Wide Angle or Standard Zoom??

[Trecky]

I need some help with this decision please.
I have a Canon 500D and a 70-200mm L lens.
I have finally decided I love taking landscapes and pictures of old houses and buildings in particular.
Would I be better buying a wide angle or standard zoom lens. I want a lens better than my current 18-55mm kit lens.
I was looking at the Canon ef-s 10-22 f3.5 - 4.5 and the ef-s 17-55 f2.8.
It is very difficult trying to work out what would be better on the crop sensor body.

[daniel5600]

maybe both?
instead of the Canon 10-22, id buy either the Sigma 10-20 3.5, or the Tokina 11-16 2.8 (which i am actually buying soon).
they are both cheaper than the canon.
then use the extra money and go buy a Sigma 30 or 50mm 1.4 prime

not sure if that helps, but at least then youd have both options, and two very good bits of glass.

[Trecky]

Thanks for that, a tough decision to make.

[Tannin]

I'm struggling to understand how you can have a 18-55 but not know if you like the wide end of it or the narrow end more. I mean no disrspect in saying that - do you really have no clue whether you more often need wider or narrower? No matter:

In favour of a 17-55 IS:

1. A superb lens. They don't get any better than this one. Unquestionably the best standard range crop-body zoom on the market.
2. A very useful middle-of-the-road focal length range (almost the same as your 18-55) that is, all things considered, probably slightly more useful for your subjects than the ultra-wide. Well, for the buildings anyway - it's a bit tricky using a UWA for buildings as you tend to battle with perspective distortion.

In favour of a 10-22:

1. A very, very good lens. All things considered, still the best UWA you can buy. (The Tokina 11-16 is very fashionable at present. I don't really know why, as it's a much more restrictive focal length range and having f/2.8 in a UWA is like having an ashtray on a motorbike. You don't need the extra light gathering because you can already hand-hold 10mm down to insanely low shutter speeds, and you can't have shallow DOF at 10mm or 15mm no matter how wide-open your lens goes.)
2. You don't have a wide-angle lens. Whatever you might think about the limitations of your 18-55, it does work. You can use it to take pictures at (say) 50mm or 32m. You cannot use your 18-55 or your 70-200 to take a picture at 12mm!
3. The 18-55 is better than you think. You don't really need to replace it at all, not yet. Landscapes are usually shot at f/8 or f/11. Even the 18-55 does better than OK at f/11. Lens quality really only starts to show up as a major factor when you are wide open or close to wide open. Yes, it's a cruddy little plastic thing, but it does work.
4. The Canon 17-55 IS is horribly expensive!

Short answer: 10-22 is your best bet.

[Trecky]

Thanks for saying no disrespect, I really felt you were having a go at me and I understand this forum is to help newbies like me understand without feeling put down.
I am reasonably new at photography and trying to get my head around lenses and what would be best for me, but what I do know is I don't like the kit lens. After using the L lens I must be spoilt because I can clearly see a difference. Not that I am going out to buy another L lens, however someone mentioned to me about the wide angle lenses. After so much research on lenses, I am wondering if I would be much better perhaps getting a standard zoom to replace the kit lens. Perhaps a 17-55
f 2/8 which would help with night shots as well, though very expensive. The reviews on this lens seem very good.
Anyway I suppose I will keep researching.

[Roosta]

Trecky, I've got to agree with Tannin, I was in the same boat a while back. My 50D came with the 17-85 EF-S, I think I have used it twice, I went and purchased the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and am wrapped with it. I'm now in the process of picking up the UWA, I've been reading and listening to lots on the 10-20/22 range and also on the Tamron and Tokina near equalilavants 12-24, but as Tannin so rightly has stated, you dont need F2.8, and the distortation is in question on the 11-16. I was reading yesterday on the chosen subject and DPreview, It has some very interesting views on all of the above lenses. If you look under Reviews and find Sigma 10-20 4.5.6, it's linked to just about all the above lenses, with there recommendations leaning toward the Sigma, but waiting to review the now not so new F3.5 variant.

So all that said, yeap your kit lens isn't the worst lens out there, but in a focal range 17/18-50/70 odd there are some great choise and the solid F2.8 is deffiently the go.

Then also add to that the strong Aussie dollar, CR Kennedys price matching against Grey Market lenses, you could buy both a 17/18-50/70 odd F2.8 Non Canon and also the Sigma 10-20 in the f4-5.6, If you look at say DWI, get a price and phone your local Sigma/Tamrom dealer-quality camera shop, they will price match there prices, and add to that the better warranty and piece of mind, 2 things, buying aussie and helping our local shops, not a international.

Seeing you live in good old Perth, I recommend speaking to STU at QUALITY CAMERA SALES (Site Sponsor) he's Rocko way. You could also phone CR Kennedy in Leederville Hit google and you'll get the number.

