-200 f2.8L IS to my 28-70 f2.8L and now need
some advice as to a wide zoom or prime. The 17-35L is attractive to
me but possibly not wide enough on the 10D.

What do you think??

 

[blue757]

... it is an excellent prime. Actually it is a 180° fisheye at crop 1.

On the 10D it gives you an UWA at 19mm, which - depending on your type of motives - you can "defish" with software or leave alone.

I bought the Sigma 15mm/2.8 EX from Delta for $333 and it has become my favourite lens. As I got used to composing with it, more and more often I do not defish the pictures at all (particularly landscape).

Check out some of the postings with examples here in this forum.

 

[Greg66]

I have now added the 70-200 f2.8L IS to my 28-70 f2.8L and now need
some advice as to a wide zoom or prime. The 17-35L is attractive to
me but possibly not wide enough on the 10D.

I have been down this exact road. I ended up with a 17-40 L, for the following reasons:

1. Of the Canon lenses, the 17-40 appeared to offer the best "bang for buck". Luminous landscape has a review of it against the 16-35, which when you bear in mind the cost difference makes for excellent reading. The 16-35 also seems to suffer QC problems - do a search for it here and you'll see what I mean. I also doubted that I'd need f2.8 on an UWA - and I can't recall a single occasion when I've felt I needed something faster than f4 on the 17-40. That might well have something to do with the fact that I tend to use the 17-40 outdoors for landscapes. Some people use it as a walkaround, or for indoor people shots, but I prefer the 28-70 for that.

2. As between the 17-40 and the Sigma 15-30 I came mighty close to getting the Sig. Optically, it seems to be right up there. However, I went for the Canon in the end because: (i) weight. The Sigma is a real porker - heavier than the 28-70 IIRC; (ii) the Sig has a bulbous front element which makes fitting filters difficult (but no impossible). Plus the filter size is 82mm, whereas with the 17-40 I can share filters with my other L lenses; (iii) I had seen some reports of the 15-30 producing a colour cast to images, which can be corrected in PS, but I didn't fancy the hassle.

 

[Christoph Scholz]

How about the new Tamron 17-35, which is due to be out next month? If it offers similar quality like its brother, the 28-75, it could be a good alternative for a lower price.

 

[elefteriadis alexandros]

If you want zoom is dificult to find wider than 16 or 17mm, the sigma 15-30 is out of order for people have experience with lens like that you have.Maybe one ghoice is to by one 20mm and one 15mm fisheye both must be prime and propably canon.I have sigma 15mm and is just o.k. but i think i give a tray to canon 15mm.I hear also good words about sigma 20mm 1,8,but i see hear have the tension to overemfasaise about third part lens and most take the 10d and throw in garbage with lens like 24-200, so the decision is yours .

 

[hockeyshooter]

If you want wider, wait for the Sigma 12-24 shipping soon.

UK list price is 570 UKP - which would normally work out to US$ 570 !

It has 4 low dispersion glass, 2 solid glass asphericals and one compound aspherical element.

Chris.
--
Freelance sports photography
http://www.hockeyphotos.com/