# Wide angle lens' for crop sensor camera



## mhlas7 (Aug 1, 2013)

I just took the plunge and ordered myself a 60d upgrading from a 450d. I also bought the EF 35mm f/2 (not the new one with IS) because I wanted a fast prime for general shooting to replace the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the 450d.

I am an outdoors person so I love to shoot landscapes so I have been looking for a good wide angle prime for this. After having the EF 35mm for a while, I would like to get a wide angle prime lens over a zoom. The wide aperture for shooting in low light or nighttime situations and the great amount of control over the depth of field. I don't need the flexibility of a zoom (however I am open to zoom recommendations) as landscapes are more about composition than framing (and you can always crop it later if you want). I am leaning away from a fisheye lens because of their distortion and if I were to use one I would end up correcting every image anyway. I would also like something that I could throw a rectangular ND Grad on for certain situations

Here is what I have found so far in my budget (<$700)

Rokinon 16mm f/2.0. Its a new lens so their aren't any reviews out yet but it's very simple. Manual focus, manual aperature and APS-C only. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/981706-REG/rokinon_16m_c_16mm_f2_0_ultra_wide_angle.html
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8. This is about as tight as I would like to go for a wide angle lens otherwise this looks like a good pick. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-USA/Canon_2509A003_Super_Wide_Angle_EF.html
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 The only thing I don't like about this lens is that it doesn't have any filter threads http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769532-REG/Rokinon_FE14M_C_14mm_Ultra_Wide_Angle_f_2_8.html

Right now i'm not sure what to go with. There doesn't seem to be very many options in the segment. I can't be the only one with this problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2013)

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or a used Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5.


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 1, 2013)

or Sigma 10-20mm *F3.5* Ex Dc Hsm. Make sure it's F3.5. The other one isn't that good.


----------



## emag (Aug 1, 2013)

The Tokina's been great on my 40D and 60D.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Aug 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or a used Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5.


These two are the definite standouts in APS-C wide angle.

If you'd like to replace your 18-55 kit with a much better option and don't need to go quite as wide, the 15-85 is an excellent lens for APS-C.


----------



## Grumbaki (Aug 1, 2013)

The canon 10-22 rocks. Used it a lot before going FF.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 1, 2013)

Don't get the canon 20mm... Used to have that and it isn't good on crop. It's not wide. I highly recommend the canon 10-22 overall. Tried and hated the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. Tokina 11-16mm is good but with the short awkward zoom range, it basically functions as a prime. You really can't go wrong with the canon.


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 1, 2013)

Agree with those above. The zooms in this category are great. I think I'd opt for the Sigma 8-16. Because it can be so damn wide. Or the Sigma 12-24, because it's a FF lens and works great on crop.


----------



## beckstoy (Aug 1, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> Agree with those above. The zooms in this category are great. I think I'd opt for the Sigma 8-16. Because it can be so damn wide. Or the Sigma 12-24, because it's a FF lens and works great on crop.



+1

I had the Sigma 10-20, which was a great lens, but I regretted not getting the 12-24 just for the FF options. When I went to FF from the 40D, I sold my 10-20 and got the 12-24. No regrets! They're pretty inexpensive and have great IQ (at least my copy does).

If I were you, I'd look seriously at the Sigma 12-24. On a crop it won't be a fisheye, but it will be wide. On a FF, if you eventually go that way, it will be amazing.

Good Luck!


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 1, 2013)

canon 10-22 works great, and refurb ones can be found on canon direct for around ~600 or less.


----------



## kang159 (Aug 1, 2013)

apparently, Canon 10-22 is fantastic.
I purchased mine because I read somewhere that the only reason it's not an L is because it's an EF-S.


----------



## kphoto99 (Aug 1, 2013)

Don't discount a fisheye on crop, I just got the Rokinon 8mm and I like it on my crop camera. It is equivalent to about 13mm on FF.

Here is an example landscape picture I took with it. This didn't need any correction for distortion.


----------



## drob (Aug 1, 2013)

I was in the same boat as you...looking for a wide angle prime, something that was fast, something you could screw some filters on, and not a fisheye...I bought the Rokinon (actually Samyang) 16mm 2.0 and although I haven't had much time to play with it, I do like it. But after $500 invested with shipping and tax...I'm having buyers regret. The new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 keeps sounding better and better. Although, it's not super wide, I like the fact that it's wide enough, sharp (from what I keep reading), has autofocus, multipurpose, screw on filter threads, and can be used for astrophotgraphy. Just something else to consider....


