Sigma 12-24 or Canon 17-40 as wide angle lens for a 10D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bastian Bauwens, Dec 3, 2003.

  1. Hello everybody!

    I am a absolute beginner in SLR photography and have just purchased
    the Canon EOS 10D and the Canon 28-135 IS lens as my first lens.

    Now I need to get another wide-angle lens because of the 1.6 crop
    factor. I first thought of the new Sigma 12-24mm lens because it would
    give me 19-38mm effective, but now also the Canon 17-40mm came to my
    mind because of its more common range, especially when the 1.6 crop
    factor will not be there anymore in the future. I know that the
    effective focal length ranges are quite different, and that's what
    also makes it difficult to choose one.

    My main goal is to make landscape pictures with this lens when
    travelling, and I also want to use it in cities. I know a 28mm focal
    length from my old point-and-shoot cameras and am wondering whether I
    *really* need a wider angle or not. I can only afford one lens of them
    right now.

    If anyone has any suggestions and/or personal opinions, I'd be glad to
    hear them! Do you like having a wider angle? Also, does anyone know
    what kind of filters the Sigma lens needs?

    Thanks!

    Bastian
    Bastian Bauwens, Dec 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bastian Bauwens

    DHB Guest

    Bastian,
    I'm not so certain that Canon will drop the APS sized sensor
    used in the 10D & 300D even when technology drives the cost down enough to
    replace it with a "full size" sensor for the same cost or even less.

    This is just my humble opinion but I have the 300D & was attracted to it
    by it's price & the 1.6x FOV crop factor. This is because I have more use
    for telephoto than wide angle with this type of camera & being able to use
    small, fast & reasonably inexpensive lens to meet my needs was too
    irresistible. Would you believe that I now take most of my existing / low
    light pictures with a $70 Canon 50mm f1.8 lens? It's true & yes I would
    have rather have the f1.4 but could not afford or justify the $230 USD extra
    for it. When I can afford another lens it's likely to be the Canon 28-135mm
    IS lens that you now have which I will add to my small collection of lenses.

    A fast reasonably small (size) prime with IS, 200mm or even 300mm would
    also be nice since it would effectively be a 320mm or 480mm lens
    respectively! Guess it does not take a lot to satisfy me. Sure Canon "L"
    glass would be nice but we don't all have the same deep pockets, as much
    need for the best glass or wide angle photography with a DSLR as others do.
    Thus I am hoping that the APS size sensor is here to stay & hopefully I am
    not alone. Sure I would love to see a 12MB or maybe higher MP APS size
    sensor be released @ the sub $1,000 USD price point but until then I am
    living & purchasing for what is here NOW!

    Even if Canon introduce a camera with a full sized sensor that could
    produce equal quality pictures as the 300D & offered me an even trade-in for
    my 300D, I would pass & keep my 300D, all other factors being equal that is!

    Just my opinion for whatever value it may have.

    Respectfully, DHB

    "Bastian Bauwens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello everybody!
    >
    > I am a absolute beginner in SLR photography and have just purchased
    > the Canon EOS 10D and the Canon 28-135 IS lens as my first lens.
    >
    > Now I need to get another wide-angle lens because of the 1.6 crop
    > factor. I first thought of the new Sigma 12-24mm lens because it would
    > give me 19-38mm effective, but now also the Canon 17-40mm came to my
    > mind because of its more common range, especially when the 1.6 crop
    > factor will not be there anymore in the future. I know that the
    > effective focal length ranges are quite different, and that's what
    > also makes it difficult to choose one.
    >
    > My main goal is to make landscape pictures with this lens when
    > travelling, and I also want to use it in cities. I know a 28mm focal
    > length from my old point-and-shoot cameras and am wondering whether I
    > *really* need a wider angle or not. I can only afford one lens of them
    > right now.
    >
    > If anyone has any suggestions and/or personal opinions, I'd be glad to
    > hear them! Do you like having a wider angle? Also, does anyone know
    > what kind of filters the Sigma lens needs?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > Bastian
    DHB, Dec 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bastian Bauwens

    Dave Oddie Guest

    On 3 Dec 2003 06:53:24 -0800, (Bastian Bauwens) wrote:

    >I am a absolute beginner in SLR photography and have just purchased
    >the Canon EOS 10D and the Canon 28-135 IS lens as my first lens.
    >
    >Now I need to get another wide-angle lens because of the 1.6 crop
    >factor. I first thought of the new Sigma 12-24mm lens because it would
    >give me 19-38mm effective, but now also the Canon 17-40mm came to my
    >mind because of its more common range, especially when the 1.6 crop
    >factor will not be there anymore in the future.


