Ultra Wide Angle versus Kit Replacement

[edro]

Current setup:
Canon XSi + 18-55mm IS Kit
Canon 50mm 1.8
Sigma 70-300mm Cheap Zoom
430EX Flash

I am going to Europe this fall and think I need a new lens for the occasion.

The main question is, Do I get an ultra wide angle lens or a nicer kit replacement?
I would really like to stay <$600.

Ultra Wide Angle
Canon 10-22 - $720
Sigma 10-20 - $470
Tamron 10-24 - $499
Tokina 11-16 2.8 - $599

Kit Replacement
Canon 15-85 IS USM - $620 (On sale)
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM - $1080
Other?

I just returned a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 because it was very soft in almost all of my shots.
I don't know if I had a bad copy, or if I normally rely on IS so much that hand holding in low light at 2.8 was causing blur.
I have no problem with hand holding my 50mm 1.8.

I also take a lot of photos on art exhibits (small sculptures) indoors.
That is another reason I think the 15-85 with the new IS (4 stops!) would be nice.
Not having IS on the UWAs scares me.

Sooo... keep kit lens and get UWA? Or sell kit and get 15-85mm (or similar)?

Thank you for your opinions!

 

[shocksyde]

Lack of IS on UWA lenses isn't such a big deal b/c camera shake is much less noticeable at shorter focal lengths.

 

[finbarqs]

tokina 11-18 f/2.8 is also good to consider!

 

[BigSmooth]

If you're going to Europe, a UWA could be extremely nice to have. When I am in urban settings I find sometimes it is impossible to get the shot I am looking for with an 18mm lens on a crop body. It can be pretty frustrating when you're trying to get a shot of some architecture across a fairly narrow street, for example.

That said, a faster normal zoom for your indoor shots would also be very useful, although in many cases you'd have to go over your budget. You might take a look at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0 OS - it has pretty good reviews given the low price point. If you don't upgrade the kit lens, at least you have the 50mm prime for low light shots, though.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I love my Tokina 11-16. You can't go wrong with the other lenses you listed. BTW, the Tokina should retail for $599. You could get it cheaper if you look hard. Used lenses sell for $600+ due to the OOS nature of this lens. I got it for $589 off eBay and then with 8&#37; BCB. You should be able to find this for a good price before BCB expires in July 30th. Look hard!

Personally I'd pick between Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 (either version) or Tokina 11-16.

The Tammy 17-50 should be damn sharp. you probably got a bad copy.

 

[edro]

I think I could get by with the apertures of my current lenses.
Having the wide angles seem priceless though.

Although, if the 15mm is wide enough, I would have a good all around lens.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I think I could get by with the apertures of my current lenses.
Having the wide angles seem priceless though.

Although, if the 15mm is wide enough, I would have a good all around lens.

The 15-85 is an excellent walkaround lens. It gives you a slightly wider view than typical kit lenses but it also gives you some reach.

You get more reach than a 24-105L on FF, and the same wideness. To me 15mm isn't wide enough. It's plenty wide though. I find myself shooting at the 11mm zone a lot on my Tokina. In fact if you want wide, an argument for the 10mm lenses is that the point is to go wide. You might as well go as wide as you need. Many people find themselves shooting at 10mm on their Canon/Sigmas or 11mm on their Tokinas anyway. When people (I haven't done it yet) run a breakdown of focal lengths on their UWAs, I hear the Tokina seems to get a large spike at 11mm and 16mm. You either shoot at one end or the other.

You should try this lens although I'm a 17-55mm user. The 15-85 has a better IS system, better build, etc etc. The only thing that bothers me is the lack of a constant aperture. I do think your flash and 50mm prime should cover you in low light in most cases though...

And as other users say you don't need IS on a UWA. Using the 1/focal length rule, you should be able to shoot at a lot slower speeds on a UWA that shake won't matter as much.

 

[shocksyde]

UWA all the way. Tokina 11-16 all the way.

 

[OulOat]

Looking at your current setup, I recommend 1) a better portrait/zoom lens or 2) an all around walking lens. Both should prove more useful traveling than a ultra-wide or 18-55mm replacement. You already have a decent mid-range zoom, and photo-processing tools make it stupidly easy to stitch photos together for a wider shot.

1) Portraits will probably be a large part of your collection, so get a lens to cover that. 50mm is on the short side, while the Sigma 70-300mm is not really a quality lens. Get the Canon 70-200 F4 for $600 and leave the 70-300mm at home. This will cover your portraits and zoom shots.

2) You will sacrifice image qualify for a general zoom covering wide-angle and zoom. However, in return, you gain usability, weight, and safety. In Europe, you will do much more walking than in the US. With one lens, you don't have to fumble around changing lens. You don't have to lug around a large, heavy, camera bag that screams "steal from me" to pick picketers. 10 pounds may seem like nothing, but I seriously considered simplifying my equipment after lugging it around daily in Europe. When I purposely took only one lens, I often found myself in situations wishing I had my entire bag. Well, an all purpose zoom would have solved that problem.

 

[angry hampster]

Don't forget the Tokina 12-24.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Really hard to say. The 15-85 looks quite impressive. If it were constant f/4 (sort of a crop-body version of the 24-105 f/4L), I'd be recommend it heartily. Even without it, I give it the nod, but a dedicated UWA would be nice as well. Personally, I have found that my 24-105 goes wide enough on my 5D to not necessitate switching to my 17-40 often. The 15mm wide end on the 15-85 should be able to do the same. It will be noticeably wider than your 18-55, while also negating some of the need for the telephoto zoom.

 

[randomlinh]

Don't forget the Tokina 12-24.

or the sigma 8-16 if you really want to go wide

 

[shocksyde]

or the sigma 8-16 if you really want to go wide

Wow, didn't know that existed. New-ish, I take it?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Wow, didn't know that existed. New-ish, I take it?

Newish and very impressive in reviews. I forgot what site reviewed it... was it Photozone? But the MTF charts look fine to me. The distortion is what's interesting too... as its quite well controlled.

 

[BigSmooth]

Newish and very impressive in reviews. I forgot what site reviewed it... was it Photozone? But the MTF charts look fine to me. The distortion is what's interesting too... as its quite well controlled.

Yep http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc

 

[firewolfsm]

I'll post this here instead of starting a thread. I have a Tamron 28-75, I need a WA for traveling, if I get the Tokina 11-16, will I miss the 16-28 range much? Seems like a large gap I can't fill unless I buy a 12-24 instead

I do use in low light, so 2.8 seems almost necessary, it's basically 2.8 vs extra range.

 

[OulOat]

I'll post this here instead of starting a thread. I have a Tamron 28-75, I need a WA for traveling, if I get the Tokina 11-16, will I miss the 16-28 range much? Seems like a large gap I can't fill unless I buy a 12-24 instead

I do use in low light, so 2.8 seems almost necessary, it's basically 2.8 vs extra range.

I don't believe you will. From 11-28 you will have massive distortion, so that's not a factor between choosing the lenses. 16-28 is rather useless range, since you can always crop down your 16mm pics. I think the most important factor is getting the picture. Since it's indoors, 2.8 will play an important role in capturing the moment. I recommend the Tokina 11-16.