Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Advice Needed On Wide Angle Lenses For Canon Dslr  
User currently offlineFL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5206 times:

I' m looking for a wide angle lens to fit my 10D, I need excellent quality.
I know both Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L and 17-40mm f/4. The first one is a more expansive than the second , but is there a great loss of quality between the two?
Do others brands also have similar products (Sigma, Tamron,etc...)?
What do you use and why?

The use for me of this lens will be aviation but also professional as for weddings, parties, cocktails, shows and other events.

Many thanx for the precious advice

Fabrice


Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJoakimE From Sweden, joined Nov 2001, 408 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5191 times:

Ah, you beat me to the question!  Smile
I've also been looking at getting a wide-angle lens for my D30, but I have after reading some of ckw's posts looked at primes, the 14mm Sigma to be precise, which goes for around 870 euros at http://www.ac-foto.com. I'm mainly after a wide-angle one for flight deck shots and such...

[Edited 2003-09-29 18:32:42]

User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5151 times:

The price difference comes from the aperture: 2.8 is more expensive than 4. The extra mm may not seem significant, but it is important to pro's, therefore the 16-35 is more expensive.

You wont really see the difference in quality, the 16-35 is supposed to be slightly sharper, but the 17-40 is an excellent lens.

So the question is: Do you think you need 2.8 instead of 4?

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5142 times:

I still have no regrets trading my 17-35mm L for the Sigma 14mm, however, it is only fair to point out I also have a Canon 24-85mm, though I believe the total cost is still less than either of the Canon wide L zooms.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSiggi757 From Iceland, joined Oct 2001, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5121 times:

You should check out http://www.photographyreview.com where consumers rate products they've bought. Although some reviews should be taken with a grain of salt and the BS sifted out there is usually a read thread running through the reviews telling you the pros and cons of a certain product.

Siggi


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5110 times:

I use the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8 with my D30.....love it!! I only paid around $300 for it on ebay.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Justin Cederholm
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Justin Cederholm




User currently offlineFL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5076 times:

Colin you mean the 17-40mm f/4L from Canon?
Well because this one sounds good why did you swaped for the Sigma prime?

Fabrice



Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5077 times:

He meant the 17-35 2.8L (I think).

This is the predecessor for the 16-35 2.8L

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5046 times:

Fabrice - mine was the 17-35L - bought it before the 16-35 and 17-40 were released. But I found I was using it 90% of the time at 17mm and wishing it was wider. The Sigma gave me a little extra, the bonus was it was also a lot sharper than the 17-35. And, after all, at that focal length zoom only replaces a few steps  Smile

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineFL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5012 times:

Thanx for the advice Colin and everybody  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
But Colin are you happy of the sharpness and color contrast of your Canon 24-85mm?
Fabrice



Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5007 times:

Fabrice - I bought the 24-85 as a general purpose "walk around" lens for shooting the family etc. - wasn't expecting miracles from it, but am pleasently surprised with how good it is. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for critical work when its the right focal length, and to be honest, apart from the lack of the 2.8 aperture, I'm not sure the fabled 24-70L is much better ( though it is twice the size and 3 times the price).

Having said that, I am of course looking at a cropped version of the image on my DSLR - I believe edge performance falls off somewhat on a full frame camera.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4991 times:

Colin, do you know if the Sigma 15mm 2.8 makes good quality images as the 14mm you have?

thanks
Luis


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4982 times:

Luis - truth is I didn't look at the 15mm as it is a fish eye lens, and I've never much liked these. However, amongst those who like the fish eye effect, the Sigma is rated as good value for money. And I think there are Photoshop plugins for "de-fishing" the resulting images (ie. straightening out the curved lines).

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Chipping Sigma Lenses For Canon DSLR's? posted Wed Aug 3 2005 23:55:51 by LGW
Lenses For A Canon DSLR... posted Sat May 3 2003 10:50:37 by Paulinbna
Prices For Canon Dslr Lenses In Japan posted Sat Jul 17 2004 14:28:07 by 747SPA330MD11
Wide Angle Lenses posted Thu Mar 30 2006 14:06:33 by Virgin8
Advice Needed On A Motive Please posted Sat Oct 8 2005 14:49:58 by JumboJim747
Advice Needed On Photo Sale Please posted Fri Jul 29 2005 22:33:34 by Sabena 690
Advice Needed On A Rejection Please. posted Thu Feb 24 2005 19:03:58 by Fergulmcc
Advice Needed On A Rejection posted Tue Feb 8 2005 09:02:41 by Fergulmcc
Advice Needed On A Resubmit posted Fri Oct 22 2004 21:18:37 by Spacecadet
Advice Needed On A Rejected Shot posted Sun Feb 1 2004 11:57:01 by Lyzzard