So far, I've got a telephoto lens (70-300mm), a zoom lens (28-105mm), and the kit lens (18-55mm) for my Rebel XTi. I figured it would be useful to own a wide-angle lens as well. Which wide-angle lens would you guys recommend (that's at most $499)?

Thanks,
Mason

[mduell]

How about the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM? Everything but IS for $700.

Thanks Mduell. I'm not looking to pay that much (I'm on a budget). I'll have to look for something else.

Appreciate the help,
Mason

[mkerr64]

Originally Posted by ncmason 

Thanks Mduell. I'm not looking to pay that much (I'm on a budget). I'll have to look for something else.

Appreciate the help,
Mason

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/index.htm

hope that helps

[mduell]

You want something over $499 but $700 is too high? I'm confused.

kenrockwell.com and dpreview.com are great resources.

[OreoCookie]

Tokina's 12-24 mm f/4 lens has better built and image quality than the Canon. Plus, you should be able to get it cheap as it has been replaced by the 11-16 f/2.8 (according to photozone the best wide angle zoom for crop bodies on the market).

[richwig83]

Have you checked out the sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6??

[Floyde]

Second the Sigma... best value for money wide angle you can buy I reckon.

Pete

[OreoCookie]

The Sigma costs the same than the Tokina (both $499 + change at bhphoto), but has worse built quality and image quality.

Thanks for the input OreoCookie. I'm definitely going to take a look at the Tokina lens.

- Mason

[Floyde]

I'll still by the Sigma being the lens of choice for landscape and wide angle enthusiasts (sp? errk) on a budget... and a lot that aren't on a budget!

[mr. burns]

sigma are kind of hit or miss with their lenses. some are great, some aren't. you really need to do your homework. i have the 18-50mm f/2.8 and it's a great lens, but i guess not wide enough for you. would be a fine replacement for the kit lens anyway.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by mduell 

How about the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM? Everything but IS for $700.

Jesus Christ, mduell, just read your mac list. Have you been on a shopping spree? How's your credit card feeling?

[Veltliner]

Check photozone.de for Canon wide angle lenses.

Do you want a wide angle zoom or a prime?

Don't buy cheap stuff. You'll regret it.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Jesus Christ, mduell, just read your mac list. Have you been on a shopping spree? How's your credit card feeling?

I guess you missed the "Mac update estimates" bit? And that none of the Macs in my sig exist...

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Do you want a wide angle zoom or a prime?

I'm looking for a wide angle zoom, not a prime.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Tokina's 12-24 mm f/4 lens has better built and image quality than the Canon. Plus, you should be able to get it cheap as it has been replaced by the 11-16 f/2.8 (according to photozone the best wide angle zoom for crop bodies on the market).

This Tonika gets an amazing rating of 9.6 (out of 10) at fredmiranda.com!!! That alone piques my interest and makes me want one even though I had no need before reading the reviews. Must be quite an amazing lens.

Tokina AT-X 107 DX 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 - http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=40&page=1

I noticed the high-rating too. When I'm ready, I'll purchase one.

- Mason

On a side note, would any of you guys recommend this book? ("Kelby's 7 Point System For Photoshop")

I also looked at his Digital Photography Book....

[OreoCookie]

Depends on what you already know. I've bought Understanding Exposure for a good friend of mine and it's a very good book if you are the `get up and try it'-type who is bored by long technical explanations (or already understands what's going on).

It's sorted `by situation and effect', because that's how many people think in the beginning. The downside is that it has been written before the time of digital cameras, but that doesn't matter much, in my opinion.

Not sure about the Photoshop book, I don't really use Photoshop all that much.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

This Tonika gets an amazing rating of 9.6 (out of 10) at fredmiranda.com!!! That alone piques my interest and makes me want one even though I had no need before reading the reviews. Must be quite an amazing lens.

Tokina AT-X 107 DX 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 - http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=40&page=1

Those are user reviews.

It's easy to tinker with such a ratings system, and I don't trust them.

If you want good lens tests, go to photozone.de.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by ncmason 

On a side note, would any of you guys recommend this book? ("Kelby's 7 Point System For Photoshop")

I also looked at his Digital Photography Book....

It's not bad.

But it's a step by step show you the way-book, and doesn't teach you the fundamentals.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Those are user reviews.

