[clengster_77]

i'm thinking of getting a wide lens. my choice are canon 17 - 40 or the tokina 12 - 24. here's the hard part, i was shooting my family using my canon 18 - 55 coz that's the widest i got and gave me some nice shots. so now i'm geting confused if i'm still gonna get a 17 -40 L or just use my 18 - 55 and just get the tokina 12 - 24?

thanks
cleng

[adam]

If you want wide, with the 1.6x crop, the 12-24 will be nice and wide. But when taking group photographs with a wide lens, distortion may be apparent and cause the people around the sides to appear a little stretched.

the L is nice... mmmmm L .....L ... sorry, getting carried away but may not be wide enough.

[Toad]

clengster - I have been giving the Tokina 12-24 serious consideration myself. I have no hands on experience, but there has really been nothing but good said about this lens online - much like the Tamron 90mm macro in that way. Sometimes the 3rd party lensmakers hit a homerun and the Tokina 12-24 seems to be one of those.

If you buy it, please post your impressions. I, at least, would be very interested.

BTW: there is a huge difference between 12mm and 18mm - and the 17-40 will not add anything to your current reach - lovely lens though it undoubtably is. You will find that an ultra wide lens adds a lot to your repotoire of tricks - even though it may not be the best lens to use for group portraits.

[adam]

It's nice and wide


but some distortion

(my friends face is naturally symmetrical)

Do all wide lenses exhibit distortion?

[shuttertalk]

Agree with Mr. T... if you're getting the 17-40, it'll be because of the L glass and the superior image quality.

The 12-24 will open up a whole new perspective for your shots.

I guess you'll have to decide which is more important for you at this time...

[Wedding Shooter]

Go with the 12-24 or get the Canon 10-22.

[Zig]

Not sold it yet then Chris?
(In advance clengster, dontcha just hate it when folks like me throw in more options!)
Have a good old snoop around at reviews; by now much has also been made of the Sigma 10-22.
I have to say, that "kit lens" is pretty decent at the wide end too.
The Tokina would give you a little more overlap of focal length.
I found my "solution" to be a compromise: I decided to just ignore my kit lens and build from the wide-end up. I chose the 10-22(Wedding Shooter and others will testify to its quality) knowing that I'd crossed the Rubicon in terms of pumping a bit of cash into the "x1.6 crop format". Had I let my kit gather dust until Canon brought down full-frame to realistic prices, I''d have still eschewed the 17-40 in favour of primes.
You might have to make a couple of decisions, based on image quality versus convenience, also on whether you intend to stay with this sensor size or move to full-frame.
The Canon 10-22 may or may not be "worth" it, compared to to the Tokina/Sigma, depending on your own parameters. I'd guess that on a 350D the benefits of "L glass" would not be glaringly apparent, though I stand corrected in advance if others testify to the opposite.
One other general thing: photoforums are the fertile breeeding-ground for all sorts of elitism and pseudo-mysticism. Phrases like "L glass", "astonishing" and "bokeh"(yuk: who heard of this word until a couple of years ago?) are rattled off by folks who never get an image off their pc, and who get off on being able to spend more money than other people. Just decide what your output size and audience are going to be, then sum up the choices: Jules says it really: decide which is more important for you. Then enjoy. That Tokina does sound nice though, and maybe a better bet than the 17-40 for this camera and the type of work you're considering.

[Pavel]

I just posted a note about Tokina 11mm to 16mm. Perhaps you may consider this as well? Pavel