Searching for a new wide angle zoom

Caney Creek · #1 06-25-2009, 12:23 PM

My birthday is coming up in a couple weeks and am looking to get (actually receive

) a wide-angle zoom for my Canon 40D. Currently I have 2 lenses -- the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and the 50mm f/1.8. I want a zoom that is at least 18mm at the wide end. I've been looking at off-brand lenses like Sigma -- specifically the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro lens for Canon, but I'm one that likes to explore my options and compare features before making a final decision. In this particular lens I LOVE the idea of a constant 2.8 aperture and Macro magnification of 1:3. I do wish it had image stabilization however =/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DC.html

I've also been looking at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro, which has a wider zoom range and magnification of 1:2.3 (slightly better than the 18-50) but no constant aperture, and also does not have image stabilization.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._DC_Macro.html

I see that the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD also has the constant aperture that I like, don't know what all those other letters mean though

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_XR_Di.html

I'd love to have something even wider -- like a 10-20mm -- but I haven't had the chance to try out anything so I don't know which features I'd find more useful: a wider constant aperture; a wider angle; longer zoom range; image quality of a macro; image stabilization; etc. What do you think?

So far I've done mostly portraiture, but I want to be able to do all kinds of things like weddings, concerts, landscapes... and do them well

My current line-up is quite limiting, so I'd like this new lens to extend my capabilities in a variety of settings.

I'd appreciate any insight, or other lens suggestions that are within the price range of those already mentioned.

Thank you!

**Boxerworld** · #2 06-26-2009, 10:39 AM

Lucky you

A constant 2.8 aperture is nice if the zoom is good at f2.8. Often, it is not the case (unless you get the very top lenses) and the photo will not be very sharp. To reduce the problem, it is needed to stop down so in practice you would use the zoom from f4 and over. With that in mind, it might not be worth carrying the bulk and weight of a fast lens like a constant f2.8 and instead choose something lighter.
Per example, I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. It is a constant f2.8 but it is mostly from f4 I can get a decently sharp photo. The Canon 70-200 f4 is better because it is almost twice lighter and already sharp wide open at f4.

I have the Sigma 17-70mm in Canon fit and I find it quite good. It is very sharp from f4 and its macro ability is decent. An excellent value for money.
There is a review about it at http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/31...report--review
I can take some photos with it and post if you want.

Don't forget the stabilised Canon 18-55 which also offers a great value for money. Review of it at http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/18...report--review

I have the Sigma 10-20 in Nikon fit and I find the ultra wide angle lenses fun to use. Sophia (Douma) has it in Canon fit and is happy with it, I think. I got the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and on a full frame it is impressive. Ultrawide angle lenses are not easy to use, you have to go really close to the subject. Not sure if you are into that kind of photography!

Caney Creek · #3 06-26-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxerworld

A constant 2.8 aperture is nice if the zoom is good at f2.8. Often, it is not the case (unless you get the very top lenses) and the photo will not be very sharp. To reduce the problem, it is needed to stop down so in practice you would use the zoom from f4 and over. With that in mind, it might not be worth carrying the bulk and weight of a fast lens like a constant f2.8 and instead choose something lighter.
Per example, I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. It is a constant f2.8 but it is mostly from f4 I can get a decently sharp photo. The Canon 70-200 f4 is better because it is almost twice lighter and already sharp wide open at f4.

Very helpful. The constant 2.8 was also appealing for shooting in low light, but come to think of it that's the same issue I have with my 50mm f/1.8 -- nice idea, but I RARELY shoot at 1.8 because the images come out so soft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxerworld

Ultrawide angle lenses are not easy to use, you have to go really close to the subject. Not sure if you are into that kind of photography!

Oh yes, I LOVE the effect you get with super wide-angle lenses! Of course I probably don't need anything quite as extreme as 10mm... not yet at least

But it's on my "want" list, along with many other things that will come much later down the road.

I'll have to go and read those reviews you linked, and then hopefully I'll be able to make up my mind. I'd also love to see some photos taken with the Sigma 17-70, if you don't mind

Thank you!

**Boxerworld** · #4 06-29-2009, 03:12 PM

What kind of photos would you like to see? I have some old photos but tomorrow I can take photos of London and it is supposed to be sunny. Also, do you want photos taken at 17mm, macro or at 70mm or all?

Olly

Caney Creek · #5 06-29-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxerworld

What kind of photos would you like to see? I have some old photos but tomorrow I can take photos of London and it is supposed to be sunny. Also, do you want photos taken at 17mm, macro or at 70mm or all?

Olly

Thank you so much!

I'm curious to see how sharp the focus is at 17mm f/2.8, 17mm f/4.5, and also at 70mm f/4.5... and a shot at infinity focus if that's possible

I'd REALLY love to see a macro too!

One last thing I was wondering, is there a huge difference between 17mm and 18mm, as far as the angle of view? At this point I'm still trying to decide between the 3 lenses (Sigma 17-70, Sigma 18-50 and Canon 18-55), so I'm just wondering if that extra 1mm on the 17-70 is significant enough to consider when I'm making a decision.

I hope that's not too much to ask

Thanks again Olly, I really appreciate it!

**Boxerworld** · #6 06-29-2009, 05:11 PM

OK! I will do that tomorrow.

The difference between 17 and 18mm is not huge but it is still visible ;-) (I also have the Sigma 18-200 and I compared it to the 17-70 years ago).
On the wide side every mm counts while between 135mm and 200mm it is not that significant but it all depends on what you do. Indoor, it is better to have a 17mm than a 18mm.

If I take a photo at f22 etc we will see all the dust on the sensor

**Boxerworld** · #7 06-30-2009, 05:08 PM

Here are the photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trusted-gourmet/

Widges · #8 06-30-2009, 09:47 PM

Lovely pics Olly.

Caney Creek · #9 07-01-2009, 08:01 AM

Great pics! That's exactly what I needed to see

I think I'm leaning towards the 17-70 now!

Thank you SO much for all your help, Olly!

**Boxerworld** · #10 07-01-2009, 08:27 AM

Well, please also check tests with the other lenses! I can only talk about the ones I have. Some might be better

The only thing I can say is its beats well the Sigma 18-200 (that I got before the Sigma 17-70). That said, the 18-200 beats the 17-70 from 71 to 200

It has been a long time I haven't used the 17-70 and I find images at full zoom at f4.5 (so wide open) a little weak. Yesterday I also used the Canon 300f4IS which is very sharp at f4 so my impression can come from comparing the two which is not fair since they are so different (zoom vs prime, cost, bulk).

Sarah: thank you. I would have framed them better if it was for esthetic purpose! Here, we are more "pixel peeping"