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 1, 2013)

I have the old Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 I bought it right after the Sigma 3.5 came out. At the time the 3.5 suffered from Quality Control problems de-centering primarily and was 3 star on Amazon and it takes 82mm filters. I had a complete set of 77mm filters already. 

There was a website that had a big comparison between the two Sigmas, the Tamron and the Canon at every f stop. It rated the Canon top because it was slightly sharper but they noted that the Sigma f4-5.6 had better contrast they were all very close. 

I planed on using it primary for landscape and at the time was not a fan of Wide Angle. Preferring telephoto and macro I could not justify the price difference between the Canon and the Sigma 10-20. them from the pictures the little difference The Tamron did not have USM so it was out. 

The Canon was too expensive for a lens outside my primary interests so it was out. The Sigma 3.5 had to many problems and was price the same as the Canon. 

So I bought the 10-20 f4-5.6. It shoots different than all my other lens. It comes out best when shooting with all focus points in auto select. If I just used center point it would always miss focus edge points were always fine to use it just hates the center focus point. It also does better with spot metering. 

If I was going to buy again I would buy the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I know someone with a stellar copy and will not give it up for anything. If you wanted it you would have to pry it from his cold dead hands. He actual uses it on his secondary camera when shooting full frame and preferred it over all the full frame options that are out and he has rented them all. 

The Tokina has such a short focus range most consider it a specialty lens. It almost functions as a prime. I would not consider the primes because compared to the zoom lens they are a little lack luster. That said I really like my Rokinon 8mm but it is a fish eye and does not take filters. 

The one thing the Sigma did was get me hooked on Wide angle lens. To bad it was on my 60d that took a bath. Funny it lives while the camera died. Now I have a foggy zombie Sig. It needs a cleaning and some adjustment to the somewhat functioning Auto-focus.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 1, 2013)

kang159 said:


> apparently, Canon 10-22 is fantastic.
> I purchased mine because I read somewhere that the only reason it's not an L is because it's an EF-S.



It's slower than an L lens would be in that focal range, in all likelihood. The center is not as sharp on a crop-body as the angle-equivalent 16-35 L II is on a full frame, though the edges are more sharp. Less CA than the 16-35 L II. Less vignetting. So yeah, it might pass for an L lens if it weren't EF-S. It's certainly one of the better EF-S lenses, IMO.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 1, 2013)

This is one area where I feel APS-C photographers ARE literally "spoiled for choice" these days; that is there are *many great options* when looking for ultra wide angle (UWA) zooms. 

While the OP stated that a zoom isn't necessarily needed, it was also stated that would be considered. I would suggest a zoom. I'm also an outdoor person, and landscapes are some of my favourite photos to take. (I strongly dislike fisheye!) I've felt that the flexibility of a zoom does help in composition - and a few mm either side makes a lot of difference at these ultra wide angles.

Obviously there is lens to lens variation and QC, but I've done a lot of researching - and my own real world testing of UWAs... and am providing the below as some assistance to the OP. 

There are several options I'd recommend.
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 sharp and particularly good if one enjoys low light (and particularly astro / night photography)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=1

Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 as a good OEM option (as Neuro suggested, a 2nd hand would fit budget)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1

Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 as a great UWA lens all round - good IQ and one of the best value. It's slightly slower than the Canon, but for most landscapes that's not a huge issue
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/307-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-hsm-ex-dc-lab-test-report--review?start=1

Actually what verysimplejason wrote below is *incorrect* and not backed up by any data or research.


verysimplejason said:


> or Sigma 10-20mm *F3.5* Ex Dc Hsm. Make sure it's F3.5. The other one isn't that good.


The Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 is actually *sharper * at the wide setting (and most focal lengths) than the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5.

Compare the analysis of both Sigma 10-20mm lenses here (in Nikkor format, as Photozone hasn't reviewed the f/3.5 in APS-C Canon mount): 
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/308-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-dc-ex-hsm-lab-test-report--review?start=1
Tests (& user reviews - also those who have purchased later f/3.5 versions) at SLR report the same, ie that the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 is sharper at most focal lengths (with the f/3.5 having noticeably softer corners in particular - not just the decentering issue, though to be fair some f/4.5-5.6 lenses also had decentering issues):
Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/171/cat/31 _being sharper than_
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1250/cat/31 

The only downside of the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 is CA at 10mm. However thankfully automated post processing can get rid of that very well, so easily.

