i've been looking into getting a wide angle zoom. is the 22-55 legit or a joke like the 28-80? i definatly do not have the money to move up to the 17-35 or 16-35 so don't tease me. thanks!

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001

Answers

How wide a lens do u want? i think for group photo and landscape,28mm is enough if u just want to include more in ur photo and do not want to any exaggerated effect produced by 16 or 17mm lens.Wide-angle lens is hard to focus manually coz the depth of field is large.Consider this before buy. 20-35 has two versions:L and non L-series Don't think that L-series is the best,they produce sharper and more contrasty pics only in large prints,the difference between a L and a non L-series lens is hard to see when the print size is small,say 5inX7in.but the price difference is obviously huge ! i advise u the 28-80 for general purpose.If u want a wider one,choose tokina 20-35 f/2.8,it is quite good

-- legnum (legnum212@email.com), December 10, 2001.

The Canon 22-55 is an inexpensive all-plastic lens like the current generation of 28-80 lenses. It was intended as a low- cost lens for Canon's APS EF-compatible cameras, and is not renowned for staggeringly high optical or build quality.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), December 11, 2001.

"..and is not renowned for staggeringly high optical or build quality." - NK Guy has take up the fine art of understatement. Besides 22mm is not wide enough.

The Vivitar/Phoenix/Cosina or Tokina 19-35 is a better deal for the low end of the wide zooms.

The 20-35 USM is a very good lens. By most estimations it's nearly as sharp & distortion free as the 17-35L an the older 20-35L, but not as fast optically. The big problem here is that 20mm isn't wide enough either, in spite of Legnums advice. Of course this is just personal opinion.

The Sigma 17-35 (or possibly the new 15-35) is in the same price range as the Canon 20-35 USM. Nice lens too, but you do have to wonder about incompatability with future Canon cameras.

Decisions, decisions...

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), December 11, 2001.

Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember from previous posts that you already own the 24-85 lens. The 22-55 wouldn't help you very much and is a very cheap plastic lens - forget it - you wouldn't be happy. I own the 17-35 but it's not worth the price you have to pay for it. It only gives you good picture quality from 17-28, it's nearly unusable at 35. For everything more than 28 I use the fantastic 25- 135IS. If you don't need f2.8 I would recommend the Sigma 3.5-4.5/15-30. Very sharp even at 15mm. Or for less budget buy the older Sigma 2.8- 4/17-35HSM which is a lot cheaper than the Canon version with better image quality for the whole zoom range. If you only want Canon lenses then I would go for a prime as a combination to your existing 24-85. Think about the 2.8/20USM which is a fantastic lens you will be happy with.

-- Martin (uboot67@yahoo.com), December 11, 2001.

no i don't already have the 24-85, i have the 28-135. i was just looking for when i need something wider than 28. i guess i will have to go third party. thanks!

-- jeff nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

Actually, I read on some lens review site that the 22-55 is more like 23mm at the wide end, which would make it even more useless if you've already got a 24-85.

You know, if you're just wanting to play around with wide angle stuff, why not get a cheap manual-focus Russian fisheye? They're admittedly a bit of a gimmick lens in a lot of ways, but they're a cheap way of learning about wide angle photography.

http://teladesign.com/photo/zenitar.html

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), December 11, 2001.

I think it is true to say that "you get what you pay for".

The EF 22-55 USM is a standard zoom. It is very light, focuses fast, and has a very handy range of focal lengths for general purpose indoor shooting. It is no joke, and has even been compared against an L lens (really). See Link and related discussion at the Elan 7E group

At the next price point is the EF 20-35 USM. This is a wide angle zoom, and I find that the 35mm is often too short, requiring yet another lens change (an excuse for a second body :-)

Two further pieces of advice:
1) A goodused lens in good condition might be a better deal than buying a new, but inferior lens.
2) Some EOS camera bodies do not perform well with manual- focus lenses. Check that your camera can handle stop-down metering before committing to that Ukranian fisheye lens.

Cheers

-- Julian Loke (elan7e-owner@yahoogroups.com), December 11, 2001.

For the money, the 20-35 USM is a very nice lens (optics, build quality, fast/silent AF). Also, no EOS compatiblity problems, but a big honking lens hood.

Is it wide enough? Their are days I wish it had a 17mm to 50mm range. Their are more days I wish it were f2.8, at 35mm, instead of f4.5.

Ken

-- Kenneth Katz (socks@bestweb.net), December 12, 2001.

"There" and "There".

I write much good english.

I have seen the 22-55. It looks like a piece of crap lens, as is all the Canon 28-80/90 lenses I have seen. Stopped down to f8-11, it may be sharp.

-- Kenneth Katz (socks@bestweb.net), December 12, 2001.

I've got a 22-55 and I don't have too much of a problem with it. Occasionally the vignetting can get nasty and I wouldn't enlarge too much. Most of my printing tends to be done post-Photoshop though so things can get changed.

I got it becuase I wanted something wider than the 28 of my 28-105 and didn't have much cash available. I was aware and accepting of its limitations. You get what you pay for, and for the price this lens competes with the funky Russian fish eye lenses. Just with autofocus and full compatability.

-- Marcus Christian (Citizensmith@lanset.com), December 14, 2001.