Switching Wide Angle Lenses...Suggestions welcome?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/02/2008 08:55:48 PM · #1

I am about to sell my Canon 17-40mm f/4L lens. For the weddings I shoot in low light (formals, etc) it's way too slow, and I need something faster. I have thought about:

going back to the Sigma 18-50 EX DC f/2.8

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II (bit out of my price range for now, but i'm looking into it definitely)

Tamron 17-50/2.8?

I am open to any and every suggestion any of you fine photographer friends might have. Thanks so much ! :D

Message edited by author 2008-01-02 21:01:54.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/02/2008 08:59:30 PM · #2

Tamron 17-50/2.8?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/02/2008 09:00:29 PM · #3

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II

jerowe

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/02/2008 09:00:36 PM · #4

adding it to the list...thanks!

_eug

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/02/2008 09:01:57 PM · #5

1st, what had you pick a f/4 lens over the 2.8 to begin with?

I'd think you'd want to stay away from the Sigma 17-70, since you'll rarely get the 2.8 end due to zooming (unless you always shoot "In your face").

01/02/2008 09:02:19 PM · #6

The problem is, if f/4 is way too slow, f/2.8 is only a 1-stop improvement. How wide do you need to be? You might consider the "King of Wide and Fast," a.k.a. the Canon 24/1.4. Another alternative, though optically nowhere near the Canon, is the Sigma 20/1.8.

jerowe

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/02/2008 09:03:31 PM · #7

kirbic, this is mainly for formals at weddings, etc. i follow your work, and respect it quite a bit...what's your favorite lens for wedding formal work?

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

01/02/2008 09:05:35 PM · #8

The Tamron 28-75 would not be wide enough IMO wish I would have known you may sell the 17-40 yesterday casue I needed a wider lens and went ahead and purchased a different lens yesterday.

mjwood0

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/02/2008 09:07:12 PM · #9

I'd have to say -- I really don't think that going to a 2.8 will offer that much improvement. The 1.4 is a great idea. You may not have to shoot wide open all the time, but you'll have the option if the lighting is really tough.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

01/02/2008 09:10:22 PM · #10

Canon EF 14 mm F2.8 L II USM

01/02/2008 09:38:27 PM · #11

Originally posted by jerowe:

kirbic, this is mainly for formals at weddings, etc. i follow your work, and respect it quite a bit...what's your favorite lens for wedding formal work?

For group formals, you shouldn't need an extremely fast lens; the required apertures are going to be smaller than f/2.8 in most cases. For Bride/Groom formals, a fast lens might be useful if narrow DoF is your thing. In any case, unless you find that you're often pressed for space, I'd try not to use a wider lens than 24mm on APS-C, (or 35mm on FF) because people on the outer edges of the frame will be stretched horizontally, a very unflattering situation.
A 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom is a wonderful thing. The Tamron 28-75, or the Canon 24-70, are good choices. The Canon is, of course about 3x the price, and the Tamron is an excellent lens, particularly on APS-C where the outer corners are not a consideration.

01/02/2008 09:39:03 PM · #12

Originally posted by faidoi:

Canon EF 14 mm F2.8 L II USM

Yikes, don't try group portraits with that thing, or if you do, make sure I'm not near the edge of the frame :-P

Prof_Fate

01/02/2008 11:40:44 PM · #13

canon 17-55 2.8 IS.
You're used to canon lenses so this lens you'll like. faster than the f4 you have now, and IS too - handholding as slow as 1/5 second. You'll never have another image lost to camera shake, end result is sharper images.

The (older) sigma 18-50 2.8 isn't sharp wide open. Half the reason you get a fast lens is so you can shoot it wide open.
the tamrons (17-50, 28-75) are sharp, nice lenses. But the focus is not USM - slower, no manual all the time (a deal breaker for me as i use an Exposdisk for WB and flipping the MF/AF is a royal PITA).

On a 20D 17-50 is not wide angle, but pretty much normal. The 28-75 is almost a tele lens. The 10-22 is wide angle.
The 16-35 is a great lens, but the 17-55 is less costly, adds IS and has 10mm more length to it.

01/02/2008 11:51:39 PM · #14

The 17-55/2.8 IS is definitely a winner, optically. I don't see a huge advantage for it shooting WA though, since 1/50s is about the slowest I'd want to ever shoot people, particularly groups, so IS is of little or no benefit below 50mm for human subjects.

Tez