# Advice sought on Cropped Frame Wide Lens



## magnum (Aug 29, 2013)

This thread have evolved from a previous thread, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16624.0 

I have a Canon 7D and my wife has a 600D. We have on both the EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS lenses and find these pretty satisfactory general walk around lens (with the obvious compromise for the large focal length range).

I have been thinking of late of getting our first "L" lens. As enthusiast rather than professional photographers without a endless budget and the price of these lenses, we really don't want to waste money getting the wrong lens.

Our interests in photography are (not in any particular order):
1. Landscape and travel
2. Nature, animal, birds (not macro)
3. People (not portrait)

With this in mind I recently hired a EF 17-40mm f4.0L USM (as a potential landscape lens) but was underwhelmed when I compared it side-by-side with our 18-200mm using equivalent focal lengths and exposures. I was expecting this L lens (Canon's cheapest and most popular, so I read) to stand head and shoulders above the 18-200mm in image quality, color saturation, brightness, etc. But my (admittedly) amateur eye could not see the difference.

So my thinking now of an ultra wide EF-S lens to compliment our existing lenses. So thinking of either:

10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM; or
17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I am leaning towards the 10-22m as this gives us a range we don't current have and would make a nice ultra wide lense on 7D and 600D for landscape.

Once again seeking comments, views and experiences especially from members who have used this lens.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2013)

magnum said:


> I am leaning towards the 10-22m as this gives us a range we don't current have and would make a nice ultra wide lense on 7D and 600D for landscape.



The uwa would be a reasonable choice due to less overlap and more creative potential. The 17-55 might be a good lens, but it's rather expensive, not sealed, and has a short zoom range - if I'd buy something like this I'd get the cheaper 15-85 and fast primes if I'd need the wide aperture. You did take the Tokina 11-16 into account, this is the standard alternative to the Canon and has f2.8 (but much but shorter zoom range)?


----------



## Sella174 (Aug 29, 2013)

If you go for the 10-22mm, then also get a little stepladder.


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 29, 2013)

+ 1 to 10-22. It will serve you well. It will also have a good re-sale value should you decide to go FF later. You can also get a 50mm F1.8 (aside from the 10-22mm). Believe it or not, it's a very good lens for street photography especially if you want to go light. I find that focal length easier to use than the 40mm for street photography. It's also doubles up as a good low-light lens.


----------



## SwampYankee (Aug 29, 2013)

On a crop frame Canon you really need to consider the Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX. 11-16 mm, sharper and faster than anything Canon offers in this range. Built like a tank, great optics and fast. I loved mine so much that when I moved to full frame I immediately upgraded the lens to the FF version.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 29, 2013)

The combination of fast aperture and UWA perspective make the short throw 11-16 tokina an exciting lens specifically for APS-C users. I love mine. It's never off the camera for video in particular.

You don't specifically mention a need for fast aperture, so the 17-55 f2.8 seems to be more about augmentation than expanding.

There are other UWA's I've used the cheaper Sigma 10-20 and the mk1 of the 12-24 on APC-S and both heve been great, I need the constant aperture however, so the tokina has worked out brilliant. The 12-24 was a pain to filter.

My experience of the 17-40 is that it was nicely built and nice to use, it just wasn't giving me anything better than the kit zoom (18-55 is version) and so I sold it to expand rather than augment.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2013)

The Sigma f/4-5.6 10-20mm is exceptional value for money and in some ways better than the f/3.5 version. See http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/171/cat/31


----------



## sdsr (Aug 29, 2013)

I would suggest you expand your options rather than duplicate with a 17-55, partly because I was quite underwhelmed by that lens when I rented one, partly because if you do want to duplicate you would be better off getting (as someone else suggested) a prime or two within that range (e.g. Canon 50 1.8 or 1.4 or Canon 40mm pancake or Sigma 35 1.4). 

The only time I compared wide APS-C zooms was when I owned a Pentax K-5 - I tried a Tamron 10-24, Sigma 12-24 and Sigma 8-16 - so I have no first hand experience of the Canon equivalent. I ended up buying the Sigma 8-16 because it was the widest (if you want an ultrawide zoom, why not?) and had the best image quality of the three (worst was the Tamron - low contrast, least sharp, inconsistent exposure, worst purple fringing); I also rather liked that there was no overlap in focal length. If you get the chance, you may want to rent one along with the Canon and see how they compare first hand.