It's easy to tinker with such a ratings system, and I don't trust them.

If you want good lens tests, go to photozone.de.

The fredmiranda.com user base is not the kind to tinker with the rating system. It is usually a very large sampling of opinionated reviews by professionals or semi-professionals using the lenses in the field. They often compare the lens in the review to other lenses that are direct comparisons. I have found a larger sampling of users/reviewers, along with posted sample shots is what works for me.

Photozone.de is usually one guy's "measurements" and a LOT of raw data that is usually not very helpful. The sample pictures are nice, but not very indicative of real world usage. There is no allowance for reliability or consistency of usage. "Pixel pushers" usually like this site.

[OreoCookie]

Reviews à la photozone.de (which I regularly link to as well) are useful, but like all reviews with numbers, should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, they have reviewed the Canon and the Nikon version of Tokina's 12-24 UW zoom. The Nikon version has 3.5 stars, the Canon version only 3. Same optics. (I'm well aware that the sensor plays an important role.)

Other reviews may give very different recommendations: Germany's most famous photo magazine, for example, gives 5 stars for optical and built quality. It's not so much about data, but how to interpret it and what weight you attribute to each aspect (e. g. in the age of RAW files, is CA as critical as on film? Or vignetting?). Many of these factors crucially depend on the type of lens, the price and the target audience.

If the votes are cast by people who know their stuff, it's equally significant in my opinion.

What I would caution against is the advice `simply buy Nikon/Canon and avoid the cheap stuff.' First of all, original glass is not always better and second of all, even if there is a difference, it might not be worth it.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

The fredmiranda.com user base is not the kind to tinker with the rating system. It is usually a very large sampling of opinionated reviews by professionals or semi-professionals using the lenses in the field. They often compare the lens in the review to other lenses that are direct comparisons. I have found a larger sampling of users/reviewers, along with posted sample shots is what works for me.

Photozone.de is usually one guy's "measurements" and a LOT of raw data that is usually not very helpful. The sample pictures are nice, but not very indicative of real world usage. There is no allowance for reliability or consistency of usage. "Pixel pushers" usually like this site.

Good points, Railroader.

I actually never trust any review sites. I read the reviews if I can get some hints on a possible problem with a certain camera or lens.

Photozone.de has pretty good, descriptive articles. But, as I mentioned above, take it with a grain of salt. They had a rave review about a Tamron lens that competed with the Canon 17-55/2.8 for 60% of its price and got the same number of stars. BS, of course, as quality control with Tamron is bad (lots of awfully bad copies out there, lost of frustrated users), the autofocus unreliable, and no image stabilization.

You get what you pay for is very true with lenses. There is no shortcut to same quality for less money.

Fred Miranda's site is pretty good, but the lens reviews are just a few comments, and you can't know what level of expertise that reviewer had. I didn't mean "tinker" in the sense of crooked things going on. User reviews are just so little reliable. I looked at the database long and hard, and even bad lenses get good ratings there, because the reviewers don't know better. Anybody can post a review there, even if he has as much knowledge of photography as with diving with an atomic submarine.

I prefer subjective reviews where I can take the author's position into account. But I have to know a few things about the author.

Good comment about the pixel peeper. They have taken over the test sites completely. Dpreview and its side by side-comparisons (where they can't even get the scale right) are always good for a laugh.

[Veltliner]

The worst reviews are from consumerreports.org.

Those guys really have no idea what they are talking about, and the always rate mediocre goods highest, because they are a tad cheaper, are easier to use, and have the manual printed on better paper.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Photozone.de has pretty good, descriptive articles. But, as I mentioned above, take it with a grain of salt. They had a rave review about a Tamron lens that competed with the Canon 17-55/2.8 for 60% of its price and got the same number of stars. BS, of course, as quality control with Tamron is bad (lots of awfully bad copies out there, lost of frustrated users), the autofocus unreliable, and no image stabilization.

