Hi all,

well its been a week of lots of questions, so ill post up a few more that i have.

Just wondering what lens would be a good lens in the canon series that would cover the ultra wide angle shots.

i have been having a look at these on a few websites.
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
and the
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Now the 16-35 is quite a bit more in price however i was wondering at that wide angle do any of you out there really need the 2.8? i guess this would make a difference if you were shooting in very low light, however just wondering in general if shooting at 16mm do many need the 2.8?

Which one would be the choice if price wasn't an issue?

none of them have IS. will this be a problem?

I have read that the 16-35 II is generally not as good as the first model of this lens.

does anyone own any of these and could comment on the above lenses please?

or would you recommend any other lenses for the ultra wide bracket?

thanks guys

i'd get the 16-35 if price wasnt an issue
ultra wide a good lens is canon 10-22mm or the sigma 10-20
the canon is around 1000 and sigma around 600-700

With the Sigma 10-20mm you ever get a good copy or you don't. Mine was shit it was extremely soft and suffered extreme vignetting what was weird though is that i'd did'nt do it when i first got it but yeah anyway something to keep in mind.

id go the canon, i got a good copy of the 10-20mm sigma but sold it to dave.

I want a peleng 6mm, but i cant find any for sale anywhere. currently bidding on a 15mm fisheye thou.

17-40 is like $800ish from bh from memory,

i heard the opposite about the 16-35, is heard first model was shithouse compared to the 2nd one

or...


get a 17-55mm IS 2.8, a mate of mine has one, it is seriosuly awesome

remeber its an ef-s lens though, no probs if you have 30d or something, but not 5d or a 1 series

eah to there own....

for ultra wide id go the 10 20 sigma... as it will fit on the 1d body if u go that line and the quality from it is awesome ...

I ended up getting the 11-18mm Tamron for about $500, retails at a bit more i think, and it's a great lens. The only annoying thing is its autofocus is a tad loud. But apart from that it's said to get a sharper image around the outer edges than the Sigma.

17-40 is one hell of a lens.

Just depends what you using the lens for.

10-22 would be my preference.

I have a Canon 10-22.

It is a great lense..... from about $740 you can get one.

I find Sigma more than OK on medium and Long lenses.... but anything wide..... is a tiny soft about the edges.

The Sigma 10-20mm is about $500......I think the extra $240 for a Canon lense is worth it.

PS... if you want a great deal on a Sigma 18-55.....PM me.