Which Canon Wide Angle Lens?

[Becosh]

My husband and I want to purchase our first wide angle lens. We have a Canon Rebel XSi and we are both advanced amateurs. We are about to go on a trip to North Carolina so we thought this would be a great time to purchase the wide angle lens.

We are trying to decide between the EF 24mm f/2.8 and the EF 17-40mm f/4 USM. The 24mm is more in our budget at this time but we would be willing to splurge if the 17-40mm was significantly better.

What do you guys think? Is the 17-40mm worth splurging on?

[OsmosisStudios]

Remember that both those lenses are designed for full-frame and are therefore nowhere near as wide on your Rebel. Instead, look at the 10-22 or something similar.

[Becosh]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Remember that both those lenses are designed for full-frame and are therefore nowhere near as wide on your Rebel. Instead, look at the 10-22 or something similar.

Oh my gosh! I didn't even realize I needed to look at specific lenses for the Rebel. Thanks for pointing that out to me! The 10-22mm looks pretty similar to the 17-40mm. Do you know if there is anything comparable to the 24mm for the Rebel?

[Eastree]

You don't need to look for too specific lenses. The biggest difference is that your camera has sensor with a 1.6x crop. It's 1.6 times smaller than a full frame camera.

The only thing you need to be aware of is, IF you plan to eventually upgrade to a full frame camera, and want to purchase lenses now to fit the full frame camera later, that you're not buying lenses for a crap sensor camera. But that's another topic.

All the crop factor has to do with things is that it makes lenses less wide on your camera. To know the 35mm equivalent, multiply the focal length by 1.6. If you see a photograph taken on a 35mm or full frame digital camera, and you want the same width on yours, divide the focal length by 1.6.

A quick example: The 18mm kit lens (18-55mm at its widest focal length) has about the same field of view as a 28mm lens on a full frame camera. To get the same field of view 18mm would have on a full frame camera, you'd need about 10mm. It's really up to your own preferences.

Another hint: If you search for a lens on Flickr, you'll see photographs taken by that lens. Or if you search teh focal length, it should also include third party lenses.

[Becosh]

Originally Posted by Eastree

You don't need to look for too specific lenses. The biggest difference is that your camera has sensor with a 1.6x crop. It's 1.6 times smaller than a full frame camera.

The only thing you need to be aware of is, IF you plan to eventually upgrade to a full frame camera, and want to purchase lenses now to fit the full frame camera later, that you're not buying lenses for a crap sensor camera. But that's another topic.

All the crop factor has to do with things is that it makes lenses less wide on your camera. To know the 35mm equivalent, multiply the focal length by 1.6. If you see a photograph taken on a 35mm or full frame digital camera, and you want the same width on yours, divide the focal length by 1.6.

A quick example: The 18mm kit lens (18-55mm at its widest focal length) has about the same field of view as a 28mm lens on a full frame camera. To get the same field of view 18mm would have on a full frame camera, you'd need about 10mm. It's really up to your own preferences.

Another hint: If you search for a lens on Flickr, you'll see photographs taken by that lens. Or if you search teh focal length, it should also include third party lenses.

Thank you so much! This made a ton of sense to me (which is no small feat!) so thank you. I am really leaning toward the 10-22mm now that I have more information.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Becosh

We are trying to decide between the EF 24mm f/2.8 and the EF 17-40mm f/4 USM. The 24mm is more in our budget at this time but we would be willing to splurge if the 17-40mm was significantly better.

It is. It's an L lens which is professional grade; the 24/2.8 is a consumer-grade lens. It's probably also one of the cheapest of the L series, and is still reasonably wide angle on a crop body, although not an ultra-wide.

Originally Posted by Becosh

The 10-22mm looks pretty similar to the 17-40mm. Do you know if there is anything comparable to the 24mm for the Rebel?

The 10-22 isn't really much like the 17-40 on a crop body. Ultrawide vs. wide. Variable max. aperture vs. constant max. aperture. non-L vs. L. Its performance is substantially different from the 17-40 when it comes to CA control and distortion, which is to be expected of anything that wide.

As for getting a 24-on-full-frame equivalent on a crop body? The closest you could probably find is a 14mm prime, which if you're sticking in Canon lenses, is only offered as the four-figured priced EF 14mm f/2.8L USM. Canon has yet to make any EF-S primes aside from the 60mm Macro. You could go with the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 which is about $400, but it's a manual focus lens, which may not be your cup of tea.

I'd also recommend reading this article on lensrentals.com about the basics of ultrawide lenses.

[Becosh]

I think my biggest problem right now is deciding whether to get an EF or EF-S lens. While we don't plan on getting a new camera anytime soon, I would hate to buy one and not be able to use any of my current lenses! However, if I buy the 17-40mm I wouldn't be getting the same width as the 10-22 EF-S lens.

I was hoping my husband could make the decision for me but he told me he would go along with whatever I wanted. We are both so indecisive!

[inkista]

Do you already own the 18-55 kit lens? Because the 17-40 won't go much wider than that, while the 10-22 goes tons wider. If you really want to go tons wider, then the 10-22 is probably your best bet.

If you do eventually upgrade to a 5D, you can always sell the 10-22 and make back most of what you spent on it. The problem is going to be that the equivalent lens for a 5D is much much more expensive (EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM II).

[Becosh]

Originally Posted by inkista

Do you already own the 18-55 kit lens? Because the 17-40 won't go much wider than that, while the 10-22 goes tons wider. If you really want to go tons wider, then the 10-22 is probably your best bet.

If you do eventually upgrade to a 5D, you can always sell the 10-22 and make back most of what you spent on it. The problem is going to be that the equivalent lens for a 5D is much much more expensive (EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM II).

Yes, I do have the 18-55 kit lens already. I hadn't even thought of that. So the 10-22 sounds like the best lens for me right now. Thanks inkista. You have been a great help!