Yes, that's true for some lenses. Usually lenses that cost a lot. Take a lens I've owned, for example, Tokina's 28-70 AT-X Pro SV. In 2002 I paid €350 for it, new. Nikon's equivalent would have been about five times as expensive. And according to tests, the image quality was very, very close. As you mention correctly, the `mechanical quality' rating of the two lenses in the test was very close, too, although they didn't sport the same feature set (Nikon's lens at AF-S (silent wave motor/ultrasonic motor), Tokina's manual override was a bit cumbersome and instantaneous on the Nikon). Still, all rings were very nicely damped (buttery), much wider than on the Nikon, and the lens (barrel, innards) was made out of metal. Third-party lens manufacturers often have to cut back on features to offer the lenses for a cheaper price and they tend to make different compromises: Tokina puts the money into glass and metal, Sigma prefers to spend part of the budget on HSM (hypersonic motors).

But there are other lenses these days when the difference between original and third-party manufacturer is not as big or when third-party lenses actually offer more. One example IMO is the class of UW zooms. I actually prefer either one of the Tokinas to Nikon's original offering (or Canon's if I were a Canon guy): fixed aperture (f/4 or f/2.8 for the whole zoom range), way better construction (mostly metal vs. mostly plastic). Once you've used metal lenses, you can't go back

Especially in the line-up for crop sensors, third-party lens manufacturers have some unique lenses (e. g. 50-135/150 f/2.8 zooms that correspond to 70/80-200 on full frame) that are not offered by any manufacturer except Pentax (that uses Tokina's lenses and adds supersonic motors to some of them).

In any case, IMO you have to add all these points together. Personally, I'd avoid most lenses made by Tamron and Sigma, although I would recommend Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 zoom for instance to people who would like to replace their kit lens with something better. As you might have noticed, I'm quite fond of Tokina lenses, because I vastly prefer their `feel' when using (which includes built quality). (Although, currently, as luck would have it, I only own Nikon glass.)

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Third-party lens manufacturers often have to cut back on features to offer the lenses for a cheaper price

That's the key phrase for me.

Of course, as you mentioned, the differences in quality are not so extreme as they used to be. I remember well the times where one wouldn't have touched a Tamron with rubber gloves.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

As you might have noticed, I'm quite fond of Tokina lenses, because I vastly prefer their `feel' when using (which includes built quality). (Although, currently, as luck would have it, I only own Nikon glass.)

As you only own Nikon lenses I can be honest and say, that exactly that 17-55/2.8 lens is the one that got rave reviews by photozone.de, and then I found an enormous amount of complaints. Many owners were very satisfied with that lens, but for my taste there were to many others, who got a bad copy. That was too much of a lottery to me, and I need to spend my energy working and not sending lenses back to the store.

And I wanted IS, of course.

If image quality is very important, then I'd go with a simpler body and fewer lenses. I'm so glad I only considered third party lenses, and now have this wonderfully sharp Canon 17-55/2.8 with excellent image stabilization. The only reason it's not L/glass is that it is not full frame.

Actually, not only expensive lenses get good ratings at photozone.de.

The Tamron 17-55/2.8 got the same rating as my Canon lens of the same focus range, and the 18-55/3,5-5.6 Canon kit lens got a good rating as well.

[OreoCookie]

The Tamron has received quite a few good reviews, granted that (i) you can live with the built quality and (ii) you get a good copy (which seems to have gotten better these days). The plasticky feel is a deal breaker for me, because I'd always long for more metal.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

The only reason it's not L/glass is that it is not full frame.

I think it's a marketing thing: Canon could easily make a version with L-like ruggedness (they manage to do it with the cheaper, yet highly-acclaimed 70-200 f/4), so IMO it's also to stop pros from getting a 40D and a 17-55 f/2.8 pro-grade zoom instead of one of their more expensive bodies.

Nikon had to make a pro-grade 17-55 zoom, because, up until the release of the D3, even their pro bodies had crop sensors.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Tokina's 12-24 mm f/4 lens has better built and image quality than the Canon. Plus, you should be able to get it cheap as it has been replaced by the 11-16 f/2.8 (according to photozone the best wide angle zoom for crop bodies on the market).

FWIW, I can recommend the Tokina 12-24mm without reservation. Honestly, my biggest gripe is the ugly all-caps Times New Roman type on it!

Take a look at my flickr set showing off that lens, my mobileme galleries and my website for more pix taken with it. It's hands-down my favorite lens to shoot with on my SLR. Most of the photos shot on all those sites were taken either with the 12-24 Tokina or with my little Sony point and shoot.

(Yes, I know, too many sites. I will be consolidating.)