If I were buying lenses today, perhaps the option I would go with is the Sigma 8-16mm (the widest in its class) which has received good reviews - but a bit more expensive (so you might need to look for a 2nd half / refurbed model) 
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc?start=1
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1330/cat/31

There are other options, like the older Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (not bad) and Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 (not the best), etc, etc, etc - but I'd recommend the first one's I've listed. I definitely notice the difference between 10mm and 12mm, with wider being better.

As I also have the Canon 15-85mm (love this as an all purpose lens) - I don't need / use the Sigma as much as I used to when my 'wide' was 18mm on a kit zoom. But I still do use the Sigma regularly for dedicated landscape, architecture and special effects.

I use my Sigma 10-20mm UWA lens at these settings the most: 10mm f/8 (usually at ISO100 or ISO400) where it consistently is shown to be a tad sharper than the Canon. The Sigma provides great results, I've taken thousands of photso with it. The Canon 10-22mm is a good lens - but I don't like the huge, weird lens hood and briefly a few other UWAs. When I bought my UWA, there were not the later options of eg Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or the Sigma 8-16mm.

Also, it is significant to note that UWA lenses for crop sensor DSLRs (ie APS-C cameras) are consistently sharper than their FF equivalents at the edges and particularly in the corners, (and especially so with lenses wide open). Even the higher end FF UWA lenses have noticeably softer edges & corners than what can be achieved on APS-C. This is actually one significant reason I'm happy to use UWAs on APS-C cameras.

As I started my post with... we are really spoiled for choice in this segment. 8)

Best wishes for your purchase, let us know how you go!

Paul


----------



## yakman (Aug 1, 2013)

Get a EOS M + EF M 22/F2. The combo itself is cheaper than any lens mentioned above?
If you're happy with EF-S 10-22, EF-M 11-22 IS seems be better and cheaper as well.
Taking this option you gets better resolution, better ISO.
For landscape on crop, EOS M should be more than just capable?


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 1, 2013)

mhlas7 said:


> I just took the plunge and ordered myself the new 70d upgrading from a 450d. I also bought the EF 35mm f/2 (not the new one with IS) because I wanted a fast prime for general shooting to replace the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the 450d.
> 
> I am an outdoors person so I love to shoot landscapes so I have been looking for a good wide angle prime for this. After having the EF 35mm for a while, I would like to get a wide angle prime lens over a zoom. The wide aperture for shooting in low light or nighttime situations and the great amount of control over the depth of field. I don't need the flexibility of a zoom (however I am open to zoom recommendations) as landscapes are more about composition than framing (and you can always crop it later if you want). I am leaning away from a fisheye lens because of their distortion and if I were to use one I would end up correcting every image anyway. I would also like something that I could throw a rectangular ND Grad on for certain situations
> 
> ...



Tokina 11-16 2.8. You'll love it!!!


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 1, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> Actually what verysimplejason wrote below is *incorrect* and not backed up by any data or research.
> 
> 
> verysimplejason said:
> ...




Granted, there are bad reviews for the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 but I guess somebody agrees with me. It might be that Sigma lenses especially the old lenses vary from one copy to another that's why I'll quote Roger on this:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/sigma-10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm-for-canon

To quote:



> The Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 has a bit more distortion than the others but delivers very nice images and is also built much better than the Canon 10-22. It does everything well and probably is the best value of the bunch.


----------



## SwissBear (Aug 1, 2013)

If f/2.8 is important (astro/lowlight), then the tokina is the best choice, i bought recently the old version because the improvements are not worth the extra 200CHF (slightly better flare control, faster AF).
The canon is maybe a bit sharper, i'd get that if the speed is not that important.


----------



## Ido (Aug 1, 2013)

I am also thinking about getting an UWA lens for my 60D.

I really like the Tokina 11-16, and the 2.8 constant aperture is appealing.

However, given the low price of the EOS-M, I had a new idea - around the same price I can by the EOS-M and 11-22mm 4.5-5. (I wanted to by the EOS-M body anyway, so it just one more reason to pull the trigger, plus you don't really need a quick AF for landscape.

I know it's not really comparable, but what do you guys think about that?


