Wide zoom...

[SquirrelDip]

I'd love the EF-S 10-22 but money is an issue... Actually (and probably common with many members) not getting killed by the wife after purchasing it. Sells for about $1000 here in Canada... (I'm really wondering about the price difference as the Canuck buck is almost ($0.94 +/-) what the Yank is at but this is a whole other thread...)

I've heard/read the Tokina is the best 2nd option but there are no resellers in Canada (mail order may be an option) - Sigma / Tamron are the Canadian options. So... Scaling from 0 to 10 (Canon at the 10 mark) how would you rate the other 3 (Tokina 12-24, Tamron 11-18 and Sigma 10-20) to the Canon and why?

[bircher]

I wouldn't even consider the third party lenses for this type of lens (I have about three Tamron lenses and love them). I have the Canon 10-22 lens and it is wonderful. I know its expensive but look at it this way, you get a great deal on a Canon "L" lens (no it's not an "L" lens but it should be). The lens is sharp and for its focal range has very little distortion. Here's a sample:

It's a Wide, Wide, Wide World! photo - Sam Antonio photos at pbase.com

It will stretch the budget but in the long run it will pay dividends.

Cheers,

Sam

[Max@Home]

Bircher, well spoken! ...couldn't agree more...

...€0.02...

Max@Home

[dougsmit]

Few of us will really have experience with all of the options in this class. I chose and am quite happy with my Tokina 12-24. I do note that I use the middle and high range more than 12mm so I may not be the typical super wide user. The lens is usable at f/4 at all lengths, includes the hood and costs less. Considering the reports from many, this may be one of those areas where you will likely be happy with any of the common options. Most negative comments seem to come from those who do not own the lens. Either few of us are willing to admit we chose poorly or there are no poor choices.

[Sidebyte]

My requirements are a bit unusual because I don't own any "S" Canon or DG third party lenses because I use them on a 1.3 crop and a 1.6 also, so it's FF lenses for me. I have the Sigma 15-30 and find it "dead nuts sharp" although a little long on the 1.6, 24 mm if that's wide enough for you? Build quality is superb and images excellent and did I say sharp.....it's also quit economical at $400. USD

[SquirrelDip]

Thanks all for the suggestions. I'll be travelling a couple of days through the US northwest and I'll see what (if) I can find.

Oh, that Sigma 15-30 is $950 here, same as the Canon...

[kevin_c]

I can't comment personally on the others, but I have the Canon 10-22mm and it is a really good lens, certainly up to 'L' image quality, just not quite up to the 'L' build quality, although it is extremely well built and feels solid.

I have heard of one-sided' focus issues with the Sigma 10-20mm, and I also didn't like the feel of the zoom ring on the one I tried in the shop, it was very stiff, although these do loosen up with a bit of use (my 70-200 was the same).

The Sigma is also 1 stop slower than the Canon, although for most UWA shots you will probably want to stop down a bit anyway.

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

My requirements are a bit unusual because I don't own any "S" Canon or DG third party lenses because I use them on a 1.3 crop and a 1.6 also, so it's FF lenses for me. I have the Sigma 15-30 and find it "dead nuts sharp" although a little long on the 1.6, 24 mm if that's wide enough for you? Build quality is superb and images excellent and did I say sharp.....it's also quit economical at $400. USD

I have to second that; the Sigma 15-30 EX gives comparable quality images to the 16-35 L mk I. I haven't used the mk II, but the other two lenses I've used for several years a piece, and the Sigma continues to work very well on full frame ( 5D ).

It sounds like the lens is more than double the price in Canada ... but if a trip to the Northwest ( well, that would be south from the great frozen north ) is in order anyway, you can get one for probably more like $550 or so from most retail camera stores or chains.

[SquirrelDip]

Pricing has to come down soon (assuming our dollar holds for a while) - if differences are too great then shops here will feel the lost business to mail order.

I may consider the 15-30 as I'm trying to stay with full frame compatible lenses.

[SquirrelDip]

Still haven't made my purchase as my trip to the states was pooched (my motorcycle developed electrical problems and parts are backordered). Still looking however...

I've noticed three other options that may fit the bill (two really, last is well over my budget). What got me looking is that the middle one has been drastically reduced by one of the local shops. So what are everyones opinion on the following:

Canon EF 17-40/f4 L ($900 CDN)
Canon EF 16-35/f2.8 L ($1100 CDN)
Canon EF 16-35/f2.8 L II ($2000 CDN)

The first is about the same price as the 10-22, advantage is EF vs EF-S (I could probably make do with the 16/17mm on a 1.6 crop). A friend has the 17-40 and loves it on his 30D.

Was there a significant imporvement going to the new version of the 16-35? Is the first version a steel (lol, an $1100 steel) at only $200 over the 17-40? Or is the 17-40 the best even at f/4?

I realize the merits of f/2.8 but primary use will be outdoors... Granted, f/2.8 is appreciated when you need it.

Sooooo many options...

[cyclohexane]

Or is the 17-40 the best even at f/4?

See: 16 vs 17

My experience with the two lenses is the same. The 17-40mm f/4L is better than the original 16-35mm f/2.8L. If, however, you need f/2.8, well the 17-40 isn't going to get you there. I have a co-worker who owns the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and he said he likes it, but I haven't played with it in person.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by SquirrelDip

I've noticed three other options that may fit the bill (two really, last is well over my budget). What got me looking is that the middle one has been drastically reduced by one of the local shops. So what are everyones opinion on the following:

Canon EF 17-40/f4 L ($900 CDN)
Canon EF 16-35/f2.8 L ($1100 CDN)
Canon EF 16-35/f2.8 L II ($2000 CDN)

The first is about the same price as the 10-22, advantage is EF vs EF-S (I could probably make do with the 16/17mm on a 1.6 crop). A friend has the 17-40 and loves it on his 30D.

...if you do not need wider than 17mm (28mm FoV) then the 17-40 is an excellent choice, but FoV 28mm isn't really very wide... IMHO...

Was there a significant improvement going to the new version of the 16-35? Is the first version a steel (lol, an $1100 steel) at only $200 over the 17-40? Or is the 17-40 the best even at f/4?

Improvements are a bigger diameter lens and better coatings, on the II version, making the lens sharper, less prone to flare and less prone to vignetting wide open. From what I have seen it is definitely an improvement

And as Michael said, the 17-40 'beats' the 16-35 'I' from F4 on...

...€0.02...

Max@Home

[SquirrelDip]

I'd really like to keep with EF lenses - I do see one day upgrading to a 5D (or maybe a 40D lol - if it was to be full frame). I also have an EOS film body...

Definitely don't have the cash for the 16-35 II as I also want to purchase an 70-200 f/2.8 L IS...

17-40 f/4 seems to be the answer so far... Now to sell my car...

Anyone live in the Calgary area want a '98 Acura Integra

[Max@Home]

...since you have an 28-105, you would 'only' have to cover 17/18? to 28... if you can shoot at F8.0 or smaller all the time, the kitlens (18-55) is your cheapest option...

OK, it is EF-S, but *could* be sold together with the XTi if/when you upgrade...

...just passing options...

...€0.02...

Max@Home

[SquirrelDip]

Selling as a kit is a very good/valid point.

I stopped by a camera store on the way home and had a look feel for both the 17-40 and a 10-22 on the XTi. Build is surprisingly similar but drastic difference on the wide end (obviously - but seeing is believing). If I'm going to have at least one 1.6 camera in my arsenal then the 10-22 will get a lot of use.

Thanks for all the comments.