Wide Angle Lens

[yulia]

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]I am looking to buy a wide angle lens and was hoping someone could recommend one for me. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]Price is definitely a factor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I looked at F 2.8 16-35 mm L and F 4.0 17-40 mm L.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The first one seems to be pricy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Will I notice any differences as a beginner? I am getting this lens to shot landscapes mostly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Is there any use for it indoors? If worst comes to worst I could wait and save some money to get the 16-35. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"]Thanks,
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"]Yulia

[GSPhoto]

I would consider my self an beginner. I have the 16-35 and love it. Extremely Tack sharp.

[Keith B]

Landscapes the 17-40 is fine at f-4. I borrowed a buddy's one time to shoot some interiors on my 1.6 crop. I shot everything on a tripod at long exposures. It is sharp. But for hand-held interiors, it isn't the best option.


If it is in you budget, go with the 16-35, you'll have the wider aperture and never need to upgrade.


But I think if you get the 17-40 I think you will be pleased with the image quality, you will just lose a stop with it.

[Jon Ruyle]

For landscapes, you'll be stopping down anyway, right? So f/2.8 doesn't buy you much. I would go with the f/4 (in fact, I did, and am happy with it). Image quality of the f/4 is very similar to the f/2.8


Wide lenses can be good for hand-held indoor photography because you can get away with low shutter speed, so they work well in low light. If that is what you want to do, you might consider the f/2.8 (or an IS lens such as the 28-105 f/4, which IRCC costs about the same as the 16-35).

[TheRoff]

I am very pleased with my EF-S 10-22mm.

[L33t]

17-40 is great choice, it's very equal to 16-35 that has faster AF.


If you have needs for wideangle and good quality then Canon EF 14/2,8 L II USM is better than 16-35 or TS-E that has no distortion.

[nerdmonkey]

Will you be using the lens on a full frame camera? If not, I would consider Canon's 10-22. It would be a lot wider on a crop sensor body and is about the same price as the 17-40. And if budget is a big issue, Tokina has some less expensive wide angle lenses.


I own the Canon 10-22 and am very happy with it.

[Benjamin]

I own a 16-35/2.8L II but I have used the 17-40/4 a good number of times. I think if you mainly do landscape you will not notice a big difference between the 17-40L and 16-35L since after stopped down the difference between these two lenses becomes minimal. If you use the 1.6x cropped bodies corner darkness will hide pretty good on the 17-40. So if i were in your situation I will get the 17-40 and save the money, it's a great lens over all!


Another potential choice is the 10-22 if you use a 1.6x cropped body and have no plan moving on to full frame. It will bemuch wider at 16mm equivalent than at 27mm equivalent. Just let you know.

[Daniel Browning]

The 16-35 and 17-40 are way overpriced for a crop camera. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is sharper, longer, and cheaper. The reason is that ultra wide angle zooms are very difficult and expensive to design with low aberrations.


If you have a full frame camera, then they are excellent options.

[yulia]

If I use it hand held indoors, will I have to use t<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]ripod for both or just for 17-40?