Best wide angle lens?

[Mickw]

Hi Bob and others. May i thank you all for getting me well hooked on this addictive hobby. I just cant stop taking pics and have used advice from here in my lens choices but now i have a dilemma.

I have a Canon 400D and 5D. Trying not to swap lens to much i use my 400D with my most expemsive lens Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS. I like the pics, no cropping, light camera. Basicaly, dont want to swap lenses thats why its on there. I also have extensions 1.4 and 2.0 which also work fine. Your technical reviews helped a lot. Guys in the camera club believe their Sigma 150-500 on a 40D will give them better pics than my 70-200 and extensions on my 400D. Opinions anyone?

I now Use my 5D with Canons 24-105 which is a great all purpose lens. But i now have become interested in two other quality lens. I have a Sigma 50mm macro and wish to change. I love this lens but it doesnt have a long reach so i was considering Canons 180mm. Does anyone know whether this is a better choice than say Sigma or Tamron or even Canons other Macro lens. Ive read the reviews and image quality (it will be on my 5d) is what i want but is the 180 that much better when cost comes into the equation? Tough financial times.

Secondly, i used to use my Sigma 10-20mm on my 400D but now want to change. Again i love this lens, its optically great but with my new 5D (got a massive bargain on the 5D) i wish to change. Canons 16-35 f2.8 or 17-40 f4. Decisions decisions. I had the same problem with the 70-200, f2.8 or f4 but bought a second hand one from a top pro as he gave me an excellent price. Any opinions on that one fstop?

Im also purchasing a speedlight and have read the reviews. 430EX seems the wiser choice than a more expensive one for what i do. Im no pro, just a good amateur.

Again, thanks Bob. Im in the UK and find this sight not only informative, extremely accurate in its reviews but also not to over the top with technical jargon. Basically, its an excellent place where i know i can get the best impartial advice.

Mick

p.s i dont have millions of pounds, i just save up every penny i can. (and dont tell my wife!)

[Bob Atkins]

Whether the 16-35/2.8 or 17-40/4 really depends on your needs. If you don't need f2.8, I'd go for the f4 lens since it's smaller, lighter and cheaper. Both are optically good. I tend to use my wideangles stopped down for lanscape shots, so a fast wideangle isn't important for me. If you were shooting interiors in low light then it might be.

If the 50mm macro doesn'e give you enough working distance, look at the 100/2.8 Macro. It's sharp and not too expensive. The 180 Macro is great, but it's a big lens and it's not cheap. Again it depends what you want to do with it and just how much gear you are prerared to carry. See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/macro_lenses.html

There's nothing at all wrong with the 430EX. Don't foregt that there's now a 430EX II which adds a few features (for an increased price!) See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/ex_speedlites.html

[Mickw]

Thanks for the advice Bob. I read the advice on the 430EX and even with an upgraded model, im sure its the one for me. Im onto a good second hand one on EBAY.

I use the 24-105f4 and can honestly say its a great lens and ive never missed that one fstop. I do on occassion shoot in low light but very rarly and its usually landscapes or old buildings so is that one f stop such s big deal as im yet to shoot low interior lighting and probably never will. A guy at a local camera shop with more money than brain cells tried to convince me the f2.8 is optically sharper and so a far superior lens. I pointed out the one f stop, weight and price but he wouldnt budge on his opinions. Thats why i came here. I didnt believe him and as with you i always stop down for landscapes too. Perhaps he was after my money?

For some unknown reason im starting to enjoy taking pics of flowers, leaves, moss and insects. Sharpness and picture quality is totally paramount in my choice of macro lens. Im split on the decision 180 or 100 weight isnt important as i will be purchasing a macro rack to aid my focusing. I want to start shooting insects as they facinate me just like fungus for some unknown reason. Ill post a question on this ealswhere in the forum.

One last point Bob, its your opinion on my 70-200f2.8 is with extender. I use the mk2 extenders and find them optically fine with my 400D, no lens changing and cool tele shots. It is used sometimes on my 5d to. Its just the older more experienced guys in the club still feel there 150-400 sigma's on a APS-C Canons is going to be optically superior to my set up. Any thoughts?

Anyway, thanks for the advice. I think youve saved me a lot of money.

Mick

[Bob Atkins]

I have some sample shots from the 70-200/2.8L IS + 2x on my page at:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_70-200_f28L_IS.html

The image does get a bit soft when compared to something like the 300/4L + 1.4x (and I'd assume the 400/5.6L is even sharper but I didn't have one available to test). I don't know about the Sigma 150-400 as I've never used one.

You can't really go wrong with either the 100 or 180 macro. The 180 does have the advantage that you can use the Canon TCs with it and it cones with a tripod mount. So if weight and cost and size aren't  issues, the 180 macro may be more vetsatile. You can also use it as a regular telephoto with a 2x on it (360mm f7), though I've never treid that combination and I don't know how good it is.

[schill]

The only non-Canon lens I've got is a Sigma 150/2.8 macro.  I'd add it to the list of macros that you are looking at if you are ok with a non-Canon lens for this.

Mine has basically replaced my older Canon 100mm macro.  I think it's a very nice lens and definitely worth considering.  I've also found that it's a nice length for non-macro shots and the 2.8 doesn't hurt.  I've been using it on a 40D.