wide angle lens

China Man

China Man

China Man

Associate
Joined
22 Oct 2002
Posts
1,180
Location
London
Hi,

I currently have the canon 17-85mm EFS lens which is good for my walk around lens. I want to do some wide angle shots of nature, would a 10mm lens be a upgrade from my 17mm?

any recommendation for a wide angle lens on a budget?

my camera is a 400d with the crop factor 1.6

Many thanks
 
China Man said:
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens - Canon Fit ?

would it make a big difference with my current lens at 17mm?
Click to expand...

10mmm is a massive difference to 17mm, heck 16mm is very noticeable and adds impact to my photos versus 17/18mm lenses I have used. Remmeber, the actual focal length does not give an easy indication of the Field of view, at this range every mm makes are very large difference in viewing angle.


The problem is 10mm is so wide that it is extremely difficult to use appropriately. Ultra wide angle lenses are the hardest lenses to use. When i ace a photo at 10mm it is one of my favourite photography experience, but I am lucky to do that once or twice a year TBH. You really need the right scene with foreground, mid-ground and distant features, leading lines to connect the features, all combined with exceptional light quality. Of course some scenes such as architecture are much easier than landscape, but here you have to be very, very careful with distortions, key-stoning and other nasty effects.

Beginners tend to think a wider lens lets them photograph wider scnees and "get more in". That is the worng way to think about an UWA lens. You need to think about perspective and proximity, scale, scope, depth.
 
The Tokina 11-16mm lens is superb, some of my favourite pictures came from that before it was stolen...

As mentioned above though, UWA lenses are difficult to use, don't think of them as general landscape lenses because they aren't, they have a very specific effect that makes the photos look impressive, otherwise features seem to get 'lost'.

Example:

This is using a Sigma 12-24 that I borrowed from work on my D3, so wider than you'll get on a crop sensor, but it displays the effect it causes better than I could ever describe.
 
Thanks so much for the info.

I wanted to fit more into the picture type of lens without any fish eye effect, the type of photo will be of medium to long range e.g. sky, mountain and sea etc.
 
China Man said:
Thanks so much for the info.

I wanted to fit more into the picture type of lens without any fish eye effect, the type of photo will be of medium to long range e.g. sky, mountain and sea etc.
Click to expand...

That is not why you buy an UWA lens.

For that I would look at getting a panoramic tripod and head setup and stitching photos.
 
China Man said:


for example, a wide lens can capture a bit more? I took this some time ago.
Click to expand...

Yes a wider angle lens will capture more but at the cost of distortion on vertical lines in the image. This is good for giving small areas perspective or certain subjects that "wow" factor but as mentioned, you lose focus details (not literally, just the "wangle" effect overshadows the actual subject detail itself). Distortion can be fixed in software, DxO will correct it easily but that costs money and you lose some image due to the way the software crops. Lightroom has lens profiles for UWA as well and does a great job on lenses like the EF-s 10-22mm (see below).

The Canon 10-22 EF-s is one that I can definitely recommend though.
It has among the best controllable distortion of almost any other UWA lens and on a crop body the 10mm is just fine as you're getting almost 17mm as a full frame does. The 10-22 also has some of the best flare and CA control of any other UWA lens and is sharp wide open.

It costs a fair amount though but IMO the cost is justified and if you can find one used then even better. I sold mine for £415 recently.
 
I'm planning on selling the lens mrk recommended soon if you keep an eye on the MM if it interests you for around £400. Cracking lens but don't use the ef-s mount any more. And there is a considerable difference between 10mm & 17mm. Others have pretty much described the pros and cons of an UWA, they're definitely fun to play with.
 
I've been using the Sigma 12-24 for years now, although I rarely find I need to use it as it's a lens for very specific situations. Still, it's a nice lens and also has a mkII version out now that's supposedly sharper, although some reviews say it's about the same as the previous version. Also, I've no idea why, but on my 60D, it seems sharper than when I was using it on my 30D. Never gotten around to investigating this as my sister now has my 30D.
 
Ben Cole said:
Sigma or Tamron really.
Click to expand...

Not really.

You have the more expensive Canon 10-22mm and also the two Tokina variations; 11-16mm F2.8 and 12-24mm F4.

I have the 12-24mm and it's a great bit of kit on the 40D. It was on the camera as much, if not more than my 17-50mm and costs about 60% the amount of the expensive 10-22mm Canon.


It will also be up for sale in the MM when I get back onto dry land for the weekend so keep an eye out ;)
 
-Ad- said:
Not really.

You have the more expensive Canon 10-22mm and also the two Tokina variations; 11-16mm F2.8 and 12-24mm F4.

I have the 12-24mm and it's a great bit of kit on the 40D. It was on the camera as much, if not more than my 17-50mm and costs about 60% the amount of the expensive 10-22mm Canon.


It will also be up for sale in the MM when I get back onto dry land for the weekend so keep an eye out ;)
Click to expand...


Well.....yes really, he said he was on a budget. The lenses you mentioned are all 500 quid or more, the popular Tamron can be had from a reputable source for 350, Sigma for about 20 quid more.
 
Last edited:
Ben Cole said:
Well.....yes really, he said he was on a budget. The lenses you mentioned are all 500 quid or more, the popular Tamron can be had from a reputable source for 350, Sigma for about 20 quid more.
Click to expand...

Look harder :p

The 11-16mm Tokina is £470 with the 12-24mm around £360, so not nearly as bad as the Canon. Played with a Tamron and it seemed a little cheap compared the Tokina which is a lovely beast and a great saving over the Canon.

www.microglobe.co.uk
 
Last edited:
-Ad- said:
Look harder :p

The 11-16mm Tokina is £470 with the 12-24mm around £360, so not nearly as bad as the Canon. Played with a Tamron and it seemed a little cheap compared the Tokina which is a lovely beast and a great saving over the Canon.

www.microglobe.co.uk
Click to expand...

Fair enough, thats a particularly good price for the 12-24. I still think its pushing it a bit to talk about the Canon for someone on a budget though ;)
 
I think I will stick with what I got and borrow a lens from a friend to play with. Stitching up photo will be what I do for now.

Cheers for the advice !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom