[clgladiator]

I may be in the market for a reasonably priced wide angle lens for a canon 40D I have checked out the usual places like ebay and LCE and was wondering if anyone on here had anything for sale, so far ive been looking at the Canon EFS 18-55 IS as its quite cheap 

[slackline]

18mm ain't that wide really, especially on a half-frame sensor which means its effectively a focal length of 27mm (that is assuming the 40D is using such a CCD).

The Sigma 10-20mm is a brilliant wide-angle lens though (at least the one I got for my Nikon is, not sure cofe is too happy with his from what I remember).

[dave]

18mm on a canon&ball is even worse than that slacks, cos they use a 1.6 crop sensor - closer to 29mm equiv.

[cofe]

18mm is wide-ish, just not superwide when compared to what's on offer these days. it's about 28-29mm (35mm equivalent) on 40D's 1.6x crop sensor.

More importantly, the 18-55 is shit, so don't buy one. it's also more of a standard zoom rather than a wide angle. so best to decide whether you're after just a wide angle (e.g. 12-24 or 10-20), or a standard zoom that's wide-ish (e.g. 17-85mm). then we can offer advice.

thankfully i don't own one of those sigmas. just a telephoto.

[clgladiator]

at the moment the one and only lens I own is a 100-400 so 18-55 is quite a bit wider than that! I understand what your saying about the differences between the lenses and the 18-55 not being amazing, the issue is a cant afford a decent wide angle like the 10-22 as even 2nd hand they are quite pricey. That was the reason I was looking at the wide-ish standard zooms.

Obviously if there are any decent wide angles going dirt cheap then id definitely be interested.

[cofe]

you've got a 100-400? Sell it and buy a full set of lenses.

[clgladiator]

  yeah, its rather a pricey lens. I happen to enjoy a bit of wildlife photography when i get the opportunity so don't really want to get rid of the lens.

[cofe]

stand further away?

[clgladiator]

im not sure how far away id have to stand to get a decent pic of someone bouldering, I should give it a go   

[Stu Littlefair]

I have one of those sigma 10-20s for my canon and like it. Sharp and contrasty, but hideous distortion when not used carefully. At least, I don't think Dave actually looks like this....



Also got the sigma 18-50 F2.8 and like that a lot; my go-to lens.

[dave]

I do really look like that - proper real life hall-of-mirrors shit. I always stand at that angle.

[T_B]

My boss has a wide angle lens for a Canon 40D which I know he wants to sell. Will find out tomorrow the make/spec and how much he wants for it....

[Johnny Brown]

For reference, here's a shot of Dave without that hideous distortion.



clglad, I'd be looking at the 17-85, has a good rep.

[JamesD]

Hopefully this isn't seen as a thread hi-jack, but I am now going to be selling my Sigma 10-20 mm wide-angle lens (i'll put it on here first), however one catch....its Nikon fitment!

[dave]

good job they make nikon to canon adaptors eh.

[JamesD]

Yup, mostly because..... eventually......all Canon users realize that Nikon is superior, and start changing systems

Here's the link:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,13399.0.html

nice price yes, I like.

Oh and actually....the main reason for the Nikon To Canon adaptor being so popular (straight from the mouth of a canon rep here), is that Canons full frame wide-angle lenses are so useless compared to Nikons amazing 14-24mm lens (which blows pretty much anything ever made by Canon out of the water), that the majority of Canon users shooting landscapes for fine-art or commercial use, started using that lens pretty shortly after it came out, and Canon still haven't brought out a competitive equivalent.

To be fair though.....it bloody well took Nikon long enough to make a decent FF digital SLR to use the lens!

[dave]

shame twelve hundred nicker doesn't buy you a filter thread these days.

[cofe]

back around nikon. back around.

[clgladiator]

cheers guys thanks for all the help, I have now found a pretty awesome offer on the sigma 18-50 f2.8 so I think im going to go for that and get a super wide-angle at a later date when I have more money.

[JamesD]

shame twelve hundred nicker doesn't buy you a filter thread these days.

Who uses filters these days anyway?

Personally I think anything apart from ND Grads, can be pretty easily and realistically duplicated in PS no problem.

[cofe]

i'll stick the kettle on, make a tea, kick back and wait for dave's reply...

[Johnny Brown]

ND grads can be rather more easily implemented in Lightroom, assuming you've managed to capture all brightness values without them in the field.

Dropping the blue slider in luminance can do something to imitate a polariser, but not much. There's no digital substitute.

[JamesD]

I didn't say that they couldn't be easily implemented, but I did say they cannot be realistically implemented IMO.
I've seen a lot of exterior building photo's over the years for instance, where "digital" ND grads have been used to knock down the sky, and to me (and to clients who I have worked for) there is a marked difference between how natural it looks when done in Lightroom, and how natural it looks when executed as it should be, in one shot, in the camera, with only minor corrections required.

[dave]

i'll stick the kettle on, make a tea, kick back and wait for dave's reply...

ya'll know me.

