Wide Angle Budget Lens

Hi Guys,

I want to buy wide angle budget lens, can you please suggest?

Regards
Aby

Heya,

Rokinon 14mm F2.8.

Budget. And also top quality. People use it on their $3000 camera setups. Yet it's only $300. It's that good. Fully manual. But when it comes to wide angle, you don't need autofocus, so that's easy.

Very best,

What body are you using? Many would recommend the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm

Malveaux, have you every found the need to use a ND filter on your 14/2.8? I assume there is no easy solution?

I am using Canon 500D(T1i).

What's budget to you? Can you drop $500? If so, you can get a used 10-22mm for less than that. It's a great UWA for crop, probably the best out there. I've got one on sale if you are thinking of going that route - just PM me..

The 10-22 really is a great option but I do love my samyang 14mm. It is really sharp and when I moved to full frame I was still able to use it.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16563523
Malveaux, have you every found the need to use a ND filter on your 14/2.8? I assume there is no easy solution?

Heya,

I use an ND filter on my 35mm 2 and my 11-16mm F2.8. Even my 85mm F1.8. I have several. But yes. It's important when you're doing day time shots, wide open, at their max apertures. It lets you continue to shoot at maximum aperture, without getting massive overexposure and being forced to use 1/4000s shutter speeds. So if you want longer exposure, with narrow depth of field for some interesting shots, the ND filter comes in handy. Real handy on the 85 f1.8 if you are doing some day light shots with some harsh light, like outdoor portraits. But on my 35 f2 and 11 f2.8, I like them for the longer exposures where I'm getting the moon, stars, or day light, sunsets, etc, where I want longer exposure with even a narrow aperture, but still too much light coming in, so an ND filter comes in handy there too.

It's one of those filters that you can actually nearly always make good use of it--except at night (though is still useful, when doing the moon and stars, longer exposure as the moon is too bright and this helps bring it down while capturing stars).

Very best,

Buy a used Sigma 10-20 f/4~5.6. Great lens for the money and it takes 77mm filters easily.

How about EF 35mm F2.0? It is less than $400. Please suggest some lenses too.

35mm on a crop is nowhere close to wide angle.

Find a used Tokina 12-24. They sell for around $300 or a bit less. Very nice lens, useful range.

aby_987 wrote in post #16563627
How about EF 35mm F2.0? It is less than $400. Please suggest some lenses too.

Wonderful lens.

But not wide enough.

You are going to want to stay at the 10 to 16mm ranges, tops, for ultra wide.

Very best,

I agree....

For the most versatility and very good quality, pick up either a Canon 10-22mm or Tokina 12-24/4. The Canon has the best image quality, AF performance, and unusually good flare resistance. The Tokina is nearly as good in all respects and might be even better built. It feels downright "L-like".

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 is a fine lens, too, but usually a bit more expensive than the 12-24 and a bit more prone to flare. Plus you give up a lot of focal length range in order to get f2.8, which most people really don't need in an ultrawide. It's built just as good as it's sibling.... "L-like".

And, yes, the Rokinon/Samyang 14/2.8 is another fairly affordable option. it also sells under Bower, ProOptic, Vivitar and some other brand names. Exact same lens (Vivitar calls it a 13mm, everyone else calls it a 14mm). So shop around. 14mm is wide, but noticeably less wide than 10, 11 or 12mm. And it's not nearly as versatile as a zoom. Also be aware it's manual focus and manual aperture only..... so a lot slower to shoot with. Plus, the 14mm has a protruding front element that precludes using standard filters on it. If you decide to get this lens, be sure to take some shots with it immediately using a large aperture and look carefully for one side or the other of the image to be out of focus, an indication of a decentered element. Apparently there are some copies of the lens with this problem. Most are fine, though. Just check for it and be prepared to exchange it, if you happen to get a bad copy.

More expensive, but wider is the Sigma 8-16mm.... in fact it's the widest lens available, unless you go with a fisheye. There's strong wide angle distortion with this lens, but that's to be expected with such a wide lens. This lens also has a protruding front lens element, that prevents mounting filters in the usual manner.

There are also Sigma 10-20mm and Tamron 10-24mm ultrawides. There actually are two versions of the Siggy... a cheaper one with a variable aperture, and a more expensive and considerably larger one with f3.5 constant aperture. Most of these lenses mentioned here use 77mm filters. The SIggy 10-22mm f3.5 requires 82mm, which tend to be considerably more expensive. The variable aperture Siggy and the Tamron are often the lowest priced lenses in this class, when bought new. The Tamron boasts the widest range of focal lengths in a single UWA zoom. It tends to be a bit soft at the 24mm end of the range.

Note: Regarding filters on the lenses with protruding front elements, that can't be fitted with standard, screw-in filters. There are DIY methods and even starting to be some kits for these lenses, that allow large, rectangular filters to be mounted via an adapter that clamps onto the front of the lens. One concern when using this type of filter setup is that it's difficult to shade from oblique light, hard to fit with any sort of lens hood.

There really are lots of options. So first think about what you need in the lensand then spend some time shopping around.

I can highly recommend the sigma 8-16.

I love mine. Here are some of my shots with it if you're interested...

https://www.flickr.com …s/sets/72157631​981392512/