Looking for a good Wide Angle Lens

[dfiller]

Hi everyone! This is my first post. :)

I've got a 300D and I'm about to embark on a trip to Yosemite National Park. I have both the 35mm that came with the kit and a Tamron 300mm telephoto lens.

However, I love taking photographs of sweeping landscapes and scenery. Naturally, I'm looking into a wide angle lens, but don't want to break the bank. I've read a bit about wide angles lenses and have come to the conclusion that a 24mm (zoom not needed) lens would probably be a good all around wide angle lens for me.

I'm hoping many of you can post the lenses you use, your thoughts on them, and how much you paid. I'm looking for fairly inexpensive options, but obviously not bottom of the barrel. Also, even if you don't own a specific lens, recommendations are greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

~Daniel

[Toogy]

Well, I recomend the 10-22 for sure, but that is probably way out of your budget.
I used to use a Sigma 18-125mm lens and it was pretty decent for the price, maybe try and get one of those? They are around $250 I believe.

[dfiller]

I'm reading about lenses used for film on digital being 1.6x the actual mm specifications on the lens? Meaning a 24mm lens would be 38mm on my rebel. I'm not sure if this is true, and if so, it looks like I need a super wide angle lens. Ouch.

Help is appreciated.

[cdhender]

If you're going prime, the Tokina 17mm is pretty popular around here. I'm thinking about getting it myself.

Here is a review:

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html

And here is a thread about it :

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55097

Here's more from drisley,a user who loves it:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50003

Hope this helps.

[dfiller]

Thanks guys. The lens that came with the Canon is 18-55mm. I'm questioning needing an 18-125 lens when the 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses I already have cover that range nicely I assume. That 17mm looks beautiful. I might have to look into this but because I am new to this... will it make sense to purchase this with the standard lens kit I already have? It looks great and I don't mind spending that much. I just want to make sure I'll love the difference.

[ScottE]

If you are looking for a wider view than your 18-55 gives, a 17mm prime is not going to be significantly wider.

I just got back from a trip to Banff and my new Canon 10-22 gave me the broad view I needed for sweeping landscapes. I am making some prints right now and they appear very sharp.

If the cost of the Canon is a concern, Sigma and Tokina make 12-24mm lenses, Tamron makes an 11-18 and Sigma has announced a 10-20. Ths new Sigma 10-20 should be released this month.

Scott

[jscotti]

Hi everyone! This is my first post. :)

However, I love taking photographs of sweeping landscapes and scenery. Naturally, I'm looking into a wide angle lens, but don't want to break the bank. I've read a bit about wide angles lenses and have come to the conclusion that a 24mm (zoom not needed) lens would probably be a good all around wide angle lens for me.
~Daniel

I'm pretty happy with my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG lens so far on my Canon 20D. When stopped down just a little, it is sharp from center to edge and being able to open it up to f/1.8 allows me to get shots I couldn't imagine otherwise. It's field of view is wide enough for most of my purposes (yeah, I'd love ot have something around 10mm...). I was able to stop the water in a fountain at night lit only by incandescents shooting at ISO 3200 and 1/250 last week and 30 second exposures of the night sky almost overexpose the Milky Way at f/1.8 and ISO 3200. I also have the kit 18-55mm EF-S lens, but when I don't need any zoom or the extra wide 18mm focal length, the 24mm is my lens of choice for wide angle.

Jim.

[colourstorm]

A questions for 'ScottE':

I just got back from a trip to Banff and my new Canon 10-22 gave me the broad view I needed for sweeping landscapes. I am making some prints right now and they appear very sharp.

Did you use your 10-22 at it's widest field of view?
How would not having the lens have affected you taking your shots?
Would did it enable you to do (that wouln't have been possible with an equivalent focal length of say, 28mm instead of 16mm etc?)

I tried out the 10-22 yesterday at my local cannon specialist as I'm considering buying it - but it was very wide, and I'm not sure how much use I'd get out of it...

Your help is appreciated enormously,
Joe

[Mohawk]

Get the 10-22mm. Been out there, done that. Nothing else will do. Just wish I would have had a lens at roughly 16mm, this was back in the old film days. I missed many a shot, due to lack of a WA lens. And yes, I do own a 10-22mm for my 20D. I would not leave home without it, ecspecially if I were going West.