All I'll say is you can't kill reflections in photoshop.

[JamesD]

i'll stick the kettle on, make a tea, kick back and wait for dave's reply...

ya'll know me.

All I'll say is you can't kill reflections in photoshop.

True, but the unique contrasty look, and richening of blues etc can be easily re-created assuming you have a healthy histogram and a clean file.
I've never used one for a job, but then again I don't shoot landscapes, or anything else where i've felt the need for a polariser, most of my work is heavily lit stuff, so generally its just a matter of changing settings/moving lights, scrims or reflectors, to control reflections, vignetting, contrast etc.

[dave]

There's more to using a polariser then just darkening skies though, and most if not all of it isn't replicable unless you turn graphic designer and edit your shot pixel by pixel. Luckily we non 14-24mm shooters don't have to as there's a handy gadget you can buy that does it for you. As a wise man once said, "executed as it should be, in one shot, in the camera". 

[JamesD]

There's more to using a polariser then just darkening skies though, and most if not all of it isn't replicable unless you turn graphic designer and edit your shot pixel by pixel. Luckily we non 14-24mm shooters don't have to as there's a handy gadget you can buy that does it for you. As a wise man once said, "executed as it should be, in one shot, in the camera". 

I'm well aware that there is more to it, and you are 100% right about everything else you said there.
As you said, yes it would be a pain in the arse to actually re-create the effect, but my point was that you could do it should you choose to, and for an experienced re-toucher it would be far from the most complex job they have had to deal with.
Fortunately I do have the luxury of working alongside a pretty decent graphic designer/graphic artist, who can take care of more time consuming stuff such as this if I wanted to do it, since he is much much quicker in photoshop than I am....although he'd probably call me a cunt and just tell me to go back and give him a decent shot to work with
If I had a job where I had to use a polariser, or I would be required to, then i'd probably just hire a lens that can fit one, because as I said I don't really ever have the need for one, doing what I do, I mostly shoot commercial portraiture, wedding and events, a bit of fashion here and there (hopefully a lot more in the near future if things go well), and some corporate work, including a lot of interior bits in the past.
For me the 14-24mm is just such a stunning lens I find it hard to drag myself away from it to use something inferior, just so I have the flexibility to use filters that i'll probably never need?

[dave]

For your uses that lens is ideal, infact its exactly what it was designed for.

[cofe]

I've just realised I could save myself a fortune on filters n stuff by instead just employing a graphic designer on £30k a year. Winner!

[dave]

Crazy amount of egg on your face right now.

[JamesD]

For your uses that lens is ideal, infact its exactly what it was designed for.

Indeed, me thinks that is why I doth love it so, superb Image quality and sublime low levels of distortion that are easily corrected should you have the need, the 24-70mm is almost as good, but not quite....which is a shame.

I've just realised I could save myself a fortune on filters n stuff by instead just employing a graphic designer on £30k a year. Winner!

Luckily I don't have to employ him, he's my business partner and one of my best friends, top bloke to work with and his 3D experience certainly comes in handy, also an excellent web-designer, although ironically he hates working on websites and would rather be out shooting, and working on photo/video stuff.

He's not a bad photographer either, here's something he shot recently for a mate of his, I was assisting for a change!



I did the lighting, and held booms etc.

Shot with the glorious 14-24mm

[dave]

He's not a bad photographer either, here's something he shot recently for a mate of his, I was assisting for a change!



I did the lighting, and held booms etc.

Shot with the glorious 14-24mm

Thats pretty minimalist.

[cofe]

Is that a homeopathic photograph?

[slackline]

Is that a homeopathic photograph?

 

[JamesD]

Is that a homeopathic photograph?

Haha, homeopathic medicine, if its too good to be true......

Anyway, here's a link to the pic, won't embed for some reason?!

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=50435005&albumID=3478546&imageID=65820438

A few compression artifacts, but myspaz.com is not exactly known for preserving picture quality!

[dave]

Anyway, here's a link to the pic, won't embed for some reason?!

Aye, you need to embed the jpg url not the entire webpage.

[SA Chris]

A few compression artifacts, but myspaz.com is not exactly known for preserving picture quality!

Or indeed a place where a professional would store photos in the first place

[JamesD]

Aha!



There ya go

[slackline]

Something I wrote might help with embedding pictures 

[JamesD]

A few compression artifacts, but myspaz.com is not exactly known for preserving picture quality!

Or indeed a place where a professional would store photos in the first place

It was a favour for a friend, and its not stored there, its where he chose to display it.

Here is where we display our work: http://www.321collective.com although not much of it is up at the moment as we are re-vamping the site, hopefully all the content will be back up by the end of next week, things have been a bit manic with work lately.

[nic mullin]

clgladiator - the 17-85 canon is a decent lens and a good allrounder on a 1.6 crop camera for bouldering shots (I use mine quite a bit). They also crop up quite often second hand as they come as a kit lens with 30/40/50Ds. 

T_B - I've PM'd you about your boss's lens.