[asd]

hi guys,

I am after a wide(ish)angle lens for canon 10D....the more you research the more confusing it gets,i am going on a couple of holidays soon and i am wanting to take some landscapes and also some social events as well,so a zoom would fit the bill and would cut down on lens changes
10D cant take the new EFS lenses(bummer!) so the shortlist is...
sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC
sigma 10-20mm f4.5 -6 EX DC HSM
sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC(example photos @ pbase.com look good)
and the new Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro

or i could stretch to the canon 17-40 L

got roughly £500-550 to spend thanks to a tax rebate (is 17-40L worth the dough) would i need to use a tripod more with the f4 17-40L more than with the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 say...hate using tripods..sorry this is long winded but i need to decide before my head explodes.....going to lie down in a dark room now.............any help most grateful cheers in advance ...scott

[Glen]

I've got the 10-20mm sigma and I think thats a superb lens.

It was £312, this will leave you with room to get a 70-300mm sigma apo macro, I've got one of these too, very good lens £160 ish maybe less.

[asd]

thanks glen
i have seen some shots take with the sig 10-20mm and they look good. not bad price as well, just dont want to be swopping lenses too often,9sensor dirt an all that) shame its not a 10-50, but am considering the 10-20 thanks

[Glen]

DP gave the sigma 18-200 a good write up, I was going to get it before I change my mind and went with the 70-300 and Pex my 55-200 canon.

[Glen]

Wive i dun thiss twyce, tym to gow tew behd....nyt nyt!!!

[Matt]

Don't rule out the Tamron range.
The 17-35 is an excellent piece of kit, which will leave you
some change to spend on something else.

[evilowl]

Also worth checking out the Sigma 12-24 - I really rate mine and it fares incredibly well against much more expensive glass providing you get a good one http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/index.html

Have a look around this forum for fingerz review of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8

[CT]

Originally Posted by asd

hi guys,


got roughly £500-550 to spend thanks to a tax rebate (is 17-40L worth the dough)

The 17-40L is one of the more affordable Canon 'L' lenses, it's beautifully made, tack sharp and gives lovely colour rendition and saturation, so I'd say it's definitely worth the money. It's also one of the relatively few Canon lenses which is weather sealed, which might be a consideration in the long term if you upgraded to a weatherproof body?

That apart, you might be more attracted by the wider FOV or bigger zoom range of some of your other choices, it all depends really on your likely main uses of the lens.

[noah]

i'm another with the sigma 10-20, it's a great lens and very sharp but i think the *slight* softening and distortion at the edges might upset some with landscapes. i dont find it a problem as the ultra wide gives such a different view.

if it were my choice i'd probably go for the canon 17-40L as it's a very highly regarded lens with a wide enough field of view for most.

the other thing to remember its although the f2.8 of the sigma does give you an extra stop it is at the expense of depth of field. you may want the whole lanscape in focus in which case you will probably need a tripod whatever lens you use. the velvon maxi/luxi range are very light and might sway you.

[asd]

its looking like the canon 17-40L is front runner at the moment. i like the fact its weatherproof, thanks for that

a girl at college has got one, so she is letting me give it a testdrive tonight.

sigma 10-20 is really appealing to me but i would need to pair it up with another lens.
sig 18-50 apparently does not work too well with canon flashguns and hunts a bit for focus

thankyou for all the advice and the links, please keep your advice coming as im still sitting on the fence

cheers scott

[Dave]

Have the Sigma 10-20 & although a great lens, you only use it on certain shots, so end up changing leneses quite a bit........I've got sensor dust now . From a Nikon perspective I think a 17-55 f2/8 would be more useful, so you can convert to Canon equivalent.

[asd]

cheers dave

[Steve]

I am a happy user of a Canon 17-40L. I shoot mainly landscapes and find that despite me now having a reasonoble choice of lenses, the 17-40 lives on one of my bodies. The only time it has given me a bad image is when I have messed up. Great colour, nice saturation and tack sharp. It is a hard lense to beat if it covers the zoom range you will be working with.

[Glen]

I must admit Steves landscapes are absolutely cracking, so if I were you i'd go the 17-40mm L route.

[Steve]

One other thing to consider too, it (the 17-40L) will also work perfectly on a full frame camera should you wish to upgrade in the future, thus its future proof Some of the other lenses mentioned in this thread certainly won't.

[asd]

Thanks Glen and steve

Think i will go for the canon 17-40. i think if i bought the cheaper sigma i might regret it in the longrun,(for sake of 200 quid extra i will stretch to canon)plus i will use it a lot i think, thanks for advice, cracking website steve, excellent work,do you still use your 10D at all now with having the 20D.

Now you have both helped me decide on the canon lens, i need help with a poloriser,(more bloody money) i am going on holiday of a lifetime in may for a week to las vegas,(helps me justify buying the 17-40, thats what i'm telling myself) and are trying to get on a photoworkshop tour to some of the surrounding areas( death valley etc). hoya have standard poloriser (abt £70) or a pro 1 range or something(£155!!!!!) please tell me the cheaper one is ok...please.......then all i need is steve to come round and take some photos for me on my flash card and i can show everyone how great i am at photography....what you doing in may, fancy a trip to las vegas? lol ...