    You don't know that for sure. The 1.6 could be around a long time with Canon
    producing lenses to match it (the 18-55 for the 300D only and the 55-200 to sit
    alongside).

    Put it this way I can't see it going away in a two to three year time frame and
    I assume you won't want to ditch the 10D in so short a time anyway?

    > I know that the
    >effective focal length ranges are quite different, and that's what
    >also makes it difficult to choose one.


    The 17-40 overlaps a lot with your 28-135. You are paying for a 17-28 lens in
    effect.

    I love super-wide angle and you just can't get the perspective of or aspect of
    a super-wide by stitching a couple of photos together.

    So it goes without saying I would go with the 12-24 option.

    If you want a "standard zoom" Sigma have just come out with a 18-50 lens which
    would be a 29-80 zoom on the 10D. I have seen it advertised as a cheaper
    alternative to the Canon 18-55 that only fits the 300D. I don't know if it
    fits the 10D or not but if you want a "standard" zoom it may be worth a look.

    If I were starting a 10D outfit from scratch the 18-50 would be my first lens
    because of the focal length range (if it fits). If it does fit, it makes you
    wonder what Canon are playing at with the 18-55 not being comparable with the
    10D.

    Sigma do a 55-200 as well so that would take care of the telephoto and the
    12-24 the wide-angle. Sorted.

    It seems to me (assuming all these Sigma lenses fit the 10D) Sigma are
    producing lenses that Canon ought to be producing instead of expecting people
    to put up with compromises such as the 17-40 which gives an inadequate 64mm
    equivalent at the tele-end.

    I am sure people only buy this lens because there is nothing else remotely like
    a "standard" zoom available that will fit the 10D. Maybe Sigma with the 18-50
    have filled a niche Canon have neglected.

    >
    >My main goal is to make landscape pictures with this lens when
    >travelling, and I also want to use it in cities. I know a 28mm focal
    >length from my old point-and-shoot cameras and am wondering whether I
    >*really* need a wider angle or not. I can only afford one lens of them
    >right now.


    Since you are now in the SLR league why not push the envelope a bit and aspire
    to something beyond the capabilities you were used to before?

    Just because you were/are familiar with 28mm is no reason not to go exploring
    what you can do with a 19mm.

    >If anyone has any suggestions and/or personal opinions, I'd be glad to
    >hear them! Do you like having a wider angle?


    Yes.

    > Also, does anyone know
    >what kind of filters the Sigma lens needs?


    No.

    Dave
    Dave Oddie, Dec 3, 2003
    #3
  4. Bastian Bauwens

    NJH Guest

    "Bastian Bauwens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello everybody!
    >
    > I am a absolute beginner in SLR photography and have just purchased
    > the Canon EOS 10D and the Canon 28-135 IS lens as my first lens.
    >
    > Now I need to get another wide-angle lens because of the 1.6 crop
    > factor. I first thought of the new Sigma 12-24mm lens because it would
    > give me 19-38mm effective, but now also the Canon 17-40mm came to my
    > mind because of its more common range, especially when the 1.6 crop
    > factor will not be there anymore in the future.


    How do you know that, though?

    It may be that even though 24 x 36 sensors come along, the smaller sensors
    now common in digital SLRs will remain optimal. Since SLR manufacturers such
    as Canon are already producing shorter focal length lenses to accommodate
    the smaller sensor (and it seems unlikely that these lenses can cover the
    full 35mm frame), if they were to go to a full-35 sized sensor it would
    obsolete the new lenses they are currently marketing. This seems unlikely to
    me.


    > I know that the
    > effective focal length ranges are quite different, and that's what
    > also makes it difficult to choose one.
    >
    > My main goal is to make landscape pictures with this lens when
    > travelling, and I also want to use it in cities. I know a 28mm focal
    > length from my old point-and-shoot cameras and am wondering whether I
    > *really* need a wider angle or not. I can only afford one lens of them
    > right now.


    That's a question of personal taste. I happen to like ultra-wide lenses (and
    fisheyes too for that matter), and in fact that's the one area in which
    digital cameras have, up until recently, seemed deficient to me. But many
    other people don't seem to want anything wider than 28mm or even 35mm on a
    35, or the equivalent on a digital.


    >
    > If anyone has any suggestions and/or personal opinions, I'd be glad to
    > hear them! Do you like having a wider angle? Also, does anyone know
    > what kind of filters the Sigma lens needs?