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 1, 2013)

I am currently traveling in Korea.. I bought my canon UWA 10-22mm a couple weeks ago and its been on my camera 95% of the time. Lots of tight spaces and tall buildings. The versatility that this lens gives is awesome! I use it at 10 or 12mm mostly but 17-22 for photos of people. Really anything 15 and below gives too much "stretching" of the edges for portraits. Excellent at 10mm for architecture, landscape but very usable at 17-22 for pictures of people! I can't recommend this lens more! I love it! And again, I have tried the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and tokina 11-16 before. 

The canon is fast, versatile, sharp, and controls IQ quite well. Well, I should just say fantastic.


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 1, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually what verysimplejason wrote below is *incorrect* and not backed up by any data or research.
> ...



Here's a comparison of Sigma 10-20 F3.5 and Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 just to prove my point.

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


----------



## tron (Aug 1, 2013)

Either a used 10-22 or a used 17-40 4L

For a crop I would prefer 10-22 (Actually I had it until it was stolen with my 40D and many other lenses)


----------



## shutterwideshut (Aug 1, 2013)

Here's one link about UWA lens comparison for APS-C sensors. http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=34. Personally, I would prefer the Canon 10-22mm lens on my cropped sensor bodies.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 1, 2013)

Ido said:


> given the low price of the EOS-M, I had a new idea - around the same price I can by the EOS-M and 11-22mm 4.5-5. (I wanted to by the EOS-M body anyway, so it just one more reason to pull the trigger, plus you don't really need a quick AF for landscape).



+1

I have been thinking of adding an UWA zoom for landscapes. I don't think I'll use it often so I dont want to spend much for it. I was leaning toward a EF 17-40 4.0 to use on my 6D, but an EF-M 11-22 for my M will be cheaper and I assume similar IQ. I haven't seen any detailed reviews or comparisons for the 11-22 yet. But, the other EF-M lenses are excellent, so I assume the same for this one. Canon claims it will have superior IQ than the already excellent EF-S 10-22 plus it has image stabilization! Here is a link to the DP Review preview:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-efm-11-22-4-5p6-is-stm

Of course, I'm just looking at the cost of the lens, since I already have and EOS -M. This option would only make sense for the OP if they were already inclined to buy an M.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 1, 2013)

tron said:


> Either a used 10-22 or a used 17-40 4L



17mm isn't wide angle on crop, plus I wouldn't buy a 17-40L used right now - there are heavy Canon rebates, the used gear prices for L lenses are too high plus you might end up with a 8 year old lens if you didn't ask for the date code.

My advIice: f I would have decided to stay on crop, I'd have bought a Tokina 11-16 ... it isn't really a zoom given the short focal length difference, but it's f2.8 and relatively inexpensive esp. if you get the older mk1 that doesn't make much of a difference to the mk2 on the Canon mount. The advantage of the Canon 10-22 is the larger zoom range if you need that on an uwa & somewhat better flare resistance, but nothing dramatic.

Btw you can even use the Tokina on full frame on the 16mm end as a fixed wide angle lens, but it isn't really sharp in the corners.


----------



## tron (Aug 1, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Either a used 10-22 or a used 17-40 4L
> ...


My post continued:

For a crop I would prefer 10-22 ...


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 1, 2013)

Loved my 10-22 on a T2i and 7D.


----------



## robbinzo (Aug 1, 2013)

I own both the 10-22 mm EFS and 17-40 mm L.
They are both excellent but I tend to favour the 17-40 mm for my own purposes.
The 17-40 mm isn't properly wide angle on a crop but it does focus blindingly fast (using centre AF point on my 550D).


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 1, 2013)

agree with neuro here..,,
I have not tried Tokina 11-16 ...but Canon 10-22 is a good performer...
solid build

It should come as kit lens on crop body - IMO

I sold mine for $700 after yrs of use ...more than I paid new..
they are avail used...just check out to insure it is optically right...

usually less than $700
refurbished from canon would be ideal

I went from crop body to 5D2...
the 10-22 was last lens sold before the crop body (50D)

as the wide end on a cropper, the 10-22 (becomes 16-35mm) prepares you for a lot of options 
to cover useful range...
...the 24-70/105 zooms fit right in..
I liked carrying the macro/ 10-22 as a 2 lens kit....
//////////

16-35 II replaced the 10-22 on FF.. same basic framing... a little better than 10-22..
then got 14 L II
still have the 16-35 II .. too useful to give up

resale of 10-22 is solid too..
as I said TOKINA might be good too...did not try it..heard good things

just my opinion

TOM


----------



## preppyak (Aug 1, 2013)

based on what you wanted, for flexibility in low-light, you have 3 options it seems.

