Vivwatts From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1997 times:
I'd say go for the Canon EF-S 10-22mm or the Sigma 10-20mm. The Sigma is considerably cheaper and gives great results. The problem with the Canon is that it'll only work on 20D, 350D and 30D. If you plan to go full-frame one day, the EF-S will not work (I think). Also, with full-frame one probably wants a 16-35mm so then just go for that now. 16mm is pretty wide even on a 20D.
VW
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 26 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1988 times:
I have heard nothing but good comments on the EF-S 10-22. Also, you might have a look at the new EF-S 17-55 2.8...
Personally I'm looking for a wide-angle as well, but one that can be used on a film and FF digital body, so it crosses out the EF-S lenses. I'm stuck between the 16-35L and 17-40L... It's mainly for non-aviation photography and yes, I make good use of f/2.8. The only thing that's holding me off is the rather mixed reviews on the 16-35. Anyone here who actually uses/used the 16-35?
Highguy76 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 184 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1978 times:
I've used the 16-35 on first my 300D and then my 5D for over a year now with spectacular results. Mostly landscape shots, but also good for full airport views (such as the morning line up at Terminal 2 at MAN.)
It can be a bit soft at either extreme, and I've heard others say that their versions are not always sharp. I must have got a good copy. When I put a specialized wide angle circular polarizer on it, I get some amazing colors in the sky.
The 2.8 is also great for low light indoors, especially on the 5D.
I will try to find a few examples to post.
Highguy76
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1947 times:
The Tokina 12-24mm is really good as well. Constant F/4. The latest issue of Popular Photography magazine has an in depth comparison of a few wide angle lenses, check it out, this lens is included and had very high marks.
Dreamflight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 5): The Tokina 12-24mm is really good as well. Constant F/4. The latest issue of Popular Photography magazine has an in depth comparison of a few wide angle lenses, check it out, this lens is included and had very high marks.
I agree with this comment. In a short time this one will be part of my equipment .
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1911 times:
Quoting Vivwatts (Reply 1): the Sigma 10-20mm. The Sigma is considerably cheaper and gives great results. The problem with the Canon is that it'll only work on 20D, 350D and 30D. If you plan to go full-frame one day, the EF-S will not work (I think).
The Sigma 10-20 is a DC lens meaning it will only fit a APS/c camera but is not like the Canon counterpart limited to 300, 350 and 20D.
The Sigma 12-24 is the only full frame lens in this segment.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
RG828 From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1905 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 3): The only thing that's holding me off is the rather mixed reviews on the 16-35.
Dont believe everything you hear, people that have high praise for the 17-40 and give the 16-35 a bad rap have probably never tried the latter. Its a superb lens!
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1882 times:
Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 9): Think I'm going to take the plunge and order a 16-35
Did you read this review Giovanni ? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
It seems that the 17-40 is just the better lens in many aspects and about half the price.
Personally I have only experience with the 16-35 predecessor the 17-35/2.8L and did not like it a single bit as soon as I swapped from Analog to Digital.
Having said that I do know the 16-35 has improved a lot.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 26 Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1868 times:
I know about the review (and all the other ones as well ) Willem; I've been speculating about what lens to get for over a year now. Photozone on the other hand rates the 16-35 as slightly superior. I guess it all boils down to sample-to-sample variation. My dealer reassured me that 16-35 lemons (one in ten!) are a thing of the past; on the internet, there's also the rumour that lenses produced since August last year are of better quality. Strange enough, my CPS-representative doesn't seem to know about any bad QC on this lens.
With getting my 20D last year, now it's about time to get a WA. I would settle with the 17-40 if I wouldn't need (and use) f/2.8 so often. I've read on numerous occasions that the 16-35, and the 17-40 as well, outperform the Canon primes in this range, so I think I'll go with the versatility and high-speed of the 16-35. But then again, the lower price on the 17-40 would allow me to get a 135L instead of the 85 I'm looking at now.
Bottom line is that most people think a WA zoom will (and should) be comparable in optical quality to a 70/80-200 f/2.8 telezoom. But I don't think that's achievable...
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1044 posts, RR: 38 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1838 times:
G'day Giovanni
Before laying down the cash for the 16-35 i'd be taking a long hard look at the actual lens i am buying.
Having used and then onsold a 16-35/2.8 its qualioty is pretty inconsistent.
Some copies amazing others very poor.
