I have a rebel xti that I purchased last march. I currently own a 50 1.8 and have borrowed a friends 28-135 is for my honeymoon a few months back. The 28-135 was a good walk around lens, however it has very large focal range (due to the 1.6x multiplier).

I’m at the point where I’m ready to buy a lens and it’s tougher than I’ve anticipated. I have about $600 to spend, so I’m looking for some options. I’ve read a lot about the 17-40L being awesome and would offer me a much wider angle (even at 27-64mm). Should I be thinking about this lens? It seems like it has some flexibility along with awesome optics.

Originally Posted by jared703

I’ve read a lot about the 17-40L being awesome and would offer me a much wider angle (even at 27-64mm). Should I be thinking about this lens? It seems like it has some flexibility along with awesome optics.

I highly recommend this lens, but what you need to tell us is what you will be shotting most.

Scott

as mentioned, what do you plan on shooting?

Also if you liked the 28~135 IS but not the range, the 17~85mm IS lens is the same lens redesigned for the 1.6 crop:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_6_IS.html
and it's $500, so right in your budget... It works out to be 27.2mm~136mm.... Hmmmm, coincidence?

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

as mentioned, what do you plan on shooting?

Also if you liked the 28~135 IS but not the range, the 17~85mm IS lens is the same lens redesigned for the 1.6 crop:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_6_IS.html
and it's $500, so right in your budget... It works out to be 27.2mm~136mm.... Hmmmm, coincidence?

I plan to get into landscape shooting. I usually shoot closer distance still shots as well.

Surprised you haven't gotten the Sigma UWA response yet.

Generally, when shooting landscapes, you want a pretty wide angle lens. The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM would fit the bill perfectly, as the price is right at $499. Just make sure you get the one for Canon Mount.

I just got mine for my Nikon, and love it.

Jacobsen1 has the Sigma 12-24 (b/c he has a FF camera), and loves it.

And it's not just good for landscapes, either.

Are you happy now, Jblaze?

For dedicated landscape, bordering on walk-around use, the 17-40L is an excellent choice. And as others have mentioned, for UWA consider the Sig 12-24 or the Canon 10-22.

I think before we go too crazy, Jared needs to decide if he's going to stay with a 1.6 body, or if a FF is in the near future??? Because if you think you might or will upgrade get either the 12~24mm or 17~40mm (or if you've got the $$$ get the 16~35mm) and keep the same glass for a while.

If you know you're going to stay with a cropped body, then a real UWA is a 10~2xmm and a 17~?? is a better "normal" zoom. Also there is a fantastic 17~55 f/2.8 IS zoom ($1k though) and a great 17~85mm IS that would also work.

We need more answers before you pick because there are a TON of options...

Sigma 17-70. There is absolutely no reason to buy the much more expensive, slower, shorter focal range 17-40 L if you're not planning to upgrade to full frame anytime in the future.

The Sigma is only $390. At least 2/3 of the shots on my website were taken with it.

- Scott

Originally Posted by Stime187

Sigma 17-70. There is absolutely no reason to buy the much more expensive, slower, shorter focal range 17-40 L if you're not planning to upgrade to full frame anytime in the future.

The Sigma is only $390. At least 2/3 of the shots on my website were taken with it.

- Scott

Thanks guys for all the input, it's been very helpful. I'm still feeling things out. I like the idea of having a zoom so there is some flexibility for other shots as well. I don't think FF is going to happen anytime soon- it'd probably be a a few years down the line, but you never know right? Any of the lenses mentioned in this thread would be good if I upgraded to FF.

Scott- the sigma 17-70 shots look really good, so that's definitely an option too.



-jared

The canon 17~40mm f/4 L and Sigma 12~24mm EX DG are both good on FF.
There are a TON of options that are excellent, but DO NOT WORK on a FF like the 17~55 by canon, the 17~85 also by canon, then sigma, tamron and tokina all make versions that are very good for less money.

Originally Posted by jared703

I don't think FF is going to happen anytime soon- it'd probably be a a few years down the line, but you never know right? Any of the lenses mentioned in this thread would be good if I upgraded to FF.

-jared

The only downfall of the Sigma 17-70 I mentioned is that it is NOT compatible with FF. So, if you plan to go FF soon, don't get it.

But, I absolutely love mine and even when I go FF, I'll keep the 17-70 for my 30D.

- Scott

Originally Posted by Stime187

Originally Posted by jared703

I don't think FF is going to happen anytime soon- it'd probably be a a few years down the line, but you never know right? Any of the lenses mentioned in this thread would be good if I upgraded to FF.

-jared

The only downfall of the Sigma 17-70 I mentioned is that it is NOT compatible with FF. So, if you plan to go FF soon, don't get it.

But, I absolutely love mine and even when I go FF, I'll keep the 17-70 for my 30D.

- Scott

Scott,

I was looking on amazon and there were several different options for this lens. Can you give me the exact model?

From BHPhoto, this is exactly what I own:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._DC_Macro.html

I think it might even come with a hood, which is always a plus.

- Scott

i love my 10-22. that is all.

Originally Posted by distorto

i love my 10-22. that is all.

I think I'm swaying more and more towards this lens.

i bought mine because i plan on sticking with the XTi for awhile. if you want some examples, click on my flickr link.

Originally Posted by jared703

Originally Posted by distorto

i love my 10-22. that is all.

I think I'm swaying more and more towards this lens.

