Wide angle zoom for 7D ii?

[AdamK]

Big European holiday coming up. I'm upgrading my 40D to the 7D mkii and want to get a wide angle zoom lens for shooting some of the Euro landscapes.
Apart from the very expensive 11-24 F4 which lens would you recommend for best image quality?
(my walk around lens is the 17-55 F2.8)

thanks for your advice.

Adam.

[Warbler]

Canon EF-S 10-22 perhaps.

[Mary Anne]

Why not the one you already have, its a beautiful lens that Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 I used it on my 40D all the time, that lens was make for a cropped sensor camera.
I have not tried it on my 7D2 yet as I bought that camera for Wildlife.. I use my FF camera for Landscapes when I shoot any, so not much help there.

Sigma make a few UWA lenses https://sigmaphoto.com.au/lenses?field_typical_photography_value=2 cannot remember which one is favoured by Members here, and there is always the Canon mentioned above

[yummymummy]

Depends on how wide you want, sigma 10-20 is a great lens, and it's cheap.

[AdamK]

Hey guys,
I'll be using the 17-55 still but I want something wider.
The 10-22 EF-S is an obvious option but is it the best of that bunch? Happy to pay the right money for the best lens without going stupid over $1500.
Thinking of capturing the view from top of Slovenias tallest mountain up in the alps next month.

[JJM]

From what I read when I was looking before I moved to FF the sigma 10-22 was reported to be sharper than the canon and the better option.

[arthurking83]

Depends on how wide you want, sigma 10-20 is a great lens, and it's cheap.

:th3:

get the f/4-5.6 version instead of the faster f/3.5 model.

Cheap, light, small and very good IQ.

The other thing I've been lead to believe with the Canon 10-22 .. at 10mm you may get vignetting if you don't use a thin ring CPL.
High quality ultra slim CPLs cost a lot more money than the std versions of the same quality CPL glass.
With the Siggy 10-20(4-5.6 version!) a std CPL will not vignette at 10mm.

While many people may frown upon using a CPL at an UWA focal length of 10mm .. there really is nothing wrong with doing so in a lot of situations.
What CAN happen with using a CPL at such short focal lengths is that it may render unevenly blue skies when the sun is at a particular angle relative to the lens.(you see this a a darker blue patch in a plain blue sky).


The other alternative to consider is not spending any money on a new lens at all, and instead using your current lens(which has a good reputation) and learning to do panorama/stitching.
So maybe the money otherwise spent on a lens(Sigma 10-20 can be had for ~$400) could be spent on other stuff such as a good tripod(if you don't already have one) or some accessories for doing panorama/stitching.

[yummymummy]

:th3:

get the f/4-5.6 version instead of the faster f/3.5 model.

Cheap, light, small and very good IQ.

The other thing I've been lead to believe with the Canon 10-22 .. at 10mm you may get vignetting if you don't use a thin ring CPL.
High quality ultra slim CPLs cost a lot more money than the std versions of the same quality CPL glass.
With the Siggy 10-20(4-5.6 version!) a std CPL will not vignette at 10mm.

While many people may frown upon using a CPL at an UWA focal length of 10mm .. there really is nothing wrong with doing so in a lot of situations.
What CAN happen with using a CPL at such short focal lengths is that it may render unevenly blue skies when the sun is at a particular angle relative to the lens.(you see this a a darker blue patch in a plain blue sky).


The other alternative to consider is not spending any money on a new lens at all, and instead using your current lens(which has a good reputation) and learning to do panorama/stitching.
So maybe the money otherwise spent on a lens(Sigma 10-20 can be had for ~$400) could be spent on other stuff such as a good tripod(if you don't already have one) or some accessories for doing panorama/stitching.

yep... what Arthur said ^^^ ;)

[AdamK]

Thanks guys.
already have tripod! Stitching sounds interesting, but I'm definitely going to buy an ultra wide angle lens anyway. Problem is picking best one. Many conflicting opinions online.

[phild]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Ef-S 10-18 F4.5-5.6 IS STM, cheaper than the 10-22, reported to be as sharp or sharper with the added bonus of Image Stabilisation. If there's a downside to the 10-18 it's the plastic mount, but that's no big deal IMO.

Review and comparison with the 10-22 here http://www.camerastuffreview.com/canon-lens-review/canon-10-18-vs-10-22

All the reviews I've read have been favourable, most report it as being sharper than the 10-22 and even the 16-35L.

Typical pricing for Australian stock for the 10-22 is just over $800, the 10-18 is less than half that at $397.

[Morgo]

I had a Tokina 11-16 when I had my 7D and it was a very nice lens and worked quite well. The main reason I went with it was because it was also a F2.8 lens so great for Astro shots as well.

[bricat]

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee167/bricat101/IMG_3438.jpg (http://s235.photobucket.com/user/bricat101/media/IMG_3438.jpg.html)


I just got mine and this is the first shot showing wide angle. Tiled room is 10' by 12'.


http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee167/bricat101/IMG_3437.jpg (http://s235.photobucket.com/user/bricat101/media/IMG_3437.jpg.html)


Standing on footpath

[bricat]

I should have said 10-22 canon. Got called away before I could finish. cheers Brian

[wideangle]

You mentioned you want wide angle, so in my mind the 17-55mm isn't that wide as 17mm on a crop sensor is around 27mm. I would go and check out the Canon 10-22mm its a fantasic lens and well built and the IQ is wonderful. The next choice in terms of price point would be the Sigma 10-20mm and do check out the new Canon 10-18mm lens, its got IS, its mount may be plastic but its around half the price of the 10-22mm.

[AdamK]

Thanks for ur inputs people. Leaning towards the Canon 10-22. Or 10-18 with one of the pancakes.

