What is the best budget wide angle lens for a Canon Rebel XT?

Question

I've got a Rebel XT but plan to upgrade some day. Besides the garbage kit lens, I have a 50mm f1.4 and an EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. I will worry about > 105mm later, but I really want a wide angle lens for my Europe trip in 6 weeks. The two lenses above were about $600 total.

I know the wide angles are expensive, and I've been eyeing the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for $700. Is there any other wide angle lens comparable to this but not quite so much?

Answer 1

There are several options but you get what you pay for.
The Canon 10-22mm is the best of the lot. The Sigma 12-24mm is a close second, and for less you could get a Sigma 10-20mm, a Tokina 12-24mm, or a Tamron 11-18mm.
These ultra wide lenses are pretty specialist items however. They will come in handy for photographing buildings in narrow streets, but they are TOO wide to keep on your camera as a walk around lens.
You might be better served by replacing your 28-105mm with a wider standard zoom. You could consider the Canon 17-85mm ($550), the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($450) or even the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 ($1050).
I live in Holland and travel around Europe extensively. I use a Nikon D200 (with a crop factor of 1.5 vs. the XT's 1.6) and I keep my Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 on the camera 95% of the time. This zoom range is just about perfect for street photography, landscapes and portraits and the constant f/2.8 makes it ideal for shallow depth of field and low light photography.
My other lenses are a 50mm f/1.4 - which I use in VERY low light or to be less conspicuous, a dedicated macro (stays at home) and a cheap 70-210mm zoom (also stays at home most of the time).
I've thought about an ultra wide myself but I can't justify the cost to cover 10 to 17mm. I'd only want that range for 1 in 50 shots, and half the time I'd be too lazy to switch lenses anyway.
---
ADDED:
Hi Sam. Ha ha - you caught me.
Actually, the last time I thought to myself - wow, a 10-20mm zoom would sure come in handy now - was at the Trevi fountain in Rome. That's one huge, wideass fountain located in a far too narrow street.
The Nikon 18-200mm is great but I'm still holding out for a compact 10-500mm f/1.4 with VR for around $199.95 ;-)
My wife and I both love photography but our trips do not revolve around taking pictures. Since we're usually walking all day, we keep our gear to a minimum. I don't lug around a tripod, I don't lug around a bag full of lenses or a flash gun, and I rarely take 10 minutes to set shots up. But I HAVE nearly broken my neck on a few occasions rushing to a vantage point. I also occasionally make a note to return to specific locations when it's busyer or less crowded, for a sunset, for a night time shot, etc. We also love to shuffle around interesting locations and take candids for an hour straight.
For me, it's the D200 with the 17-55. My wife is retiring her Canon film SLR and getting a Nikon D80 with the 18-135mm kit lens. For her, the 17-55mm range would be too confining.
For travelling, I use an inconspicuous Crumpler camera bag - a shoulder bag so I can grab the camera in 2 seconds flat. This bag contains the following:
* Camera + main lens with UV filter. Lens hood attached, lens cap removed.
* the 50mm
* a charged spare battery
* a spare 2GB memory card
* lens cleaning kit
* CP filter
* a bottle of drinking water
* the travel book for where ever I am
* a notepad and pen
In effect, it's a camera bag converted into a day pack.

Answer 2

OMG - I am tickled by your candor. :-) "Too lazy to change lenses." Yes, that sounds familiar! I guess that's why the 18-200 "lives" on my camera and I only lock and load the 17-55 for special occasions.