I recommend the Sigmas for mine, 18-50 cost me $399 local brand new full warranty,, cheaper than DWi, and will pick up the Sigma 10-20 next week when I get into town, want to try the two F Stop lenses out, not sure on the solid F3.5 or the older slightly slower lens, both would be and are great landscape shootes and the 18-50 is a fantastic landscape and lowlight lens. Recommend it.

Hope i've helped, have fun.

[Trecky]

Thanks a lot Roosta for the advice.

Cheers

[LJG]

There is plenty of good advice above, but ask yourself a question. You said you wanted a better lens than your 18-55.

Better in what way - image quality (IQ), or focal length?

If it is IQ only the 17-55 is probably your answer. Even though there is a difference between 17 & 18, it is not much at all, you won't notice it that much, but you'll get better IQ.

If you want to get more in your shot, i.e. wider, the 10-22 is the way to go. The other bonus with the Canon 10-22, it also has very good IQ as well, so with that lens you really kill 2 birds with one stone.

I have a Canon 10-22, and it is by far my favourite & most used lens.

[Trecky]

Thanks Lloyd, will have another look at that one. I really want a lens with better IQ.

[CameraRental]

While both the 17-55 and 10-22 are good lenses, why not consider the oldie but goodie 17-40mm f4L?

I have that lens, and I absolutely swear by it. Fantastic IQ, well built but not overly heavy. And currently well-priced too.

[Lizzie]

Hi Trecky,
I have a Canon 10-22 lens on the crop body and the places I get to it does a wonderful job...ie I do not have to fall down a gully to get what I want in the frame...I also have a Canon 17-40 L lens and does not get what I want in the frame at times I find the quality of the images better and can stitch, I find in photography there is always a trade off....The Canon 17-40 L is in anticipation of the full frame camera in the pipeline. and when used on the full frame will get the wider snatch of subject...)......I can not comment on the above advice with the Sigma, Tamron and Tonka lens...although I do have a Tamron lens 70-300....

The 10-22 when used wide has a lot of distortion and is a little soft at the edges, alwayst a trade off one lens will not do all things....the 17-40 L lens the images are of a more consistent quality...with landscapes I sometimes feel the 10-22 takes scenes too far away BUT for a landscape with a killer sunset or sunrise it is magic as can include a whole lot of the sky and to get in the whole building it is great....In saying all this by no means am I an expert and have a long way to go in my photography knowledge but just what I have experienced thus far.
Good luck with your choice and am sure it will be the right one for you.....Regards,

Lizzie

[Roosta]

mate, not righting off the 17-40L but pretty sure its a full frame lens (EF), so 17 - 40 x 1.6 = 27 - 64mm

[CameraRental]

Hi Roosta,

Trecky was considering the 17-55mm f2.8 as well, which is also 27-88mm in FF equivalent, so I assumed that he would consider a lens with 17mm focal length minimum, hence my suggestion he/she consider the 17-40mm as well.

And in terms of price, a 17-40mm is more affordable, with IQ that's no slouch compared to the 17-55mm.

Regards
Mike
The Camera Rental Centre Melbourne
Web: http://melbourne.camerarental.biz
Tel: 0426 268339

[Roosta]

Was only trying to point out the APS-C size issue. As Lizzie above had mentioned the 10-22 EF-S lens Canon, and the 17-40 EF for FF. Thats all... What he gets is up to him, There are so many good choices, and yeap, as you say the 17-55mm Canon is a great IQ lens, but on his 500D body its 27-88 (not the best for UWA landscape).. Not trying to turn him of any of them, but some people get caught out with the sensor size issues.

Between them all, maybe for landscape and building, the UWA 10-20ish would be my pick but a lens for a APS-C sensor, so the Canon10-22 EF-S, wins for me. General walk about lens, well thats a different story. Happy clients will return for good sales advice and product. So in the end, it really comes down to what he wants to shoot, and is he going to go FF body later on ???

Not trying to upset or confuse. Sorry if it came across that way.

[CameraRental]

Hi Roosta, no need to apologise mate! No offence taken, and I'm sorry if I had sounded brusque, I certainly wasn't trying to be!

Regards
Mike
The Camera Rental Centre Melbourne
Web: http://melbourne.camerarental.biz
Tel: 0426 268339

[Roosta]

Cool, What is Trecky settling for ?

It's a shame your not in NSW as-well, Lots of discussion on longer focal lenghts last week in the Canon forum, One regular was trying to get some longer focal Canon L lenses, we have a great Pro shop here in WA, so i'm sort of blessed that way.

Cheers Mike.

[Trecky]

Hi everyone, thanks for the tips...........always a hard decision to make, so currently researching.

Cheers.

[phild]

Personally I'd opt for the 10-22 and 24-105 F4L IS, the reason is that the 24-105 will cover most of your needs and would probably be off your camera far less than the 17-55 plus the 24-105 has IS and is dust sealed and has limited macro functionality.