Mike

[Rob612]

10-22


I love it !!! 'Nuff said.
:D

[Beeclose]

Hi, The 10-22mm lens would become a 16-35 on a digital, a 16mm would probable be good, giving You a 24mm on digital, it could be the way to go

[Marshall]

Have the sigma 15-30,a big brute of a lens, noisy focussing but on my 20d produces some super pics.Mine bought on E-bay for £245 retail in the U.K. £399.Suprisingly this lens is not mentioned much on the forum, anyone else with experience of this lens out there?

[randyk]

The 17-40 is wide in giving a 28mm field of view on a 1.6 crop body. But the 10-22 or similar lens is needed for true ultra wide. I love the 17-40 for more traditional shots but the 10-22 is really a fun and creative lens, highly recommended. Its not an L and its not cheap but the results are just as rewarding.

[ScottE]

Did you use your 10-22 at it's widest field of view?
How would not having the lens have affected you taking your shots?
Would did it enable you to do (that wouln't have been possible with an equivalent focal length of say, 28mm instead of 16mm etc?)


There are many situations where you cannot get all the foreground and background elements in the photo unless you have a super-wide angle lens. For example I have attached a photo shot at 13 mm. If I just had my 17-40 lens I would have had to stitch several photos together to get the same view. Even then, I am not sure I could have got it as good. (Yes, I know the photo is dark. It was shot just after day break when the sun had reached the mountains but it was still dark in the valley.

Scott

[picnic]

Have the sigma 15-30,a big brute of a lens, noisy focussing but on my 20d produces some super pics.Mine bought on E-bay for £245 retail in the U.K. £399.Suprisingly this lens is not mentioned much on the forum, anyone else with experience of this lens out there?

Yes, I love this lens. I've had it for over 3 years now--first with my D60, then the 10D and now with the 20D. I shoot 90% of my commercial shots with it (room settings for several upholstered furniture mfg.) and find it very sharp, a bit noisy focusing as you said, but in all honesty, I really don't notice it anymore. It was about the only game in town when I bought it but there have been many of us that have found it to be an excellent lens--and I'm not even saying 'for the money'. I considered buying the 17-40 at one time but reconsidered--the 15-30 (my copy) is very sharp corner to corner, focuses just fine and accurately, and is a good sturdy lens.

I've bought the 10-22 because I wanted very wide, but won't sell the 15-30 and would certainly recommend this lens new or used (which should be a real bargain).

Another non-zoom wide that I like very much is the fast Sigma 20 f/1.8. This is a lovely lens too--and I bet you could find a good one used here again.

Diane

[ayotnoms]

Just came back from Yosemite last week.

I used a 17-40 f/4L which is cheaper than the 10-22mm and a few dollars more than the EFS 17-85mm mount.

Here's a picture I took with the 17-40L. I saved with an older version of Photoshop so it looks dark, it's my fault. Trust me the photo is sharp, sharp, sharp. :-)

You can judge for yourself whether you want to go wider. If you do want a wider shot then it will have to be the 10-22mm (or an equivalent 3rd party lens). Just bear in mind however that if you decide to upgrade your camera (to a 1.3 FOVCF or full frame) the EFS 10-22 will not work; whereas the 17-40 will still work and give you additional width in the bargain.

For what it's worth...

[Todd Jacobsen]

Going to the extreme ranges of the 10-22 significantly impact your background and artificially seperate it from the foreground.

Personally, the appropriate combination of foreground/background make the landscape photo. Unless you want to accentuate the foreground, a 10-22 on the wide end, is too extreme.

I purchased the 10-22 for foreground capture, particularly in limited spaces (can't backup). I'm very happy to have the 16-35L as my PRIME landscape lens, with the 10-22 as an option for specific scenarios.

[lordjim]

I have looked at both the 10-22 EF-S and 17-40 L. I found the 17-40 better built. Also I was concerned that the EF-S format may not survive to the 20D, as pro digital cameras do not use the 1.6 crop sensor and it would seem reasonable to expect that future prosumers cameras will benefit from the technology currently available to the pros. So I would go with the 17-40 L if I were you. If you need the extra angle for some shots, you can always mount the 17-40 on a back up film camera.