Which wide-angle (prime) to get???


Status
Not open for further replies.

polo_pro10

New Member
May 16, 2004
783
0
0
30
Rosyth Rd
photobucket.com
Hi pals, I am confused of which wide-angle lens to get, so I need your help. :D I wants to get a wide-angle lens which is below 28mm but got so many leh so confused already. I do not want the 15mm fisheye.Pls let me know the prices as well :sweatsm: & for your information, I am using EOS300 & 10D(maybe next time).


Thanks for your help guys! :D
 

kcky

Member
Jan 29, 2004
74
0
6
46
Sembawang
Hi,
I would recommend the Canon 20mm f/2.8 prime. Should cost you less than $800 at CP.
 

fw007

New Member
Apr 21, 2004
465
0
0
Jurong
photography.ratherharmless.org
it depends first of all (and in fact most of all) on your budget

if u're rich, and have a thousand bucks to spare, get the 17-40/f4L. it's a very sharp lens and provided u don't do too much low-light stuff, u'll love the sharpness, and the wideness of it.

but if u don't have that kind of a budget, then it depends on whether u want faster (wider aperture), or wider (shorter focal length).

u can get the tokina 17/f3.5, which costs about 800 to 900 brand new from AP, the canon 20/2.8 which costs about 800 brand new, or the sigma 20/1.8 which costs about 600 brand new (but it has a 82mm filter diameter so the uv filter will set u back another 50 bucks if u get a non-multicoated one or a lot more if u get a multicoated one).

the sigma 20/1.8 is reputed to be very sharp, n it's very fast. the canon 20/2.8 costs more, n is slower. some say the sigma is sharper, some say the canon is sharper. i don't know :) i own the canon 20/2.8, n i find it quite sharp from f8 onwards, acceptable at f5.6, and not quite usable below that (at 100% crop from my d60) but it depends. different ppl have different tolerance levels for (un)sharpness. i use my 20/2.8 for landscapes, so it's either in bright daylight, or i have a tripod, so i'm ok with it. but the canon 20/2.8 has VERY fast AF.

so in the end, it's up to u and ur wallet :)
 

Russ

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2003
1,639
0
36
Pasir Ris
Visit site
Isn't 28mm more like a standard prime for Canon D30/D60/10D/300D? with the 1.6x crop factor? 28 = 45mm on 35 mm film.

Reckon the following is the answer:
Canon 17-40L/4
Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5
Canon 20/2.8

I am still dreaming about the 17-40L. I have the money but just seems a lot to pay for a lens, no doubt it is a great one but not that much more than the 20-35 when you think about it.
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,536
0
0
Visit site
17-40, 17-35, 16-35, 20-35 on digital (whether 1.6x or 1.3x FLM) all will give you 30~60mm (with + - a few mm on both ends)

and 30~60mm is as good as having only 30mm and 60mm. ie from the way i experience it, its not worth it.

i did alot of thinking and realised that the only wide zoom thats worth it on canon dslr (whether 1.x6 or 1.3x) is something wit the likes of 24~xxxmm. serious. this implies => either go for EF24~85/f3.5-4.5 for less cash or EF 24~70L for more cash. from all my years of shooting experience, its not worth spending $ on wideangles .think about it:

EF24-85: $450

vs

EF17-40L: $1100
EF16-35L: $1700
EF24-70L: $2000

what do u see from a wide angle shot? its just a "wide scene" lor ! :bsmilie: and what do u usually shoot at? f5.6, f8 lor! :bsmilie: ie a wide scene is a "very common looking scene". nothign special. how much detail do u want to resolve from a wide scene? the only special looking wide angle scene is 12mm rectilinear on bressar R2.

hence, rather than spending up to 1000 bucks and beyond on a wideangle lens, might as well spend the $ on telephoto lenses! (EF200/1.8? EF400/f4 DO? EF400/f5.6L?...etc..) :light: infact, can also get a G3/digicam to act as your wideangle lens! :think: which is even better than the "shooting with 2 bodies" approach (less cost, less weight)

think about it, man...
 

fw007

New Member
Apr 21, 2004
465
0
0
Jurong
photography.ratherharmless.org
not true. shooting with wide angles is not having "just a wide scene", nor is it just about shooting a lot in the same scene.

