How do you keep wide angle shooting with a consumer digital?

[DionM]

All,

I am looking to upgrade to a digital SLR system, from a film system.

I love wide angles, I love digital ... but my budget doesn't accomodate a Mk II, and my conscience has problems with the EF-S series of lenses ...

I am toying with the idea of keeping my film body purely for wide angles (19-35 mm) and scan all the photos from it with my 3600 dpi slide scanner. I would then use my digital for approx 40mm and upwards ranges, and integrate the two of them into my digital photo albums.

Does anyone else here use such a method? Any comments or suggestions?

I have another post about what I plan to go to in digital (see http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45557). Basically my budget allows a 20D + 24-85 USM, or a 300D + 10-22 EF-S (but I'm not so keen on EF-S).

[MrChad]

Sigma makes a 12-24mm EF lens right? That would be about a 19-39mm on a D-Rebel I think.

I use a 3200 dpi scanner for my film, but it definately has a different feel in photoshop then my buddies Rebel pictures. My wedding was shot with a D30 and a D60 and I have the Tiff files from that too. So digital definately is less grainy on the screen but my prints compare very well with the digitals once made real.

[cmM]

you could always go wider on lenses.... There are some excelent (from what I hear, don't own any) Sigma lenses 12-24 & 15-30. How wide do you want? You can shoot using a fisheye lens, there are excelent methods of "fisheye" correction out there. Of course, nothing beats w i d e on a full frame sensor/film. It depends on your needs. If you don't mind the film, processing, scanning, etc.. then stick with film for wide.

Good luck ;)

[DionM]

Guys,

Thanks for the replies.

As far as how wide I'd like to go, currently my widest lens is a 19mm (Tokina 19-35). I probably wouldn't mind 17mm (that Canon 17-40 is nice ... if just a bit pricey!). Fisheyes are out.

I must admit I haven't looked closely at any non-Canon lenses as yet, but from my light reading on those Sigma lenses, they seem okay. The 12-24 would give me an acceptable wide angle (to me).

If I kept the film body for wides (maybe even as a short term) I think I'd shoot exclusively slide, as it scans better than negs.

[chris maddock]

I use a Sigma 12-24 on a 10D and D30, I love it. Coincidentally, my older w/a lens is also a Tokina 19-35, which I bought as my first w/a lens for the D30 - a great lens but it gave me the bug for even wider ;-)

If you really wanted to you could even put it on your film body - now that really is wild - or wide, take your pick ;-)

If you want to see shots with the 12-24 on the 10D (mainly, although there may be a few on the D30) have a look on my galleries at; http://www.dslr.co.uk/Galleries/Newest/dslr_galleries.asp
Some folders have shooting data (Gone West and ePz Day Out) whilst the Didcot one also has some unretouched full-size samples with the 12-24. Many of the Oop North shots were with the 12-24 but there is no shooting data. However, take it from me, if it looks wide it was the 12-24. The 19-35 didn't go on those trips.

KRs
Chris

[DionM]

I use a Sigma 12-24 on a 10D and D30, I love it. Coincidentally, my older w/a lens is also a Tokina 19-35, which I bought as my first w/a lens for the D30 - a great lens but it gave me the bug for even wider ;-)

If you really wanted to you could even put it on your film body - now that really is wild - or wide, take your pick ;-)

If you want to see shots with the 12-24 on the 10D (mainly, although there may be a few on the D30) have a look on my galleries at; http://www.dslr.co.uk/Galleries/Newest/dslr_galleries.asp
Some folders have shooting data (Gone West and ePz Day Out) whilst the Didcot one also has some unretouched full-size samples with the 12-24. Many of the Oop North shots were with the 12-24 but there is no shooting data. However, take it from me, if it looks wide it was the 12-24. The 19-35 didn't go on those trips.

KRs
Chris

Sounds like this 12-24 requires more investigation. I didn't realise it could also fit on a standard film body. 12mm! That is so wide its insane ... I like it :D

Had a look around your galleries ... nice work there! Love the old building stuff - that's what I like about my 19-35 on a film body ... really gives a sense of perspective. The 12-24 would work out very similar range ...

Hmmm ... decisions decisions.

[RichardtheSane]

Do you want to use the wide angle on film too?

If not I don't believe the canon 10-22mm has had a mention yet... that is 16mm on the 20D

[DionM]

Do you want to use the wide angle on film too?

If not I don't believe the canon 10-22mm has had a mention yet... that is 16mm on the 20D

No, it doesn't have to be usable on film. But I just have this philosophical objection to EF-S lenses ... or until I can convince myself EF-S will be a permenant lens range. (Yes, I'm reading all the threads on that too ...). You're right though, the 10-22 is ideal.

[mdude85]

there is also 16-35 from Canon.

[Jon]

I'm using the Sigma 15-30, having decided that the Tokina 19-35 just wasn't wide enough on my D60 and now 20D. (Used to go down to 18 with film) If the 12-24 Sigma had been out then, I would have gotten that, but it shipped about a month after I got the 15-30. Of course, you can also use Photo-Stitch to create really wide angle shots if the subject's static.

[Deckyon]

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8 L. Awesome lens. I had a blast at an old car show over the weekend. Great perspective shots. Of course, I used the 1D Mark II (1.3 crop factor) and when I looked at the same lens on a firend's film camera (EOS 1V) the crop factor was apparent, but not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. The subject is still the SAME SIZE in the frame, there is just less frame around them.

But yes, not exactally a cheap lens - but then none of the L lenses are cheap.