APparantly the QC of the lenses made after mar 2005 have improved quite a bit so check the build date on the lens you are purchasing.
Here is how to determine build date if you dont know.
The first letter, "U", indicates that the lens was made in Canon's Utsunomiya, Japan factory. Prior to 1986, this letter is moved to the last position of the date code.
U = Utsunomiya, Japan
F = Fukushima, Japan
O = Oita, Japan
The second letter, "R", is a year code that indicates the year of manufacture. Canon increments this letter each year starting with A in 1986 and prior to that, A in 1960 without the leading factory code. Here is a table to make things simple:
A = 1986, 1960
B = 1987, 1961
C = 1988, 1962
D = 1989, 1963
E = 1990, 1964
F = 1991, 1965
G = 1992, 1966
H = 1993, 1967
I = 1994, 1968
J = 1995, 1969
K = 1996, 1970
L = 1997, 1972
M = 1998, 1973
N = 1999, 1974
O = 2000, 1975
P = 2001, 1976
Q = 2002, 1977
R = 2003, 1978
S = 2004, 1979
T = 2005, 1980
U = 2006, 1981
V = 2007, 1982
W = 2008, 1983
X = 2009, 1984
Y = 2010, 1985
Z = 2011, 1986
* assumption of continuation being made for future years.
The first two numbers, "09", is the month number the lens was manufactured in. Month 02 is February, month 11 = November. The leading zero of the month code is sometimes omitted.
The next two numbers, "02", are meaningless in determining how old a Canon lens is. This is a Canon internal code (that is occasionally omitted).
You now know the manufacture date for your lens - But - You cannot know how long the lens was in inventory, in shipping transit and on a shelf until it was originally purchased (without having the original receipt or a reputable person accurately informing you).
The Canon lens date code in the sample picture indicates that this Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L Lens (I know because I took the picture - not from the date code) was made in Utsunomiya, Japan in September 2003.
The 17-40 seems to have much more consistent quality but no F2.8
The good copies of the 16-35 from shots around the net are outstanding but just make sure you do some solid looking at the lens you will buy before parting with cash.
The 10-22 is an excellent lens giving excellent results if you dont need the 2.8.
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 26 Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
Thanks Darren,
I know about the manufacturing codes. I'm looking for a UT08 and higher or ideally an UU 16-35. I'll do some testing on the lens and if it fails to impress, I'll return it or send it to CPS...
Quoting Dehowie (Reply 13): The 10-22 is an excellent lens giving excellent results if you dont need the 2.8.
Yes, that's what I've read/seen of it as well. I just don't want to get an EF-S as I'm planning on using the lens on my Eos film bodies.
Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1796 times:
Ever thought of the 14mm 2.8F L prime? I bought it some 4 weeks ago - only thing I can say is: Awesome! Dont have any pics sofar on A.net as I am not uploading right now ... , but believe me .... , its really a cracker ...
Robin how long have you banned yourself for ?
Looking forward to seeing you back uploading.
If you want a cracker of a lens i think the 17-40 L f4 is one of the best out there.
Cheers
Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, RR: 18 Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1781 times:
Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 16): Robin how long have you banned yourself for ?
I think I will stop at least for a month or so ... , I want to find the fun again, shooting for me rather than for A.net. Things have changed the recent months, with me taking rejects personally and so I decided to bann myself for some time ... Hope to get the best out of it again: I am going to be in MUC, NCE and FRA the next weeks, so plenty of chances there.
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 26 Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1763 times:
Thanks all for the suggestions.
Robin, the 14mm would be nice, but I like the versatility of a zoom. It's also a lot more expensive. But I'd love to see some of your 14mm shots here on A.net.
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1770 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 3): Anyone here who actually uses/used the 16-35?
I have one, and it's by far the best short lens I've used. I've never experienced soft pictures other than a handfull out of focus ones where the camera grabs something else. The lens does have a tendancy to wrap a little bit on the outer edges of the frame (almost a fisheye effect), but it's not really that big of a deal unless you completely fill the frame at 16mm. I've also dropped my lens onto a concrete curb, and the jammed the filter on--but it's still giving me sharp images. I use it on a Mk2n.
I've used a 17-40 as well, though I need the constant 2.8. If you want some samples, send me a message with your e-mail. I'll reply with some pix.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, 
.
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 582 posts, 
.
From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1044 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
