17-40 L or Ultrawide

[mattsartin]

<div>


i'm looking to get a new lens in the wide angle category of some sort soon. i currently have an 18-55 IS fulfilling my wide angle needs. I'm looking to either replace it with the 17-40 L or perhaps a third party ultrawide such as either of the Tokinas (11-16, 12-24) or a Sigma. The 10-22mm is out of my price range. i have a friend (nikon shooter) who enjoys his Tokina 12-24 a lot, i own a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 and love it, so i have no problems with a third party lens. My question is more along the line of should i replace the kit lens or expand my focal range?
</div>

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

17-40 on a crop ain't that wide, not much different from your 18-55 [:)]

[Daniel Browning]

If you replace your kit lens with the 17-40, you might be a little disappointed. The L is actually has a little less contrast and less resolution. It was really designed to be used on full frame, where it blows the kit lens away.


I think you will really enjoy ultra-wide angle, so I recommend getting that Tokina 11-16.


If you would rather replace the kit lens, I suggest the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 more than the 17-40.

[elmo_2006]

Replace the kit lens, the 18-55 to me is/was garbage (sorry for the harsh words)- 'ok' for budget glass, but found it lacking. Sold it on craigslist.


I have the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 EX lens and though it is great and focuses very fast via HSM, I would spend the money on the Tokina only because of the 2.8 aperature. A very good friend of mine has the Tokina 11-16 and swears by it, however as with the Sigma, you may not be able to fully utilize the lens on a FF body if you decide to go that route in the future.


I've read that the 17-40 L does have its issues with QC, but you get the same from Sigma and other manufactures but more so with the 17-40 L.





Hope this helps.

[hotsecretary]

On a crop, the 10-22 IMO.


For FF.. 16-35 or 17-40L are both great options. If not, I've also seen great reviews on the Sigma/Tokina lens...

[Sean Setters]

I have personal experience with the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on a 50D--and it was terrible. In fact, the first copy missed focus so badly that I returned it and got a second copy. Unfortunately, it performed just as poorly. I returned the second Tokina and got a Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5--and it's been fantastic.


I realize the Canon may be out of your price range at the moment, but you might want to consider putting off the purchase just a little while longer until you have the extra money to get it.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/3826110921_caaa73d44e.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/3826110921/)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3425/3826134155_b50321b357.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/3826134155/)

[wickerprints]

Sean, oh why oh why do you make me envy your strobism so?


BTW, my PWs arrived in the mail today! Already updated the firmware, tinkered around with a few shots, but now I wish I had set up some time for a proper shoot.... Baby steps.

[Sean Setters]

Sean, oh why oh why do you make me envy your strobism so?


Sounds to me like you'll be there soon enough. ;-) Check out my latest maternity series here ("http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=mandie&amp;w=22336705%40N08&amp;m=tags) if you haven't already.

[wickerprints]

Sean, oh why oh why do you make me envy your strobism so?


Sounds to me like you'll be there soon enough. ;-) Check out my latest maternity series here ("http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=mandie&amp;w=22336705%40N08&amp;m=tags) if you haven't already.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Well, I haven't had much success so far finding the maternity section at B&amp;H? LOL


Actually, this brings up an interesting topic--how to get people to model for you (and of course, to get people who you want to model for you).

[Colin]

Sean, you're doing that wide angle lens some justice!

[SupraSonic]

For FULL Frame body i preferred this 17-40 'L' it is very ENOUGH and very WIDE[:D]