I only have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the kit 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 right now.
I'm looking to get a wide-angle lens for my Canon EOS 50D since I like to do a lot of wide-angle and interior shots.
I only looked at Canon and Sigma lenses, and these are the few I've picked out:
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 $429
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 $414
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 $375
Canon 20mm f/2.8 $432
I would like to stay under $500, since I'm a poor college student.
If you can't afford the Canon 10-22, the Sigma 10-20 would be the next best thing. I believe that Tokina also makes an 11-22 or something like that as well as a 12-24.
I am one of those people. If I were you, I would save up a little longer and wait to get the 10-22. I have it and is great. L/Near L quality wihtout the price. I bet you could find one used for a bit over $500
You may want to look at the Sigma 12-24. In contrast to some of the others you mentioned you can also use this one on a FF body in case you ever make the change.
Canon 10-22. It's the reason I may never move to full frame.
The 17-40mm f/4 is an EXCELLENT L-lens that covers virtually the same range on FF as 10-22mm does on APS-C, so that's no excuse. It's even int he same ballpark price-wise. And if you get rich, there's the 16-35mm f/2.8 for something over 2 grand, a killer lens.
Canon 10-22. It's the reason I may never move to full frame.
The 17-40mm f/4 is an EXCELLENT L-lens that covers virtually the same range on FF as 10-22mm does on APS-C, so that's no excuse. It's even int he same ballpark price-wise. And if you get rich, there's the 16-35mm f/2.8 for something over 2 grand, a killer lens.
R.
The 16-35 aint worth the extra money in my opinion, I had the 17-40 then part-exchanged it for the 16-35, whilst the 2.8 is handy, to be honest, I think the 17-40 was sharper overall.. The 16-35 mk2 supposed to be sweet though.
So, do you need an ultra-wide-angle or a wide-angle? For ultra-wide, I use the "Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM" and love it. It's one of my favorite lenses. The glass is top quality. They say that if it wasn't made expressly for a crop-factor sensor, it probably would qualify for an Canon "L" designation. It also holds its resale value very well so if you decided to move to a full-frame sensor in the future, you should be able to recoup most (if not all) of you investment.
With this lens, you can control how much distortion you want (or don't want) by changing the elevation of the camera relative to the subject; as well as changing the distance to the subject. That way, it will take traditional ultra-wide-angle compositions or distorted, fun, photographs. Besides landscapes, I use it a lot for interior real estate photographs for real estate brokers.
So, do you need an ultra-wide-angle or a wide-angle? For ultra-wide, I use the "Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM" and love it. It's one of my favorite lenses. The glass is top quality. They say that if it wasn't made expressly for a crop-factor sensor, it probably would qualify for an Canon "L" designation. It also holds its resale value very well so if you decided to move to a full-frame sensor in the future, you should be able to recoup most (if not all) of you investment.
With this lens, you can control how much distortion you want (or don't want) by changing the elevation of the camera relative to the subject; as well as changing the distance to the subject. That way, it will take traditional ultra-wide-angle compositions or distorted, fun, photographs. Besides landscapes, I use it a lot for interior real estate photographs for real estate brokers.
The 16-35 aint worth the extra money in my opinion, I had the 17-40 then part-exchanged it for the 16-35, whilst the 2.8 is handy, to be honest, I think the 17-40 was sharper overall.. The 16-35 mk2 supposed to be sweet though.
That's the one I'm referring to, should have made that clear. I agree the Mk I was a waste of money. But my camera guy (who also runs a studio and shoots for a living) swears by the Mk II.
don't forget the Tokina 12-24 f4. I had this lens on my 20D and loved it. Built like a tank and was as sharp as my Canon 17-40 f4 'L'. Had to sell it though, when i went full frame.
The 16-35 aint worth the extra money in my opinion, I had the 17-40 then part-exchanged it for the 16-35, whilst the 2.8 is handy, to be honest, I think the 17-40 was sharper overall.. The 16-35 mk2 supposed to be sweet though.
That's the one I'm referring to, should have made that clear. I agree the Mk I was a waste of money. But my camera guy (who also runs a studio and shoots for a living) swears by the Mk II.
R.
I have it and it's very nice and it has the same sub-par corner sharpness performance as every other wide angle Canon has made. Or at least my copy does.