Rokinon 16mm f/2...that'll give you the most flexibility and give you the prime you want. But, like you said, there are basically 0 reviews. I leave the Rokinon 14mm out because of the lack of filters; and the options to adapt filters for it are as expensive as the lens itself (at which point, you might as well own the Tokina).

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: Gives you a full stop over most of the other wide angle lenses, which is pretty key for low-light scenes or night photography. And it's just as sharp as the others. You wont really miss the difference between 16mm and 20-22mm. 

Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Ultimate flexibility low-light wise, and it gives you a similar range as your old lens. It'd actually render the 35mm prime obsolete too


----------



## mhlas7 (Aug 1, 2013)

* Re: Wide angle lens' for crop sensor camera*

I have been reading everyone's posts and researching every recommendation. Right now I am leaning towards the Tonkia 11-16mm f/2.8. From the online review I have been reading about this lens it is very sharp. Very little lens flaring, vignetting and barrel distortion. This seems like the ideal focal length and with a low constant aperture of f/2.8, perfect for shooting in low light situations.

However, I still feel like the lens manufacturers are missing out on the market for wide angle primes for crop sensor cameras. The wide angle zooms suggested in this post look great but nothing beets the sharpness of a good prime.

Thank you everyone for your input!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2013)

*Re: Re: Wide angle lens' for crop sensor camera*



mhlas7 said:


> However, I still feel like the lens manufacturers are missing out on the market for wide angle primes for crop sensor cameras. The wide angle zooms suggested in this post look great but nothing beets the sharpness of a good prime.



That's probably because from the manufacturer's viewpoint, the APS-C market is a consumer market, and in recent years the consumer preference has been overwhelmingly in favor of zooms.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2013)

I have the Sigma 10-20... It seems to work ok for me. (I have also tried it on a 5D2....it's "interesting" to say the least).

17 or 18 mm is not wide angle enough for APS-C and landscapes... you can cheat by taking several pictures and stitching them together, but if you have people in the shot it just will not do... You really need 10mm...

I believe that most editing software (lightroom etc...) has the lens profile included so you can really correct for distortion.... ultra-wide angle lenses in a digital workflow are nowhere near the same as ultra-wide lenses with film.


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 1, 2013)

I too sold my 10-22 for more than the full retail I bought it for. Just goes to show how Canon retains value and how most folks value that certain lens as a great crop UWAZ.


----------



## dhr90 (Aug 1, 2013)

I think I would pick the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 in your position. I bought the Tokina 12-24 f4 about 3 months ago to go on a 7D and have been very happy with it, at the time the 11-16 was out of my price range, since then the price has dropped, considering upgrading to it myself given my desire to do some more astro photography. I tried the sigma 10-20, but just prefered the Tokina more.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 1, 2013)

tron said:


> My post continued: For a crop I would prefer 10-22 ...



Sure, I read that, I just wanted to strengthen the fact that on crop the 10-22 is not *preferable* to a 17-40L for a uwa, but the 10-22 is the *only* choice for the couple of reasons written above.



Don Haines said:


> 17 or 18 mm is not wide angle enough for APS-C and landscapes... you can cheat by taking several pictures and stitching them together, but if you have people in the shot it just will not do... You really need 10mm...


 
Imho "landscape" and "ultrawide" are not synonymous, my 17-40L is quite nice at least for what I shoot on crop. And 10mm less still don't capture the 360 degrees world around you and you still might end up doing panoramas which usually also works ok. The reason for uwa is more that you *want* the distortion for creativity, not to necessarily to "take it all in" as Ken Rockwell correctly remarked.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 17 or 18 mm is not wide angle enough for APS-C and landscapes... you can cheat by taking several pictures and stitching them together, but if you have people in the shot it just will not do... You really need 10mm...
> ...



+1 

I often use my 70-300L or 100-400L for landscapes.


----------



## wsgroves (Aug 2, 2013)

I have the Sigma 8-16. I really need to make a gallery here for it as I do not think there is one.


----------



## Grumbaki (Aug 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



+1 as my best cityscapes are at 200mm. Compression makes modern and brutal urbanization even more oppressing.

