Good wide angle fixed lense?

[brianf01]

Hi, I have a 10d and want a good wide angle lense (due to the magnification). Fixed is fine. Are there any affordable 15 or 17mm fixed lenses out there? I have not been able to find very many on my web searches.

Thanks!

[justme_dc]

Define affordable.... The sigma 15mm fisheye can be had for less than $400 dollars. Which is about $175 less than I paid for it several years ago. Cheaper than that is going to be tough to come buy.

[RJCONKLIN]

CANON EOS 20 F/2.8 EXCELLENT.

[brianf01]

$400 would be the higher end of what I wish to pay, but that might be a good bet. I am so used to my 28-80 on my old eos elan, so I want to get a 28mm with the digital. I went to europe last week. Its quite hard to get the paris streets in on a 50mm lense! I will look into the sigma, thanks!

[RJCONKLIN]

CANON MAKE THE BEST "ALL AROUND" LENSES FOR CANON CAMERAS A 20 F/2.8 X1.6=32 AND A VERY SHARP LENS CAN BE HAD FOR $419.00 OR LESS. FISH EYE LENSES TOO MUCH OF A "BOWL" EFFECT UNLESS THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT.

[iwatkins]

[rdenney]

justme_dc wrote:
Define affordable.... The sigma 15mm fisheye can be had for less than $400 dollars. Which is about $175 less than I paid for it several years ago. Cheaper than that is going to be tough to come buy.

Zenitar 16mm full-frame fisheye, available from kievcamera.com for $150, in EOS mount. It is all manual (both aperture and focus), but it works fine in Av mode. For most subjects, I can hide the fisheye distortion and get the equivalent of a 21mm lens on a full-frame camera, which ain't bad for $150.

The lens is made in Russia and the optics are multicoated and excellent. Make sure the mount screws are tight when you get the lens.

Rick "who thinks fisheyes are much more usable than people think and are cheaper and perform better than rectilinear wide angle lenses" Denney

[CyberDyneSystems]

Fisheyes are another animal though,. did you want a fish eye? Or just a wide angle (rectilinear? is that what they call it :) )

The Sigma 17-35mm Zoom is the lowest priced sub 19mmm lens I can think of that is autofocus and halfway decent.

[urycyon]

I am also looking around for an EX line wide angle lens.
Will the 14mm give accurate representation? I want to be able to have wide angle effects, but I also want to have fairly "normal" looking group shots. I would wait and see what the price on the 12-24mm EX settles out at, but maybe a used 14mm would do the trick? The thing about the 12-24mm is that I would probably use it at its widest setting almost all the time anyway, unless it turns out to be no good.

[dwbrant]

I'll post my vote for the Sigma 20mm prime. It is capable of f1.8 but really not good until you're at f2.8 -- from there on, it's tack sharp.

Can be had for around $300-350 new.

[DonCoon]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
The Sigma 17-35mm Zoom is the lowest priced sub 19mmm lens I can think of that is autofocus and halfway decent.


"halfway decent" is a pretty good description of the Sigma 17-35. Photozone rates the optics at 3.02 of 5 (average) -- FWIW, they rate the Sigma 15-30 at 3.47 (good).

Users at http://www.fredmiranda.com rate the 17-35 at 2.5 of 5 which is pretty low for that site; they rate the 15-30 at 4.4.

They're not that far apart in price, considering how far apart they are in ratings. The 17-35 is $$450 at B$H ($350 on Ebay); the 15-30 $560 and $475 respectively. All prices include shipping.

What's funny is that I was trying to upgrade my cheapo Tamron 19-35 ($170) but after reading numerous reviews of both these lenses, decided my 19-35 wasn't all that bad afterall ; ) Lots of valid complaints turned me off : (

[CyberDyneSystems]

I compared the 17-35 and 15-30 Sigmas side by side,. I DEFINATELY preferred the 15-30. The 17-35mm was nice at f/8 but even at f/4.5 it was no match for the 15-30mm and down at f/2.8,... well :(

In the end I got the Canon 17-40mm f/4... because the 15-30mm was just too awkward a design for me to want to live with, and the price difference there was not astronomical either.

[DonCoon]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:

In the end I got the Canon 17-40mm f/4... because the 15-30mm was just too awkward a design for me to want to live with, and the price difference there was not astronomical either.

Agree $700 vs. $550 isn't astronomical. What specifically didn't you like about the design? The fixed hood, awkward MF/AF shift control and AF noise are three that seemed to dominate the reviews I read.

I'll probably go the 17-40 route but I've decided to wait and see how the Sigma 12-24 pans out. At $650 list it could go for as low as $450 based on the 15-30's original $800 list.

12-24 would give a 35mm equivalent of 19-38 on the 10D/300D which would be great. But I'm not holding my breath :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

DonCoon wrote:


Agree $700 vs. $550 isn't astronomical. What specifically didn't you like about the design? The fixed hood, awkward MF/AF shift control and AF noise ..?

YES!

All of the above,. although AF noise was not bad,. the fixed lens hood,. difficulty in mounting a front filter (it can be done but it is an awkward, makeshift solution) the need for the AF/MF is just plain weird in a modern Sigma lens? Why they couldn't solve it batter in this particular lens design is baffling.

So to me the extra $250 for the Canon was more than worth the difference. I own a few Sigmas,. but usually the price difference is more than double when an "EX" is compared to an "L" And none of my "EX" lenses are awkward to use. (in fact some are easier to use than there Canon counterparts, like my 500mm f/4.5 EX)

I'll probably go the 17-40 route but I've decided to wait and see how the Sigma 12-24 pans out. At $650 list it could go for as low as $450 based on the 15-30's original $800 list.

12-24 would give a 35mm equivalent of 19-38 on the 10D/300D which would be great. But I'm not holding my breath :)


I would have liked to compare the 12-24 as well,. alas it was not available.... I will be interested to see how it fairs. It allready looks on paper to be more user freindly than the 15-30mm anyway :)