good wide'ish angle prime

[blinking8s]

Im not really familiar with the wide angles from canon all that much. Ive shot on a Sigma 15mm fisheye before...good build, but yeah..Id like to avoid the fishy look

I want to use it for sports, the so faster the AF and lower the f-stop the better.

Any ideas?

[sGu]

16-35mm 2.8 L if budget allows, otherwise 17-40mm, damn good wide angle lens for money.

I have Canon 15mm fishy, love it to bits, you can always de-fish the images to normal look yet they'll show you everything!

[Olegis]

I don't think that the FA speed and accuracy will matter with wide-angle lens, as they usually have so much DOF. As of optical quality - I recommend the Tokina 17mm AT-X Pro, it's quite wide on 1.6 crop body, built like a small tank and has excellent optical quality.

[newdamage1]

I realize that this may be a little slow for sports, But I was personally thinking about using a EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for wide angle shots. Any one have experience with this lens?

Kelly

[maderito]

Speaking strictly of Canon lenses ...

I've been looking at the 28/1.8 USM. Reportedly focuses fast with average optics - which should be OK for sports action shots which don't require critical sharpness. The price is right!

For more flexibility at a higher price, the 17-35/2.8 L zoom may be appropriate, but I think the 24-70/2.8 L would give you more flexibility in most sports shooting settings. I have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and its too slow focusing for sports.

Canon is thin on good wides. :(

I'm gonna see if I can try out that 28/1.8 for a weekend of shooting. :)

[Olegis]

The problem with the 28mm prime is that it's in no way a "wide-angle" lens on the 1.6-crop body, it's more like a 42mm prime...

[pierrot]

Have a look to the EF-S 10-22mm. Makes really wwiidde pictures!

[maderito]

The problem with the 28mm prime is that it's in no way a "wide-angle" lens on the 1.6-crop body, it's more like a 42mm prime...

Agreed. . . but indoor sports shots I've seen with 28 and 35 mm lenses on 1.3 & 1.6 crop cameras have a totally different (and appealing) look and feel compared to standard 50mm, 85mm, and 135 mm sports shots from the same camera. For outdoor landscape work, clearly 28 mm doesn't get you very much.

I've also heard some street photographers testify to the merits of the 28/35 mm primes for everyday use. In that case, the "wide angle" lens gives approximately a 50mm "normal" perspective on the 300D/10D/20D.

[Alan Neilson]

It might just be me but I allways thought of prime lens being fixed focal lengh ie 14mm, 24mm 28mm ect ect and not like some members have been sugesting 16-35mm, 17-40mm "zoom" lens just because they are own brand doesn't mean they are prime lens.

Anyway enough of that, to choice of lens if you are wanting a prime ie a fixed focal lengh lens and something that would be considered wide angle on a digital camera and therefore superwide on a film camera you do need to be looking at something around the 17mm mark which then gives you what is considered normal wide angle. I don't have any prime wide angle lens for my canon so can't give any personal recommendations, just reading posts here there are members that sing the praises Tokina's 17mm so that is maybe one to look at. I am also sure that the canon lens will also be good if slightly more expensive.

The quality of zoom lens now are a lot better and you would be hard pushed to tel the difference from a fixed focal lenght lens. In which case any of the ones allready listed would be a good choice depending on budget and camera. As I don't have a camera that takes EF-s mount I would stay away from them for ovious reasons and even if I did have I would still be tempted to stay away in case I upgraded. I have just got the 17-40mm and haven't really had change to try it out from what I have seen the results are nice an extra stop would be nice but couldn't justify going for the 16-35mm 2.8 nearly went for the sigma 2.8. As with a lot of these things if you can get to a shop with a nice range in stock go and try them out even if you have to try them on another make of camera your still get an idea of what they like.

just my 0.02p or cents worth depending on wich side of the water you are from.

[KevC]

Russian fishy? I'm really interested in the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8. Maybe *too* wide...

[drisley]

I second Olegis' motion... the Tokina 17mm ATX PRO. There is nothing else like it out there, Canon or third party. It's built like an L, has optics on par with the 17-40L (better optics when you consider the Tokina's excellence at distortion and lens flare resistance), and is very affordable to say the least.

[blinking8s]

thank you for all the feedback

im keeping my eye on the Sigma 30 mm F1.4 at the moment, it "reads" like a very nice lens and will suit what i am looking for at the moment. I wasnt aware of the tonika before this post, it looks like a great investment for what I am looking for as well. I doubt the sigma will be able to compare in many aspects though, but some of their primes I have been pretty impressed with for the price, build quality has been good...
does anyone know when the new sigma lenses will be in stock?

[gmen]

Might also be worth looking at the Sigma 20mm, 24mm or 28mm f/1.8 lenses. Relatively inexpensive, pretty good quality and fast for those low light (i.e. indoor sports) situations.