Jared-

I have to tell you that I wouldn't get the 10-22 as your only wide-angle. Its a GREAT lens to own, but I think it works better in addition to another lens (with more range) than as your primary lens for landscapes. But to each his own, just realize that 10-22 is a VERY short range.

- Scott

I agree. I love that focal range, but it's very limiting as a walk-around type lens. There are times when you want candid portraits or things that you just can't get as close to as you'd like, and you'll wish you had a mid range zoom (17-40~70ish). Keep in mind that to fill a wide angle frame with a person or other similar-sized subject, you have to be uncomfortably close. That and shallow DOF is tough. a 17-40 or 17-70 or whatever flavor of mid range zoom that Canon has would be better overall.

That said, the wide end of a 10-20 or 10-22 is like crack and you'll never want to take it off your camera. If you're like me, anyway.....

Hope this all makes some sense (I have been drinking perhaps a bit too much wine, but what I've said is, I think, still valid).

Mark

I have a feeling I'd be in the same addictive boat with the 10-22. The 17-40L is a great lens too from what I have read. Both have solid optics, so it'd hard to go wrong with either from that standpoint.

I just found out that I have a camera shop right near my house. They stock both the 17-40L and the 10-22 EF-s, so I'll go take a look at both in person. If I had to guess ahead of time, I'll probably end up with the 17-40L.

Jared,

I'll politely re-iterate... do you plan on going FF anytime soon? Do you have plenty of money for this lens? I perceive you as being a beginner... with that said, why would you consider the slower, heavier, more expensive, shorter focal range 17-40 L over the Sigma 17-70?

I too wanted the 17-40 L because of that L when I was in the market, luckily, I went the Sigma. I've since had the 17-40 in my bag at the SAME TIME as the Sigma to try them side-by-side... the difference was negligible at best for me.

Now, when I buy my 5D, I will buy the 17-40L but thats atleast a year away unless something really good happens. So, for now... I'll be very happy with my damn good Sigma.

Just think about it, dude. I would use the money you save and buy a nice Grad. ND setup and polarizer.

- Scott

I agree with Scott. The 17~40L is a pointless lens on a 1.6 body IMHO because there are better EF-S/DC (and whatever anyone else calls them) for those bodies for less money. Usually with more range, a faster max aperture and maybe even IS...

The 17~40mm L is fantastic on my 5D though... There are also better faster options on FF, but at the expense of more $$$ and it's debatable weather the IQ is better on the faster lenses....

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I agree with Scott. The 17~40L is a pointless lens on a 1.6 body IMHO because there are better EF-S/DC (and whatever anyone else calls them) for those bodies for less money. Usually with more range, a faster max aperture and maybe even IS...

The 17~40mm L is fantastic on my 5D though... There are also better faster options on FF, but at the expense of more $$$ and it's debatable weather the IQ is better on the faster lenses....

Thanks, Ben. I was hoping you'd back me up on that... the 17-40 L is a great lens, but not on a crop body and there's just no reason to buy it over the Sigma (or a few other options).

- Scott

Well I'd argue it's still great on a cropped body even, it's just the other options are as good with either better options (faster and or IS) or cost less, or both...

If I were you I'd check my local craigslist before buying anything.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Well I'd argue it's still great on a cropped body even, it's just the other options are as good with either better options (faster and or IS) or cost less, or both...

Exactly, thats what I meant...

Originally Posted by jblaze5779

If I were you I'd check my local craigslist before buying anything.

Definitely.

I ended up pulling the trigger last night on a 10-22 that I found on craigslist. I haven't had much of a chance to play with it, but it's insanely wide. Being able to take indoor shots is fantastic. I'm even more excited to take landscapes/outdoor shots when I have a chance.

Nice! You're going to love it.

Awesome. 16mm effective is insanely wide isn't it... I remember the day I got my first UWA... I'd look through the viewfinder, then with my eyes, then back to the viewfinder... I just couldn't get over how it got so much into the frame. I'm still fascinated by this to this day (which is probably why I shoot wide all the damn time).

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

(which is probably why I shoot wide all the damn time).

You know what? I kind of miss the old jacobsen. The ben that wasn't afraid to shoot wide open all the time. Perma-12 was what they called 'em, that's what they did. He went out all willy-nilly, shooting whatever he fancied at 12mm, and you know what? It worked. That's right, it simply worked.

Ben, you have a unique perspective on the world, and I for one don't want to see you stifled because of someone else's narrow preconceived notions that constant full frame shots at 12mm get old.

Oh it won't stop me... It's like crack unfortunately... I just notice it more when I'm going through images, that they're ALL at 12mm...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I just notice it more when I'm going through images, that they're ALL at 12mm...

+1

I, for one, say go for it.

It's your shtick and it works.

I can tell you this, I've got probably 90% of my kit lens shots taken at 18mm, I know I'll use the 10-20 or 10-22 quite a bit once I pick it up.

Eventually, we will all have 10-20/22mm lenses that we always use at 10mm because of Ben, and then he will get a 300mm w/teleconverters or something and do nothing but glamour headshots.

Just to, you know, change it up.

Once the baby comes, though, I do see him using the UWA a bit less.

M

Originally Posted by Markitos

Once the baby comes, though, I do see him using the UWA a bit less.

I'm already collecting fast primes.

I highly recommend the 17-85 IS. It's a great walkaround lens with good range and IQ. There seem to be mixed reviews on this lens but I've had nothing but success with it.