Question from a new 10D owner - Wide angle lens

I've splashed out and got myself a 10D... And a nice bit of gear it is
too... I don't think I could ever go back to my 'orrible noisy DSC-P9
again.

I am currently using the lenses from my EOS 500 film camera, which
include:
EF 28 f/2.8 (nice lens that one)
EF 35-80 f4-5.6 II (cheap and nasty)
EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 (crap)
EF 35-350 f/3.5-5.6L (recently picked this up second-hand and it
looks like a nice lens from the little playing around I have done so
far, although bloody big and heavy to lug around)

The problem is that the 28mm, which was a good wide-angle for me on
the film camera, is not wide enough anymore on the 10D due to the 1.6x
factor. I am now considering getting an EF 16-35 f/2.8L or an EF 17-40
f/4L. I had a play with a 16-35 in the shop but it was as costly as
the 10D body on it's own, and I was also expecting less barrel
distortion than it had. Generally I've found Nikkor wide angle lenses
to be better in this regard but I'm committed to the EF mount now. The
17-40 is a tempting possibility since it is not much more than 1/2 the
price of the 16-35. The smaller aperture does not bother me much since
I like plenty of depth of field in my wide angle shots.

For those who have used the 17-40, what do you think about this lens
in general? How much barrel distortion does it have?

What good alternatives should I be looking at? Your recommendations
could include primes of around 17 to 18mm as well as wide zooms.
Thanks for any help.

Cheers,
Simon
- -
Porirua, NZ
Spamblocked address - do the obvious
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepeneur" - George W Bush

 

Depends what kind of work you do. My rule of thumb so far is don't
waste your money on zooms by the camera manufacturers; the third-party
zooms are a MUCH better buy.

 

In message <Cfh8b.145241$>,

You might want to look at some optical tests of the Sigma 20. The one
site I'm looking at now (http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm)
rates it as "poor".

--

 

Thanks for the help, guys. BTW the Nikkor lens I referred to was a
friend's oldish 14mm, and when I tried this a few hears years ago my
jaw dripped because it had *way* less barrel than my 28 prime despite
the huge focal length difference. Shows what a lens maker can achieve
if they put their mind to it...

Camera shop may hopefully have a 17-40L this week for me to try out.
Tried out Sigma 15-30 yesterday and was reasonably impressed, less
distortion than the 16-35L and no obvious problems when looking at the
un-sharpened JPEGs. I've just gotten my RAW file problem fixed on my
PC so I will install PS Elements sometime this week so I can sharpen
the RAW files properly and fairly judge lens sharpness, aberrations
etc.

20mm is not really wide enough for me, I was after something
equivalent to 28mm because I will really miss that focal length. I
wonder if there is a marketing strategy within Canon by adopting 1.6x
to sell more wide angle lenses... Might make reasonably priced
full-frame sensor equipped cameras a long way off even when sensor fab
technology catches up.

Cheers,
Simon
- -
Porirua, NZ
Spamblocked address - do the obvious
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepeneur" - George W Bush