I can't decide on a wide angle..

[AdrianVall]

I'm having some troubles on making a decision on purchasing a good wide angle lens, wether it be prime or zoom.

Now, it will be going on a 1D, which has a 1.3x censor as you all probaly already know. I will be photographing landscape, and action sports (like skateboarding..)

Now, I would love to have a 16-35 f/2.8, but its a tad out of my budget. Any suggestions anyone?

Thanks ahead of time..

Cheers,
Adrian

[Keith]

For the price a 17-40L is a nice lens, you can pick they up used in mint condition for $500.00 I actually sold mine a while back only to move to the 24-70mm f2.8 as I dont require as wide and if I do, I now do panos :D

I'm having some troubles on making a decision on purchasing a good wide angle lens, wether it be prime or zoom.

Now, it will be going on a 1D, which has a 1.3x censor as you all probaly already know. I will be photographing landscape, and action sports (like skateboarding..)

Now, I would love to have a 16-35 f/2.8, but its a tad out of my budget. Any suggestions anyone?

Thanks ahead of time..

Cheers,
Adrian

[Rudi]

What Keith said. The 17-40L is the next best thing if you can't stretch to the 16-35L. And it's not like you are settling for second best, the 17-40L is a very nice lens, just not as fast as the 16-35L.

[Jeff JTPhoto]

I agree with Keith and Rudi 17-40L..

[Harv]

I would also agree with the other posters on the 17-40L. I own one and love it. It's a great lens and is a bargain at the price. I also have another lens that in my opinion is worth considering... the 24-105 f/4L IS. I don't know what you need for skateboarding, but this lens has a bit more going for it on the long end at 105mm. It also had IS which I have come to depend on in low light. The downside is that it's about double the price of the 17-40L. Both are great lenses.

[Paul S]

The 17-40L has a reputation for rectilinear distortion. I've had mine for over a year, and have only one or two shots where that distortion is visible (to my eyes, anyway). I don't think it's a major problem, but if you do any architectural work, it may become a problem. If you don't, you will be very happy with the 17-40.

-Paul

[imageswest]

The 17-40L has a reputation for rectilinear distortion. I've had mine for over a year, and have only one or two shots where that distortion is visible (to my eyes, anyway). I don't think it's a major problem, but if you do any architectural work, it may become a problem. If you don't, you will be very happy with the 17-40.

-Paul



The lens's optical shortcomings probably won't be as evident on the cropped sensor. It's a great lens for the price; I will probably be picking up another one.

[Paul S]

The lens's optical shortcomings probably won't be as evident on the cropped sensor. It's a great lens for the price; I will probably be picking up another one.

I agree they'll be less evident. But here's a shot from a 20D:

http://www3.telus.net/avrsvr/450/D20060210_022.jpg

There's some definite curvature of lines that should be straight. But let me make it clear: this is the only shot I have ever taken with this lens where distortion is obvious. I like this lens and have no desire to upgrade it. And I'd certainly recommend it to anyone who isn't doing architectural work. (Of course, this distortion is probably correctable digitally.) For architecture, though, I wouldn't recommend the 16-35 either--I'd go straight to the TS lenses!

-Paul

[Roger]

I'm having some troubles on making a decision on purchasing a good wide angle lens, wether it be prime or zoom.

Now, it will be going on a 1D, which has a 1.3x censor as you all probaly already know. I will be photographing landscape, and action sports (like skateboarding..)

Now, I would love to have a 16-35 f/2.8, but its a tad out of my budget. Any suggestions anyone?

Thanks ahead of time..

Cheers,
Adrian

If money was no object, I would go with a Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye , a Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L and a Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8.

The reason being that they allow for some fantastic image quality, and suburb use for landscapes. Maybe toss in the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for a good normal lens.

For a budget go with the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8, Canon EF 35mm f/2, and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II ( which you have ), add the Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye if you have extra cash.

[gluwater]

If money was no object, I would go with a Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye , a Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L and a Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8.

The reason being that they allow for some fantastic image quality, and suburb use for landscapes. Maybe toss in the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for a good normal lens.

For a budget go with the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8, Canon EF 35mm f/2, and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II ( which you have ), add the Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye if you have extra cash.
With all due respect Roger, have you ever used any of those lenses that you are recomending someone else buy? Primes are usually higher quality but I have found, especially on the wide end, that a zoom is much more versatile. I also have the 17-40 and it is a great lens that I would suggest to anyone.

[Rudi]

Not to mention that 24mm is not very wide on a crop sensor - 31mm on a 1.3x 1D. ;(