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 29, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The Sigma f/4-5.6 10-20mm is exceptional value for money and in some ways better than the f/3.5 version. See http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/171/cat/31



That isn't the case. F3.5 is better says DXO and Roger from lens rental...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/756/(brand)/Sigma/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/757/(brand2)/Sigma/(camera2)/0/(lens3)/842/(brand3)/Sigma/(camera3)/0

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/sigma-10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm-for-canon
It could be that Sigma varies from copy to copy.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma f/4-5.6 10-20mm is exceptional value for money and in some ways better than the f/3.5 version. See http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/171/cat/31
> ...



I am puzzled. Roger doesn't list the f/4-5.6, unless I missed it, and DxO tested only the Nikon version, so it could be Nikon copy to copy variation.


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 29, 2013)

I have both of your proposed lenses and would suggest the 10-22 since you would be duplicating range.

The 17-55 is a great lens if you need the speed in that range. It could be a good future purchase.


----------



## daveheinzel (Aug 29, 2013)

I can only speak for the 10-22, which I have and use with my 7D and 60D. In the year or so since I've purchased it, it is the go-to lens for almost any occasion. I absolutely love it, and I very rarely go to my 17-40. It does take a bit to get used to the 10mm end, but it's worth the effort.


----------



## Casey (Aug 29, 2013)

Hello Magnum;

I would highly recommend that you rent the Canon 10-22 before you buy. Like everyone else here, I have this compulsion to want to add lenses. I rented this one to use on my T3i and really did not like the results. Most of my shots were either on the long end, 18-22 mm, or I cropped. Shooting ultrawide is really a different style of shooting. Later I bought a FF and rented a 16-35L and found that almost all of my keepers were between 24-35. 

Look up shooting ultrawide on the internet, and then rent the lens. If you like the results then at least you know what you will use. If you like the ultra-wide then I differ to the other folks on this thread for which ultra-wide you get. Personally, I used a 24-105 on my T3i, as well as a 70-300L, and a 50 1.8 and was happy with it. I would use the kit 18-55 when I needed wider.

Good luck.

Casey


----------



## wsheldon (Aug 29, 2013)

Casey said:


> Hello Magnum;
> 
> I would highly recommend that you rent the Canon 10-22 before you buy. Like everyone else here, I have this compulsion to want to add lenses. I rented this one to use on my T3i and really did not like the results. Most of my shots were either on the long end, 18-22 mm, or I cropped. Shooting ultrawide is really a different style of shooting. Later I bought a FF and rented a 16-35L and found that almost all of my keepers were between 24-35.
> 
> ...



Excellent advice here, and I concur. I had the 10-22mm for my 50D, but only used <15mm (24mm on FF) rarely so I sold it. Great lens for the price if you do like UWA, but it wasn't my style. I've barely mounted my 17-40 since getting a 6D for the same reason - my 24-105 is wide enough for my tastes, so I may sell that one too or keep it around as my "standard" lens on the 50D.

I haven't taken enough advantage of renting lenses myself, but after churning several high-priced optics and taking the small loss on turn-around I can clearly see the benefit.


----------



## tiger82 (Aug 29, 2013)

I just got my CPS evaluation copy of the 16-35 II f/2.8L and it beats the crap out of my 17-40 f/4L. Now that I have the 17-40 and the $ difference between the two, I will upgrade. I have the 18-200 EF-S for my 7D and I think that will go away real soon before the Mark II update cuts the price in half. If you can make the jump straight to the 16-35 II or I, seriously consider it. I know you asked about crop lenses but leave it open to go FF.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2013)

The 10-22mm has fantastic distortion control. I'd buy it again w/o hesitation.


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 29, 2013)

10-22, the only EF-S lens I miss.


----------



## alexturton (Sep 3, 2013)

get the sigma 10 20. Its a fabulous lens for the price


----------