    I very much like having a 17-35mm on a 35, and wish I could have that on any
    of my digitals. As to what *you* will like, only you can say. If a 28mm has
    been wide enough for you on a 35, you probably won't need anything wider
    than that on a digital camera. Or anyway when and if you do, you will know.

    Neil
    NJH, Dec 3, 2003
    #4
  5. Bastian Bauwens

    Steve Dell Guest

    Check out the Sigma 15-30 as another alternative. That, along with my 28-135
    IS from Canon are currently in my bag with the 10D.

    Steve
    "Bastian Bauwens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello everybody!
    >
    > I am a absolute beginner in SLR photography and have just purchased
    > the Canon EOS 10D and the Canon 28-135 IS lens as my first lens.
    >
    > Now I need to get another wide-angle lens because of the 1.6 crop
    > factor. I first thought of the new Sigma 12-24mm lens because it would
    > give me 19-38mm effective, but now also the Canon 17-40mm came to my
    > mind because of its more common range, especially when the 1.6 crop
    > factor will not be there anymore in the future. I know that the
    > effective focal length ranges are quite different, and that's what
    > also makes it difficult to choose one.
    >
    > My main goal is to make landscape pictures with this lens when
    > travelling, and I also want to use it in cities. I know a 28mm focal
    > length from my old point-and-shoot cameras and am wondering whether I
    > *really* need a wider angle or not. I can only afford one lens of them
    > right now.
    >
    > If anyone has any suggestions and/or personal opinions, I'd be glad to
    > hear them! Do you like having a wider angle? Also, does anyone know
    > what kind of filters the Sigma lens needs?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > Bastian
    Steve Dell, Jan 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Bastian Bauwens

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    > > If anyone has any suggestions and/or personal opinions, I'd be glad to
    > > hear them! Do you like having a wider angle? Also, does anyone know
    > > what kind of filters the Sigma lens needs?


    Both the 12-24 and 15-30 Sigma lenses use rear slip in gels.

    IOW no front filters.

    You'll be happy with either lens, BUT the 12 is W - I - D - E - R!!!!!

    Best, Dan Sullivan
    Dan Sullivan, Jan 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Bastian Bauwens

    dslr Guest

    Dan Sullivan wrote:
    >
    > > > If anyone has any suggestions and/or personal opinions, I'd be glad to
    > > > hear them! Do you like having a wider angle? Also, does anyone know
    > > > what kind of filters the Sigma lens needs?

    >
    > Both the 12-24 and 15-30 Sigma lenses use rear slip in gels.
    >
    > IOW no front filters.
    >


    With a little ingenuity you can use front filters on the 12-24 with a
    1.6x crop camera, Cokin P-series no less, not the more expensive bigger
    ones.

    --
    regards,
    dslr
    dslr, Jan 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Bastian Bauwens

    Steve Dell Guest

    Understood but it was not available when I purchased the 15-30.

    Steve

    > You'll be happy with either lens, BUT the 12 is W - I - D - E - R!!!!!
    Steve Dell, Jan 3, 2004
    #8
  9. Bastian Bauwens

    Lara H Guest

    In article <>, "Steve Dell"
    <stevedellatcomcastdotnet> wrote:

    > Understood but it was not available when I purchased the 15-30.
    >
    > Steve
    >
    > > You'll be happy with either lens, BUT the 12 is W - I - D - E - R!!!!!


    The 12-24 has not gotten rave reviews. I was trying to make the same
    decision, read some stuff, looked at some samples and chose the Canon.
    Absolutely fabulous lens!

    Check out
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/showphoto.php?photo=9678&papass=&sort=1&thecat=3356

    lara

    --
    http://www.digitalstoryteller.com/BTV00/hartley/index.shtml
    Photographer - editor - writer
    Lara H, Jan 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Bastian Bauwens

    dslr Guest

    Lara H wrote:
    >
    > In article <>, "Steve Dell"
    > <stevedellatcomcastdotnet> wrote:
    >
    > > Understood but it was not available when I purchased the 15-30.
    > >
    > > Steve
    > >
    > > > You'll be happy with either lens, BUT the 12 is W - I - D - E - R!!!!!

    >
    > The 12-24 has not gotten rave reviews. I was trying to make the same
    > decision, read some stuff, looked at some samples and chose the Canon.
    > Absolutely fabulous lens!
    >


    A lot of those reviews and samples haven't been done by people who know
    how to use a UWA properly - no disrespect intended, but it's not as easy
    as just press, focus, click. More thought is needed than with longer
    lenses.
    Have a look at;
    http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html

    --
    regards,
    dslr
    dslr, Jan 4, 2004
    #10
  11. "Dan Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:VffJb.46696$...
    > > > If anyone has any suggestions and/or personal opinions, I'd be glad to
    > > > hear them! Do you like having a wider angle? Also, does anyone know
    > > > what kind of filters the Sigma lens needs?

