FL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2 Posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3157 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.
JoakimE From Sweden, joined Nov 2001, 408 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3142 times:
Ah, you beat me to the question!
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...
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3093 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.
Siggi757 From Iceland, joined Oct 2001, 123 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3072 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.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2997 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
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2958 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.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2933 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).