mediaman123 Loc: Poulsbo, WA

Hello UHH.com

As an intermediate level photography hobbiest interested in getting better at taking pictures - considering these 2 lenses. the f/4 is about $800 refurbished and the f/2.8 is $1151 refurbished from Canon.

2 questions for your opinions:
1. Will I kick myself later if I go with the f/4, or should I spring for the extra $350??? Both lenses receive great reviews.

2. These lenses are full frame lenses.My current camera does not have a full frame sensor. My plan os to buy one of these lenses now and consider upgrading my Canon T2i next year if I feel it becomes necessary and relevant upgrade for me. If not - really like the new Canon 80D - but it also does not have a full frame sensor. Do you think that is a concern or will it really make a difference for a very enthusiastic hobbiest with no professional intentions?

Appredieate your feedback - and any online research available would be appreciated too.


mediaman123

kecolebrook@gmail.com

djtravels Loc: Georgia boy now

Consider what you'll be shooting with the lens. My wide angle lenses are mostly for landscapes, so I went with the f/4 on a 17-40mmL glass. Heavy enough for me too. 2.8 I expect would be heavier still. Just my thloughts. djt

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I have the 1:2.8 version and I like it a whole lot. Keep in mind the 1:4.0 version has IS so for hand held shooting, you can use a fairly slow shutter.

If you plan to use the lens for night sky photography or on a tripod a lot, spring to the 1:2.8. If not, save towards a new body and get the 1:4.0.

I use the lens on both full frame, 5DSr and 6D and APS-C 7DII and 80D. I like the FF better for night sky but the crop works just fine when the subject is not wide like the sky.

canarywood1 Loc: Sarasota,Florida

I have the 17-40L also and it gets the job done.

mediaman123 Loc: Poulsbo, WA

Thank - appreciate your input and opinion!

mediaman123 Loc: Poulsbo, WA

Thanks - great feedback!

mediaman123 Loc: Poulsbo, WA

Thanks - that's valuable feedback for me - especially the f/4 does not disappoint on the small frame camera.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I would get the 2.8 even though I have read the reviews that favor the f4. The reason is I do a lot of low light photography and decided years ago that I am not buying anything slower than a 2.8. Also, the sweet spot for focus is not wide open, so the 2.8 probably is a 5.6, and the f4 is probably an f8.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

So - is $350 worth the extra price today for a lens that may be used for low light and may be used on a full frame? The 10-18 EFS is very highly regarded and works with your current camera and potentially an 80D rather than a full frame. On the old 7D I had the EF 17-40L at the same time as the EFS 10-22. Other than the 17-40L lens had a red-ring, the lenses performed the same, great, where the focal lengths overlapped. I changed from the 17-40 to the 16-35 for the IS. All of the lenses are readily available in the resale market but I might be a little leery of the 10-18 as this one has the most plastic.

So, your minimum expenses would be a use 17-40L vs new 10-18 vs a used 10-22. You can't go wrong with these 3 although the two EFS are wider and sensor specific. The two 16-35L models are great, but should be purchased used only which might bring the costliest closer to your consideration. I thought I read a replacement for the f2.8 model is pending announcement and it's price will fall when it's replacement gets into the market. But, that's a 6- to 8-month into the future event.

So, there's several things to consider ... my point being: don't just focus on 16-35 and full frame if that's not the #1 buying consideration.

BTW - don't bother posting with your personal email address on this publicly available site. That's just inviting spam. There's a private mail option on the site if someone wants to contact you and you can share emails in private if needed. Welcome aboard

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The f/4 is the better of the two lenses, it is Canon's sharpest ultra wide for full frame and it has IS, kinda a no brainer, you are considering the first version of the f/2.8 which was not a stellar performer.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Unless you have an absolute need for the 2.8, go with the f/4 IS Canon lens as it has super reviews. A friend of mine has that lens and loves it. I had the Version I of the 2.8 but actually used it very little for what I shoot and sold it. As another hog said, also consider the 17-40/4L lens which you can buy used for about $400-550.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Hey, the T2i is a great body! I have one along with a 60D. Th camera that you have in your hand right now performs best with a 10/11 to xx range. If I put a 16/17 to xx on I might as well use my kit of 15-85. I have a EFs 10-22 but there are many great UWA available. I would look to used on the sidewalk. But at discount used wholesale pricing as that is the best value.

You go FF you can sell your kit perhaps at retail premium pricing.

To answer your question on FF UWA. Of course the king of the hill EF 11-24 f/4 L. Then the newest 16-35 f/4 IS. The 2.8 crop in many people's option is very old and needs a re-design.

I have a negative bias against the 17-40 f/4 L. It is an L but I have never seen one I LIKE.

My solution for my FF 6D was a third party Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. I would also look at the Tamron as it is being used and reviewed well.

To me buying a FF lens in the hope of someday getting a FF camera is a little like buy a Nikon lens with an adaptor in the hopes of someday buying a Nikon body.

What glass do you use on the T2i now?

J. R.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

"To me buying a FF lens in the hope of someday getting a FF camera is a little like buy a Nikon lens with an adaptor in the hopes of someday buying a Nikon body."


It ain't quite THAT bad, is it? Oh Gifted One.........After all, on a Canon, the EF lens is still useable. Not the other way around with EFS lenses.
I say make the call on weather or not IS is wanted, or required.

Marion

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Marion, I voiced my opinion and now did yours. My point is both my EFs lenses (10-22; 15-85) are as sharp as L that I have shot. And the L on my crops are as sharp as the EFs lenses. If I want to liquidate the crops they can be sold for more than I paid. That is the real point that I am making. Why compromise today in the hope for tomorrow?

J. R.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Keep in mind both these lenses were designed as ultrawide angle zooms for full frame bodies. On a crop body, neither of them gives you a particularly wide angle of view. If you are seeking ultra wide angle on a crop sensor then you should consider something like a Canon 10-22mm, a Canon 10-18, or a Sigma 10-20. If you are sticking with crop bodies and like the 16-35 mm focal range, you should also consider the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 which is 1 & 1/3 stops faster than the Canon f/2.8, and 2 & 1/3 stops faster than the f/4. On a t2i it's significantly sharper with less distortion than either of the Canon offerings. Check out all three lenses in Dxomark.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with getting either of the Canon offerings if you have you heart set on one, I have heard that the newer f/4 is sharper, but it would not be a good choice in lower light situations, especially on your long in the tooth t2i with its limited high ISO capabilities.