    >
    > Both the 12-24 and 15-30 Sigma lenses use rear slip in gels.
    >
    > IOW no front filters.


    The 15-30 EX front pedal cover is threaded for 82mm and it works fine at
    15mm with a crop factor.

    > You'll be happy with either lens, BUT the 12 is W - I - D - E - R!!!!!


    The 15-30 EX is a fantastic lens, though.
    George Preddy, Jan 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Bastian Bauwens

    Lara H Guest

    In article <>, dslr
    <> wrote:

    > Lara H wrote:
    > >
    > > In article <>, "Steve Dell"
    > > <stevedellatcomcastdotnet> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Understood but it was not available when I purchased the 15-30.
    > > >
    > > > Steve
    > > >
    > > > > You'll be happy with either lens, BUT the 12 is W - I - D - E - R!!!!!

    > >
    > > The 12-24 has not gotten rave reviews. I was trying to make the same
    > > decision, read some stuff, looked at some samples and chose the Canon.
    > > Absolutely fabulous lens!
    > >

    >
    > A lot of those reviews and samples haven't been done by people who know
    > how to use a UWA properly - no disrespect intended, but it's not as easy
    > as just press, focus, click. More thought is needed than with longer
    > lenses.
    > Have a look at;
    >

    http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html

    These images do not do anything for me. The lack of sharpness is apparent
    in the corners. I prefer my lenses to be sharp all over, even wide open.
    The snow shot is useless as far as determining any sharpness, except for
    the lower left corner where it is soft. A soft lens with no front filter
    versus a sharp lens with filter capability...no brainer! :)

    I figure that if I am on a job where I need a super wide, more than I can
    get with the 17-40 on the 10D, I'll shoot FILM! As it is now, I often need
    a wide-angle in low-light situations so sharpness at all f-stops is
    crucial.

    Thanks for the link.

    Lara

    --
    http://www.digitalstoryteller.com/BTV00/hartley/index.shtml
    Photographer - editor - writer
    Lara H, Jan 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Bastian Bauwens

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    dslr wrote:

    > With a little ingenuity you can use front filters on the 12-24 with a
    > 1.6x crop camera, Cokin P-series no less, not the more expensive
    > bigger ones.


    Even better, you can SIMULATE just about any filter with Photoshop.
    Paolo Pizzi, Jan 5, 2004
    #13
  14. Bastian Bauwens

    Bo Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:23:21 GMT, Paolo Pizzi wrote:

    > dslr wrote:
    >
    >> With a little ingenuity you can use front filters on the 12-24 with a
    >> 1.6x crop camera, Cokin P-series no less, not the more expensive
    >> bigger ones.

    >
    > Even better, you can SIMULATE just about any filter with Photoshop.


    Except for the most important ones, the ND filters and Polarizers.
    Bo Stevens, Jan 5, 2004
    #14
  15. Bastian Bauwens

    Lara H Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    > On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:23:21 GMT, Paolo Pizzi wrote:
    >
    > > dslr wrote:
    > >
    > >> With a little ingenuity you can use front filters on the 12-24 with a
    > >> 1.6x crop camera, Cokin P-series no less, not the more expensive
    > >> bigger ones.

    > >
    > > Even better, you can SIMULATE just about any filter with Photoshop.

    >
    > Except for the most important ones, the ND filters and Polarizers.


    Exactly! Photoshop is a finishing tool in my book, like the darkroom in my
    olden days. One has to have to best possible image coming out of the
    camera and not try to "fix" it in post production.

    lara

    --
    http://www.digitalstoryteller.com/BTV00/hartley/index.shtml
    Photographer - editor - writer
    Lara H, Jan 5, 2004
    #15
  16. Bastian Bauwens

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Lara H wrote:

    > Exactly! Photoshop is a finishing tool in my book, like the darkroom
    > in my olden days. One has to have to best possible image coming out
    > of the camera and not try to "fix" it in post production.


    If I showed you an image taken with a soft filter (say 85) and
    one in which a "virtual" filter was added in PS, would you be
    able to tell the difference? Too many pros have flunked this
    test --including my own brother-- over the years and most of
    them now swear by PS.