But in that subfield, UWA is indeed "to take it all in" as many things can block the shot...or go back to the core of land/cityscape: location, location, location.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I often use my 70-300L or 100-400L for landscapes.



Welcome to the 70-300L club, I didn't realize you're a member now 

Concerning uwa: The landscape theory also begs the question what f2.8 should be for, that's why the 17-40L is optimized for small apertures (round spot lights up to f8, still no noticeable diffraction @f16).

As far as I understand it a large aperture w/ uwa is for close up shots to still get a strong background blur, something I cannot do with the 17-40L. Also "taking it all in" is extremely useful for group portraits when you cannot get enough distance, and here f2.8 might be useful for shutter speed when indoors.


----------



## nubu (Aug 2, 2013)

Buy the eos m plus the new 11-22 and be happy! For its total size and weight (and prize!) you can have it in parallel to your other equipment and dont have to change optics...


----------



## GaryJ (Aug 2, 2013)

Have been using the Tokina 11-16 for a while now on my 7D,excellent results and sharpness,any CA easily fixed in Lr5 , prints from my Pro 1 at A3+ have excellent IQ


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I often use my 70-300L or 100-400L for landscapes.
> ...



Yep - picked it up mainly for use as a travel telezoom, it fits my bags vertically, making it much more convenient. The 24-70 II + 70-300L make a great travel kit.



nubu said:


> Buy the eos m plus the new 11-22 and be happy! For its total size and weight (and prize!) you can have it in parallel to your other equipment and dont have to change optics...



Unless the OP is in the USA, where Canon isn't selling _or servicing_ the 11-22mm (at least for now, I expect they'll announce the lens with the next verison of the M).


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 2, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> that's why the 17-40L is optimized for small apertures (round spot lights up to f8, *still no noticeable diffraction @f16*).



That seems like a strange thing to say, diffraction is diffraction, and as far as our photographic lenses are concerned stays constant across sensor sizes. Whilst a lens designer, *in theory*, can make some adjustments in aperture position to marginally adjust diffraction characteristics, in reality, with a 44mm flange distance a 17-40 designer doesn't have any freedom.

I'd like to see a comparison 17-40 and 16-35 images @ f16 to see if there are any diffraction induced differences.

Bryan to the rescue 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6 
there aren't.

In fact if you compare any of the lenses there you will see f16 looks pretty much the same on everything.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=302&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=458&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

Diffraction is diffraction.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 2, 2013)

Canon 10-22mm. I made some of my best shots with that lens, It has such little distortion.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 3, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> In fact if you compare any of the lenses there you will see f16 looks pretty much the same on everything.



Thanks for correcting me, the diffraction theory was really speaking from the top of my head, I just noticed that the 17-40L has (for me) surprisingly good iq at small apertures where my former used lenses were well beyond their aperture/iq peak. Plus of course the 17-40L has very little flare, which doesn't show in charts.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=5&LensComp=412&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 3, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Thanks for correcting me....



Only done in the spirit of us all learning a bit, I had never looked at the f16 comparisons before so it confirmed my assumption, but we all know assumption can be the mother of all f--- ups!

As you point out it is important to put any individual test in perspective, and do comparisons for your priorities, there are much more important things than ultimate resolution, DR, fps etc it is all a balancing act of what works best for any one person.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 3, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for correcting me....
> ...



Absolutely, one learns the most by being wrong! It's much more boring to be correct all the time or to get ignored if talking rubbish, and I what's great about CR are the experienced people sharing their advice w/o being arrogant. Vice versa I try to share my experiences with other people that even have less money or experience with dslrs so they don't need to make the mistakes I made, which were few so far, again thanks to help around here and a lot of research.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 7, 2013)

Hi, I hired the ef-s 10-22 to do a specific job, this lens is awesome. Almost wish I never saw it as it immediately went on my wish list! 
I would say you would not go wrong with this lens despite it not being your preferred prime! I keep waiting for the used price to drop, but I don't see that happening until they launch a MKII which i dont see happening any time soon. It would be hard to do as I don't think there is much they could do to improve on this lens except perhaps constant aperture with a lower f stop! 
I would suggest you hire or borrow the most often recommended lenses to try for a few days then you will know which one suits your needs / wants. 
Good luck with your quest. 

Cheers Graham.


----------