I've used the 20mm before and found it to be quite reasonable.

--- Gavin

[Cadwell]

I use the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM for some indoor sports work. It does a pretty decent job.

[pcasciola]

The Sigma 30/1.4 is designed to be a "normal" lens on a 1.6x body, not wide angle. For primes on a 1.6x body, I'd take a look at the Sigma or Tamron 14mm f/2.8, or the Canon 14/2.8L if money is no object. They are not fisheye lenses like the 15mm's. Also, Sigma offers a 20/1.8, 24/1.8 and 28/1.8 that will give you that faster aperture you asked about, although I know absolutely nothing about those three.

I don't want to become a Tokina 17mm basher, but at just 1mm wider and the same max aperture as your kit lens, I'm not sure you would notice much of a difference on your 20D, assuming you have a decent copy of the kit lens. The Tokina is definitely built a hell of a lot better than the kit lens, that's for sure.

Also, it's hard to talk about wide angle without knowing what camera people are using. A 24 or 28mm might work well on a 1 series or film body, but on a 20D they are barely wide at all after the crop.

[Mike Panic]

when he asks for a prime - why does everyone in here recomend a zoom?

wide sharp glass - 20mm f/2.8

[cmM]

wide-ish?
I would deffinitely considder the Canon 35mm f/2.0
It's cheap, and it's fast. The AF is not the fastest, but I was reading a comparisson between that and the 35mm f/1.4L and optically speaking it comes quite close. Also, you might wanna check out the 28 f/2.8 and the 20 f/2.8 Canon primes, those are pretty nice too. It depends on how much money you wanna spend.

[mbze430]

and why is everyone recommend 35mm+, on 1.6x crop factor its all standard focal lenght.

With a 1.6x you need focal length in the 10mm thru 16mm. 14mm will be great with a 1.6x, don't waste your money on the 14mm L from canon on the 1.6x because it won't be worth it for the price. It was design for full frame, and you will see a good edge performance as that.

[René Damkot]

I agree with the Tokina 17 and Sigma 20mm

[blinking8s]

well, WIDE might have been the wrong word to use, anything wider than a 50mm is WIDE for me at 1.6 and the less distortion the bette...thanks for all the replies so far

I don't want to become a Tokina 17mm basher, but at just 1mm wider and the same max aperture as your kit lens, I'm not sure you would notice much of a difference on your 20D, assuming you have a decent copy of the kit lens. The Tokina is definitely built a hell of a lot better than the kit lens, that's for sure.

the kit lens tracks horribly, is worthless in low light, and after using "good" glass its optical quality is a broad step below during many situations...i try not to touch the thing if possible. I only got it so I did have wide angle during DIRE situations with intentions to replace its range offering as soon as possible.

[pcasciola]

the kit lens tracks horribly, is worthless in low light, and after using "good" glass its optical quality is a broad step below during many situations...i try not to touch the thing if possible. I only got it so I did have wide angle during DIRE situations with intentions to replace its range offering as soon as possible.I had the same exact idea about replacing it as soon as possible, and I only kept it for wider than 28mm, but I'm starting to think there are widely varying copies of this lens around, because mine seems pretty damn good as a wide angle lens, yet for some reason I still want to get rid of it. At 50mm there is no comparison to either the 50/1.8 or Tamron 28-75, but at 18mm, it's not half bad. I did a comparison here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=60721

Funny you should say that about the low light, because I just did a test of the kit lens vs. the Tokina 17mm in low light last night. It was nearly pitch black, using the speedlight focus assist beam from about 10-12 feet away. Again, I hate to be the kit lens praiser, but I got 5 out of 5 in focus shots with the kit lens, and 1 out of 5 with the Tokina. That's better than my Tamron 28-75 does in low light as well.

I have a few good lenses, and I agree there are many situations where the kit lens lacks, but wide angle is not one of them, at least not for me. The only bad things I can say about it at 18mm are, it's a little soft in the extreme corners, has a little more distortion than a quality lens like the Tokina, and is built like junk. Optically, at least my copy anyway, it's actually not half bad. I will continue to search for a better wide angle, but I think I may just end up getting the 10-22 or a good 14mm prime.

[drisley]

I agree pcasciola.
The 18-55mm kit lens really is not half bad. Btw, are you using the USM version?
The only comparison I have is I took shots of a bridge with both lenses using similar apertures last year.

Kit Lens (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/072004/CRW_2111) @18.0mm, f/13.0, 15.000 s, iso100

Tokina (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/11032004/MG_3329) @ 17.0mm, f/11.0, 25.000 s, iso100

This obviously isn't an exact comparison (I think my white balance was off in the first one), but it goes to show you can get results that will look similar. The kit lens does show more flare, which is the Tokina's strong point.