Question from a new 10D owner - Wide angle lens

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by The Other Si, Sep 12, 2003.

  1. The Other Si

    The Other Si Guest

    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

    I am currently using the lenses from my EOS 500 film camera, which
    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.

    - -
    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
    The Other Si, Sep 12, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 12, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. The Other Si

    JPS Guest

    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 (
    rates it as "poor".
    JPS, Sep 13, 2003
  4. The Other Si

    The Other Si Guest

    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

    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.

    - -
    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
    The Other Si, Sep 14, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.