the power of the wide-angle is also its weakness: the ability to take it all in. if not used well, the picture just becomes cluttered, messy. but if used appropriately, you can get your point across (main subject occupying a very significant part of the frame), and still have the environment in the picture (background details).

it's all about shooting style. maybe wide-angle doesn't work for u :). i enjoy the power of wide-angle, especially on my film body.

and wide-angles encourage you to go closer to your subjects...as many photography gurus advocate, if your pictures don't look good, you're not close enough. with a wide-angle, you're forced to go right up to your subjects, and it makes a big difference, especially with street photography..either you've got to have lots of guts, or you'll talk to your subjects and that sort of understanding and rapport you can build up with ur subject can make ur shot a winning one; if you're trying to do a whole photostory and not just take pictures, then the rapport and understanding becomes all the more important. :D

ok. a bit OT. but yeah. that's my point. to each his own :) just presenting the wide-angle side of the story.

actually, if u have the $$$, get a 12-24. is there one for canon mount? from sigma?
 

Belle&Sebastain

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2002
3,796
1
0
here
www.9frames.com
clive said:
what do u see from a wide angle shot? its just a "wide scene" lor ! :bsmilie: and what do u usually shoot at? f5.6, f8 lor! :bsmilie: ie a wide scene is a "very common looking scene". nothign special. how much detail do u want to resolve from a wide scene? the only special looking wide angle scene is 12mm rectilinear on bressar R2.

think about it, man...
you have limited knowledge on how to use a wide angle lens. sorry for being frank. you dun just take "wide scene" you can take lots of close ups, angles, different perspectives from the tip of your frame to the end and produce a story... and i can go on and on about it.
 

Denosha

Senior Member
Dec 25, 2003
1,287
0
36
Bukit Timah
www.sgl.per.sg
The sigma 20mm F1.8 is tack sharp from F4 onwards.. And there's that added advantage of F1.8 for low light non-flash shots. The bokeh is extremely pleasing as well and so is the minimum focusing length of 20cm which gives u a very interesting perspective on closeups.

Disadvantages? The 82mm filter.. expensive! The AF is also slow and noisy (but i guess it should be ok for landscape photography?) And that MF/AF clutch thing is very clumsy and troublesome =^/
 

2100

Senior Member
Mar 3, 2004
3,589
0
0
51
fw007 said:
actually, if u have the $$$, get a 12-24. is there one for canon mount? from sigma?
Good to see that you can appreciate this. People say it's not sharp and damn slow. I don't care. How fast you wanna shoot for 12mm? You don't often shoot fast moving stuff with this either. 12mm rectilinear lens is no joke (it's actually the second 12mm rectilinear lens in the world, the first one is a 12/5.6 prime). I use it solely in the 12-18mm range for the perspective.

Yes, it has a version for canon mount.
 

sequitur

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2003
3,267
0
36
flickr.com
uh, you guys here all have a misconception.

if you're shooting PJ or street having a wide angle lens is very good. something wider than 20mm is good also, be it on film or digital. of course on film 20mm is really too wide and you have to be very close - which makes it kind of a challenge because there's a danger of being whacked. on digital it's about just nice.

f/2.8 and faster is necessary for low light shots. sometimes shooting PJ or street requires low light, blah blah. it's not that you have a wide angle lens means you will always shoot landscapes at f8 above. then what's the point of them coming out with such fast lenses f2.8, f/2, f/1.8.. ?

as for AF speed, as per above. fast AF and slow AF is a world of a difference when it comes to making that clutch shot or not. it IS important when it comes to PJ and street. of course not as impt when it comes to landscape perhaps. but then, if you're really particular about AF speed, manual focus instead coz it's pretty fast and accurate once you get used to it.



to the original topic,

i'd recommend a few - some zooms because after all there's a lack of wide primes.

