Wide angle lens below $600 for 5D (Classic)?

[Necroist]

Hi all,

I currently own a 50mm f/1.8 with my 5D and I'm looking to get a companion lens in the wide angle range.

I'm looking for any lens that is:
- Above avg. image quality
- Below $500
- 3rd Party lens also can

I've been out of touch with photography for a long time so I haven't been reading up on what's new in the lens dept lately.

Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

[trd2970]

sigma 12-24 is good, but at least 700...other option is tamron 17-35.

[Snoweagle]

Hi all,

I currently own a 50mm f/1.8 with my 5D and I'm looking to get a companion lens in the wide angle range.

I'm looking for any lens that is:
- Above avg. image quality
- Below $500
- 3rd Party lens also can

I've been out of touch with photography for a long time so I haven't been reading up on what's new in the lens dept lately.

Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

How wide do u need? Usually for UWA lenses 17mm and below, your budget won't fit unless maybe u're buying 2nd hand or those which are 24mm or 28mm. Another question is, prime or zoom?

[Snoweagle]

sigma 12-24 is good, but at least 700...other option is tamron 17-35.

The SP AF 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di LD is also an alternative option even though it has been discontinued.

The sigma 12-24 is way above $700 unless 2nd hand which might cost a bit more than that. When i got mine new around 3 years back, was $1312. Dunno abt the pricing now as the new version II is coming.

[Verticoastro]

You might want to try EF20-35mm f3.5-4.5 USM

focusing is fast and image quality is good.... I use that lens before... Very light for traveling too....

[sinned79]

second hand samyang 14mm? but manual focus only.

[trd2970]

The SP AF 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di LD is also an alternative option even though it has been discontinued.

The sigma 12-24 is way above $700 unless 2nd hand which might cost a bit more than that. When i got mine new around 3 years back, was $1312. Dunno abt the pricing now as the new version II is coming.

yes, the 17-35 is quite decent for its price, i recalled paying $300+ for a used set few years back.

[Snoweagle]

yes, the 17-35 is quite decent for its price, i recalled paying $300+ for a used set few years back.

Some years back I also wanted to settle for Tamron's 17-35 but went for Canon's 17-40. In the end sold it for sigma's 12-24 for ultimate wideness on a FF cam.

[Anson]

I also recommend the Tamron 17-35.

At F2.8 (17mm) it's a lens hard to beat in it's price:

[chocolateking123]

2nd hand 20mm f2.8 would be a good option reasonably priced and sharp in my experience

[tortise]

some info on the tamron 17-35: i managed to pick up one in mint condition late last year from another forumer (think he bought to try a little and then upgraded) but it cost me $400+(it was discontinued and pretty hard to source for, and i needed a wide angle for a trip, so i took it at that price)

IQ is pretty good (good enough for my landscape shots), but i have not used a Canon 17-40 or 16-35 so can't say whether it is comparable to the Canon Ls.

Would really have loved to get a 12-24 but it was out of my budget (and iirc it can't take front filters unless you use a 82mm one with the lens hood, with some vigneting i think below 14mm?).

[Snoweagle]

some info on the tamron 17-35: i managed to pick up one in mint condition late last year from another forumer (think he bought to try a little and then upgraded) but it cost me $400+(it was discontinued and pretty hard to source for, and i needed a wide angle for a trip, so i took it at that price)

IQ is pretty good (good enough for my landscape shots), but i have not used a Canon 17-40 or 16-35 so can't say whether it is comparable to the Canon Ls.

Would really have loved to get a 12-24 but it was out of my budget (and iirc it can't take front filters unless you use a 82mm one with the lens hood, with some vigneting i think below 14mm?).

Yes u're right about the 12-24 and don't ever get a 82mm front filter with the lens cap mounting ring as u said, vignetting below 14mm. U won't need any filters at all and the front element of the 12-24 is pretty hardy so can take water and dusts well and can be cleaned off easily.

[hjbyeo]

Thanks to this thread, I chanced upon the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 [LD] IF (fair price) in a local store, and got this instead of spending the money on 17-40L or the Tokina 17-35. The tokina is quite a big lens compared to the 17-40L, being larger in diameter you'll probably have to spend quite a bit to get 82mm filters (if you are using them).

The Tamron's not quite the build quality of both constant aperture lens from Canon and Tokina. If you've used the Tamron 28-75, it'll resembled similar build quality. Note that the lens extends a bit when zooming out to 35mm, when zoom out, will be roughly the same height as the Canon 17-40 L.

I really don't think I have any use for the f2.8 on such a wide angle. So those figures of vignetting and soft wide open in the corners doesn't really bother me. But it's a little brighter to look through the VF at 17mm for sure.

Just so that you are aware of the largest aperture for the respective and well-used focal lengths

17 - 20mm - f2.8
24 - 28mm - f3.5
35mm - f4

Without sharpening, the corners are indeed not resolving a lot of details. There's probably a slight difference in ability to resolve details in the L versus the Tamron, but I don't quite pixel peep. As long as the overall feel of the image has got the details it needs to bring the visual experience you intended to, good enough for me.

As for distortion, you'll notice it for sure. There's quite a bit of barrel distortion, so you may be worried if you are into architecture. I was prepared to accept that until I saw my Lr4 having the Tamron lens profile! 1 click and all of that's minimized. Excellent!

Sounds like I easily pleased? Hahaha ... So all in all, it's really a budget FF Wide angle Lens, which in my opinion after several hours of playing with the images it produced on the 5D, I would say value for the money you pay it for.

Pros
- Sharp in the center [Landscape apertures]
- Relatively small in size (dimensions)
- Relatively light, and I don't mind body heavier than lens
- 77mm filter thread so I can use all my filter adapters, filters, CPL etc that I already had
- Seems a little (just a tiny weeny little bit) wider on this lens than the 17-40 L (i may hallucinating)

Cons
- Quite a bit of Vignetting that's still evident in small apertures (can be corrected)
- Quite a bit of Barrel Distortion (can be corrected in LR 4)
- Plasticky feel (I don't really care at this price)

Here's a test subject (again) from my study window and I did some usual PP (includes sharpening, resizing) -



And here's 1 review way back in time ... click here.

[avsquare]

The SP AF 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di LD is also an alternative option even though it has been discontinued.

The sigma 12-24 is way above $700 unless 2nd hand which might cost a bit more than that. When i got mine new around 3 years back, was $1312. Dunno abt the pricing now as the new version II is coming.

Ver 2 is between 1.1k to 1.2k for local set.

[Snoweagle]

Ver 2 is between 1.1k to 1.2k for local set.

It's around $1.2K+ new.

[Snoweagle]

Anyway just to share a couple of my pics taken from my recent HK trip using just the Sigma 12-24.

[hjbyeo]

Above budget le.. 1.2k. Better to use the money on L primes? 12mm is really wide, and in my opinion, can be really useful in tight areas.

[Snoweagle]

Above budget le.. 1.2k. Better to use the money on L primes? 12mm is really wide, and in my opinion, can be really useful in tight areas.

Only the first and last pic is taken at 12mm. The 2nd pic is at 24mm.