[Mark L]

Is IS needed at these focal lengths?

[bricat]

It maybe not needed but certainly helps when your technique is not up to scratch. Or you are getting older? cheers Brian

[wideangle]

Totally helps when you want to get creative in interior areas where you are shooting say at 10mm (16mm) and you can handhold for 1 second at IS0100 for example, which would be very hard without IS and would mean bumping up ISO

[AdamK]

So does the benefit of IS on the 10-18 f4.5-5.6 outweigh the faster 10-22 f3.5-4.5?

[arthurking83]

So does the benefit of IS on the 10-18 f4.5-5.6 outweigh the faster 10-22 f3.5-4.5?

I think it would(or could) in most situations.

Faster aperture on an UWA lens is really only any good for the possibility of capturing 'more light'.
In terms of DOF control, at very small focal lengths a very slight increase in maximum aperture won't give you all that much more background blur.

i.e. say you have a 10mm f/2.8 which can obviously be set to f/4 if needed.
Shooting this lens at f/2.8 or f/4 won't really give you a lot of difference in background blur between those two aperture values. If this lens was say an f/1.4(instead of f/2.8) then you would obviously see a lot more background blur at f/1.4.

So in the situation of the above two mentioned lenses ... the less than 1 stop difference in max aperture gives you less than one stop difference in hand holdability .. for example in some situations where a tripod may not be allowed into some location you want to shoot in.
Most IS systems give you approximately 3 stops of noticeable advantage in hand holdability .. so in the above scenario .. the better lens would be the one with IS, if there is a possible situation where light is at a premium.

Of course you want to get the best possible image quality at all times, and you'd use a tripod where appropriate .. etc. But this is not always practical. The IS lens would be the better option of the two here.

In saying that tho, another perspective on this aperture vs IS equation, is that there are some situations where the faster aperture is the advantage.
Such a scenario could be where you are shooting moving subjects(lets say for arguments sake people).
In a situation where the subject may be moving, the faster aperture is more of an advantage, as it allows you to shoot a faster shutter speed compared to that available with the slower aperture but IS capable lens.
IS is not useful in such circumstances, as while it offers the shooter some advantage in minimising camera shake .. it doesn't help at all with subject movement.

So you'd have to weigh up the number of times you find yourself shooting in one situation compared to any of the others.

FWIW tho, it's rare to use an UWA lens to shoot fast moving subjects from close enough to make subject movement an issue.
It's not that this has never been done .. ever!
I once shot enthusiast level karts from about 0.5 - 1 meter away as they zoomed past me at about 80-100k/h .. all at 10mm! :D

[AdamK]

Thanks. Makes sense.

[William W]

So does the benefit of IS on the 10-18 f4.5-5.6 outweigh the faster 10-22 f3.5-4.5?

Yes, especially on a 7DMkII and for a trip to Europe.

> It is only 2/3 Stop difference and the 7DMkII will eat that in High Quality ISO for Subject Motion Stopping;

> There is no practical difference in Aperture for Shallow DoF control;

> Although the OP mentioned Landscapes, Europe is jam packed with buildings having magnificent interiors, but many do not allow Tripods, Monopods or Flash Photography;

> For Landscapes at night-time, there are some vantage points which do not allow Tripods or Monopods.

IS at the wide angle view will allow the OP many more Hand Held photographic opportunities than he would otherwise have open to him:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/16781841-md.jpg

24mm with IS on 5D Series Camera HH @ about 1/13th second, Available Light

*

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17901786-md.jpg

24mm with IS on 5D Series Camera HH @ about 1 second, Available Light

WW

[Allan Ryan]

i don't have a wide lens but the review site i often go to has a comparison of several of the lenses.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-18mm-f-4.5-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

[arthurking83]

Going on the link Allan posted, the overall IQ of the 10-18 IS lens has a very slight advantage over the 10-22 lens.

BUT!! don't take this a a given.
The real advantage of the 10-18 IS appears to be predominantly at the 10mm end and what can only be described as close in.

You should be aware that while these lens tests/comparisons are handy to have access too, they all seem to be predominantly centred around shooting test targets under controlled conditions.
This usually means "indoors, under controlled lighting .. and close up to the subject being captured"
They very rarely display infinity focused images under controlled conditions!
Therefore there is a possibility that while the 10-18IS lens shows an IQ advantage over the 10-22 in this comparison, in actual shooting(where most UWA lenses are focused to infinity .. the results may not be the same)!

In saying that tho, it's unlikely that the 10-18IS lens focused to infinity will be worse than the 10-22 lens focused to infinity also.

If your main intention tho is to shoot at 10mm, then going by the test images presented in that link .. the 10-18IS is definitely the better lens.
(another!!) BUT! .. also look at the longer focal length images.
At 12mm you could describe the differences as pretty much negligible .. with a very slight advantage to the 10-22 lens.
At all focal lengths from 14 and up, the 10-22 seems to have a bit more of an advantage(mainly the rendering detail in the corners of the frame).

So if absolute IQ across all focal lengths is your primary concern, then going by the test results shown in that link .. the 10-22 is probably the better lens.
Remember tho that those test images are all shot under controlled conditions, which means that a sturdy tripod will have been used(as well as mirrorlockup/exposure delay too).

For your circumstances, you will probably take into account that you may not always be shooting with the assistance of a tripod, with mirror lockup/exposure delay .. etc, etc .. so that any possibility that something( like an event, a precondition, or natural phenomenon) will conspire against you, WILL do so .. just to ruin your images.
If you take that into account .. even tho the 10-22 lens has better IQ over a wider range of focal lengths .. I still think the IS of the 10-18 lens makes it the better choice.

[AdamK]

Great replies. Thanks for your inputs. 10-18 incoming....