2

I am going on a cruise to Greece and Italy this summer, I really wanted to buy a new Canon lens for my t2i but i am confused whether to buy the 17-40 f/4.0 or the 15mm 2.8 fisheye. Any help?

Improve this question
3
  • 9
    You should really tell us more info. What are you interested in shooting? Why do you want a new lens? Just remember, more info means better answers.
    – BBischof
    Mar 2, 2011 at 22:57
  • 3
    Do you have a lens right now that you're comparing to? In other words, if you've got an 18-55 kit lens and you just want higher quality, the 1-40 is an excellent choice, but if you're trying to expand your focal range in some way, we need more info.
    – D. Lambert
    Mar 2, 2011 at 23:07
  • 1
    Best walkaround lens within budget so far for 1.6X crop body is Canon EF-S 15-85mm in my opinion. Gives you quality wideangle (15mm) and portrait-type-tele-end (85mm) as well.
    – fahad.hasan
    Mar 3, 2011 at 4:08

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
10

Those two lenses are going to give you significantly different results. The big thing to note is that the fisheye lens is, well, a fisheye. It'll create severely distorted images that can be "straightened" using software but it's going to have a distinct fisheye look.

It doesn't look bad, but it's not what one would usually choose for a walkaround/vacation lens.

On the other hand the 17-40 f/4L is a well respected lens that covers a good wide-angle zoom range. f/4 should be fast enough for outdoor scenes and well-lit indoor scenes as well.

I'd say unless you're specifically looking for the fisheye look, go for the 17-40.

Improve this answer
1
  • 3
    I'll second this, and add that when vacationing you'll probably want to be carrying as little gear as you can get away with. The fisheye -- or the near-equivalent rectilinear 14mm lens -- is a one-trick pony, great for architectural pictures when you can't step too far back (okay, two tricks, since vast panoramas are also possible), but approaching uselessness otherwise. The 17-40 covers a much larger set of possibilities. Extreme wide angle shots rarely require shallow DoF, so the cheap kit lens can cover anything wider than 17mm adequately without the weight penalty.
    – user2719
    Mar 2, 2011 at 23:17
7

The Fisheye is a lens for special effects. You certainly don't want to buy this as a lens for documenting your vacation.

Improve this answer
3

Without knowing what other lenses you have it's difficult to say what you should get, but if you want to take holiday snaps you want to take as versatile a lens with you as possible so the 17-40 is probably a better bet than the fish eye.

Personally I have an 18-200mm lens which I use when I'm on holiday because it means I don't have to take any other lenses with me. I also carry about my 50mm 1.8 because it's awesome.

Unless you know you need a fish eye then you probably don't need a fish eye, you might be able to get similar a effect by getting a fish eye filter that screws onto one of your existing lenses for an awful lot less money.

Improve this answer
1
  • +1 for the 18-200. Nothing beats a trans-standard when you need versatility while being limited in transport. I personally add a 20mm pancake for the times I prefer to remain discrete, ultra-light or space restrained.
    – Berzemus
    Mar 3, 2011 at 13:01
2

I would say for a greater range of possible uses, it would probably be best to get the 17-40 over the fisheye.

Improve this answer
2

I've been to both Greece, and Italy and I can say with 100% certainty that you will want the 17-40 over the Fish-eye. Of the two, the 17-40 is more versatile, and given that the T2i has decent enough high-iso capabilities, the overall usefulness of the 17-40 will easily compensate for the 1-stop light loss.

Improve this answer
2

You have a cropped sensor camera, I would consider an EF-S lens. These tend to be cheaper and lighter than similar quality EF lenses like the 17-40.

Consider the 17-55, 17-85, or 15-85.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    As the 17-40 is an L lens, the only one of the three EF-S lenses you mention that would get close in quality is the 17-55, and it's actually a few hundred dollars more than the 17-40
    – ahockley
    Mar 3, 2011 at 1:36
  • @ahockley that's not true, the 15-85 is considered very high quality and is cheaper than the 17-40.
    – rm999
    Mar 3, 2011 at 8:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.