17-40 for its price
16-35 for its f2.8
sigma 20/1.8 - at 2.8 it's sharper than canon 20/2.8.. just remember to try out the lens in the shop and be happy with what you get first.. no USM though. AF is pretty fast, but definitely not as fast as 17-40.

if you're lucky you'll be able to find a used 20-35 2.8L. it's a very old lens.
hope these help.
 

songandesther

New Member
Aug 12, 2003
291
0
0
47
SengKang
www.pbase.com
clive said:
from all my years of shooting experience, its not worth spending $ on wideangles .

what do u see from a wide angle shot? its just a "wide scene" lor ! :bsmilie: and what do u usually shoot at? f5.6, f8 lor! :bsmilie: ie a wide scene is a "very common looking scene". nothign special. how much detail do u want to resolve from a wide scene? the only special looking wide angle scene is 12mm rectilinear on bressar R2.
I'm surprised that with your number of years of shooting experience, you are giving such advice to people. :bigeyes:

Do you really know the characteristics of a wide angle lens? Do you know what it really can achieve? Different focal lengths serves different purposes, so each has its own use in different circumstances.

Yes, most of the time you might shoot at f5.6, f8 but there will be some times when you need f2.8 or f1.4, that depends on whether you are willing to pay for it.
 

2100

Senior Member
Mar 3, 2004
3,589
0
0
51
sequitur said:
uh, you guys here all have a misconception.

if you're shooting PJ or street having a wide angle lens is very good. something wider than 20mm is good also, be it on film or digital. of course on film 20mm is really too wide and you have to be very close - which makes it kind of a challenge because there's a danger of being whacked. on digital it's about just nice.

f/2.8 and faster is necessary for low light shots. sometimes shooting PJ or street requires low light, blah blah. it's not that you have a wide angle lens means you will always shoot landscapes at f8 above. then what's the point of them coming out with such fast lenses f2.8, f/2, f/1.8.. ?

as for AF speed, as per above. fast AF and slow AF is a world of a difference when it comes to making that clutch shot or not. it IS important when it comes to PJ and street. of course not as impt when it comes to landscape perhaps. but then, if you're really particular about AF speed, manual focus instead coz it's pretty fast and accurate once you get used to it.
But brudder, i don't think the original poster posted that he wants low-light or PJ shots, so i don't think some of us have that misconception. Another poster and I talked about the sigma 12-24 coz of this. :) At the end of the day, the poster decides on what to get for what he shoots most.
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,875
64
48
45
Upper Bukit Timah
www.arkitecturalphotography.com
I personally feel that one shouldn't limit himself into thinking that a particular lens is only made to do certain jobs. Usage of lenses is only limited by one's imagination and vision. Heck, use a FE for portraits for all I care.
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,536
0
0
Visit site
songandesther said:
Do you really know the characteristics of a wide angle lens? Do you know what it really can achieve?
.
yes, i know "how to use a wideangle lens ~properly~ so as to achieve all the ~desired effects~ ". its just that im a more telephoto shooter. for me, the world of teles is mroe exotic that the world of wides. thats why for pragmatic reasons a few hundred bucks for a EF24-85 will suffice ;-)

anyway, for the original posted question, i seriously recommend a EF 24-85. or EF 20/2.8 if he can spend a bit more. bcoz he is not t sure of the effects..so main priority is to lower the "cost of experimenting".
 

Kho King

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
2,513
0
0
44
shashinki.com
may I suggest the Tokina ATX or ATX PRO 17mm f3.5. Cheap and fast and very flare resistance. I have one for my Nikon mount, a very good and wide lens to have.

Remember, when use in digital, your originally wide angle becomes not so wide already...so really need to get the widest possible. I find 28mm, 24mm and 20mm are all not wide enough in Digital.
 

oracle0711

Senior Member
polo_pro10 said:
Hi pals, I am confused of which wide-angle lens to get, so I need your help. :D I wants to get a wide-angle lens which is below 28mm but got so many leh so confused already. I do not want the 15mm fisheye.Pls let me know the prices as well :sweatsm: & for your information, I am using EOS300 & 10D(maybe next time).


Thanks for your help guys! :D
Hi, I am using 17-40mm f/4 as my 20mm f/2.8 is in the hospital for servicing. Now, I am so stuck with the 17-40 that it is on my camera eversince. It's no prime but the 17mm has been fantastic on my 10D coz I shoot architecture and the widest it goes, the better for me at times... If i need to do a perspective on a certain part of the building, the 17mm gives me the flexibility to create a spacious impressions on the pics... if I need to get a close up, well simply switch to 40mm or other lens....

really, it's what u want to use it for that matters. :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.