Wide Angle Lenses

[danalive]

Hi All,

I'm after some recommendations and advice on a wide-angle lens for my Canon EOS 400D. I'm looking at medium-priced lenses...

Basic request, so i've left it open to hopefully some varied advice

Thanks,
Dan.

[tirediron]

I'm not a Canon shooter, but this one seems nice unit: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens wide to very mild telephoto on a crop-body...

[Marko]

Please state what medium-priced is for you and are you willing to go used?

[danalive]

Please state what medium-priced is for you and are you willing to go used?

I've converted from Aus dollars to Canadian... looking at 550 canadian dollars or thereabouts. I've never considered used lenses, but i will now!

[tirediron]

I've converted from Aus dollars to Canadian... looking at 550 canadian dollars or thereabouts. I've never considered used lenses, but i will now!

Marko's point is excellent; as long as you check them over carefully, you can get some great deals. A good used lens can saved anywhere from 15-50% over the cost of brand new. Don't be put off by minor scuffs and imperfections on the lens barrel.

When you're looking at used glass, pay attention to the action of the aperture blades; make sure that they're oil-free and open and close with a nice, snappy, action. Make sure there's no significant dust inside the elements, or any indications of the lens coatings failing (streaks, rainbow-like colours etc). Check the filter threads at the front to make sure they're not damaged and that the focusing and/or zoom actions are smooth and tight. Make sure that the lens works on your camera, check the auto-focus, aperture, etc.

[Travis]

Not sure how wide your talkin but....

the Tokina 11-16 2.8 has a deadly IQ reputation

and so does canons 10-20...

[The_Camera_Poser]

I have two wide angle lenses- a Sigma 10-20 EX and a Canon 17-40. The Canon is simply awesome- clear, contrasty and ohhhh......those colours. Sharp as a tack as well. On my 30D and 350D, no vignetting and minimal distortion. Fast AF in good light and reasonable in low light. It's a real gem for the price. Image quality is better than my 24-105, though they are quite different lenses.

Some will disagree with me, but I find that I use my 10-20 only as a specialty lens when I want WIDE shots. For most of my shooting I like to keep things in the background fairly close, so I find myself using the 17-40. The 10-20 is a great lens though- image quality on par with the 17-40, at least to y untrained eye, good build, fast HSM autofocus.

I had an EFS 10-22, but had to send it back in as it was faulty, and got the 10-20 instead. Less distortion than the 10-20, but much more expensive. I'm not sure it's worth the extra price- it wasn't for me.

I also played with a Tokina 12-24/4, but found it to be disappointing. Poorer IQ in the sample I tested, terrible distortion, and a lot of colour fringing in contrasty shots.

If I was going for a walk-around, I'd consider the Tamron 17-50, Canon 17-40, Sigma 17-70 and the overpriced Canon EFS 17-55 IS. I went for the 17-40 after testing them all. For ultrawide, I can recommend the Sigma 10-20, but don't know much about the new Tamron and Tokina ultrawides.

Hope this helps.

[Marko]

I too have heard that the 17-40 is awesome.

I have the Sigma 10-20 and it's decent especially between the 10 and 20. Distortion at the ends.