    Adding a virtual filter does not imply "fixing" anything.
    Whether you add it before or after, it makes no difference
    whatsoever.
    Paolo Pizzi, Jan 5, 2004
    #16
  17. Bastian Bauwens

    Lara H Guest

    In article <607Kb.6260$>, "Paolo Pizzi"
    <> wrote:

    > Lara H wrote:
    >
    > > Exactly! Photoshop is a finishing tool in my book, like the darkroom
    > > in my olden days. One has to have to best possible image coming out
    > > of the camera and not try to "fix" it in post production.

    >
    > If I showed you an image taken with a soft filter (say 85) and
    > one in which a "virtual" filter was added in PS, would you be
    > able to tell the difference? Too many pros have flunked this
    > test --including my own brother-- over the years and most of
    > them now swear by PS.
    >
    > Adding a virtual filter does not imply "fixing" anything.
    > Whether you add it before or after, it makes no difference
    > whatsoever.


    yes it does. How light comes through the lens I do not think can be
    replicated in Photoshop, and I have been using it since version 3!

    It is like one guy told me he could make the exact same soft image in the
    darkroom by using a nylon stocking between the enlarger and the
    print....that could be made by using a soft filter or vaseline on the lens
    in the shooting process.

    The nylon could make the soft image, but it couldn't replicate the way
    light was bent by the filter. Highlights were totally different.

    But I am not opposed to learning something new so show me the two images!

    lara

    --
    http://www.digitalstoryteller.com/BTV00/hartley/index.shtml
    Photographer - editor - writer
    Lara H, Jan 5, 2004
    #17
  18. Bastian Bauwens

    JIM Guest

    "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote in message
    news:607Kb.6260$...
    > If I showed you an image taken with a soft filter (say 85) and
    > one in which a "virtual" filter was added in PS, would you be
    > able to tell the difference? Too many pros have flunked this
    > test --including my own brother-- over the years and most of
    > them now swear by PS.
    >
    > Adding a virtual filter does not imply "fixing" anything.
    > Whether you add it before or after, it makes no difference
    > whatsoever.


    Doubt those "pro" types did much of their soft filter work with any of the
    Zeiss softars, and replicating their effect in PS would be a labor intensive
    nightmare, if possible at all - now those vaseline/silk stocking/soft
    focus/fx shooters probably can duplicate all that with the clik of the blur
    filter in PS and be overwhelmed at the marvelous results. 'Course, you wont
    find those softars available for the price of a jar of vaseline either.

    Jim

    Shoot'em up, or just plug in PS, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest will
    love you for it!!
    JIM, Jan 5, 2004
    #18
  19. Bastian Bauwens

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Lara H wrote:

    >> Adding a virtual filter does not imply "fixing" anything.
    >> Whether you add it before or after, it makes no difference
    >> whatsoever.

    >
    > yes it does. How light comes through the lens I do not think can be
    > replicated in Photoshop, and I have been using it since version 3!


    I'm not talking about a plug-in you select from the "filter" menu.
    Let's see first if you know what I'm talking about...

    > But I am not opposed to learning something new so show me the two
    > images!


    First show me if you know what I'm talking about and if you have actually
    tried it and then I'll show you the two images.

    Lots of photographers have lots of prejudices they should get rid of...
    Paolo Pizzi, Jan 5, 2004
    #19
  20. Bastian Bauwens

    john chapman Guest

    My understanding is that on lenses wider than about 20mm polarizers
    give very uneven results across the image because of the light
    gathering angle of the super wide lenses. The closer the light path
    is to the perpendicular of the plane of the polarizer the more
    consistent the results. Clearly, the light paths with super wides is
    far off the perpendicular. Bottom line is that with super wides one
    probably is better off not using a polarizer.

    Bo Stevens <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:23:21 GMT, Paolo Pizzi wrote:
    >
    > > dslr wrote:
    > >
    > >> With a little ingenuity you can use front filters on the 12-24 with a
    > >> 1.6x crop camera, Cokin P-series no less, not the more expensive
    > >> bigger ones.

    > >
    > > Even better, you can SIMULATE just about any filter with Photoshop.

    >
    > Except for the most important ones, the ND filters and Polarizers.
    john chapman, Jan 5, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Other Si

    Question from a new 10D owner - Wide angle lens

    The Other Si, Sep 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    412
    Brad Templeton
    Sep 16, 2003
  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Which wide angle for Canon 300D - Tokina or Sigma

    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    316
    Dimitris M
    Nov 8, 2005
  3. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    720
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  4. Einst Stein

    Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter

    Einst Stein, Oct 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,608
    Bo-Ming Tong
    Dec 13, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    864
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page