[Zods Beard]

Hi there, as the title says, I'm looking for a new lens for my 350D. It'll mainly be used for climbing shots and the occasional landscape. Looking for a wide angle one and have no idea what to look for.

I don't mind whether it's new or 2nd hand and have about 300 fuck alls to spend. Also compatibility with other Canon bodies would be useful but not essential as I won't be upgrading for a while.

Thanks   

[Durbs]

I love my Sigma 10-24 EX DG - I've got the 3.5-5.6 version, but they also make a fixed 3.5 one - opinions on whether it's worth paying the extra for this seem to be divided.

[Paul B]

Tokina 12-24 MK1 seems to be the climbers choice of wide angle. I think the only differences between the MK1 and 2 are only really relevant on Nikon bodies.

Think it might just about come in on budget as well.

[Fultonius]

I had a sigma 24-70 ex-dg f2.8, which was not wide enough for my liking at the wide end and also pretty ropey image quality. Apperently some copies were good, others shit.

I replaced it with a Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS which is simply outstanding. Only works on crop-sensor bodies so if you ever think you're going to go 7d or above, then it's not the best.(but  it's almost defintely true that you would be better upgrading lenses than upgrading bodies) 17mm is wide enough most of the time. 55mm can be a bit short but the lack of range is more than made by the IQ.

Unfortunately it's only 300 fuck alls if 1 fuck all = £2.67. (£800) They sell for similar prices 2nd hand!

One of my friends recently bought a Canon 10-22mm  "for landscaoes, climbing and skiing" and, as I said to him, you'll quickly tire of super-wide angle landscapes - all sky and no interest! Now he wants a 70-200.

If you're doing landscapes and really need that wide and angle of view, then just stitch. (Obviously this ain't so good for actions shots)

[Johnny Brown]

What have you got at the moment Ste?

One of my friends recently bought a Canon 10-22mm  "for landscaoes, climbing and skiing" and, as I said to him, you'll quickly tire of super-wide angle landscapes - all sky and no interest! Now he wants a 70-200.

If you're doing landscapes and really need that wide and angle of view, then just stitch.

I wouldn't really agree with that. For landscapes I'm usually at 16-18mm, but will often go to 14mm, and occasionally 12mm. Agreed, 10mm is excessive, but I'd rather have the option than be stuck on a standard zoom at 17/18mm. Peformance is likely better too - at 16mm my Tokina 12-24 is far better than my Nikon 16-85.

[slackline]

One of my friends recently bought a Canon 10-22mm  "for landscaoes, climbing and skiing" and, as I said to him, you'll quickly tire of super-wide angle landscapes - all sky and no interest! Now he wants a 70-200.

If you're doing landscapes and really need that wide and angle of view, then just stitch. (Obviously this ain't so good for actions shots)

  but thats a mistake in composition (i.e. user problems and not equipment), focal points and foreground are important in landscapes, even more so when using very wide angles.

If you're going to do lots of stitching then a decent tripod is a must, even better if you can get a head that pivots around the entrance pupil (but they get pricey!).

[Baldy]

I assume you have the stock lens 18-55mm     f3.5-5.6?
If you dont it is a cheap widish angle option. Bit boring and you might struggle to take something with any kind of bokeh

The one I am after next is the 50mm f1.8 nifty fifty.
Strongly advised to get it by the photographers I know.
-Good for bouldering shots if you dont mind moving into place instead of using a zoom function.
-you also might be able to find the f1.4 for that price if you  look around...slightly better build quality etc.

[Durbs]

IOnly works on crop-sensor bodies so if you ever think you're going to go 7d or above, then it's not the best

5D or above Shirley?
7D is a crop sensor isn't it?

[Paul B]

yes

[Johnny Brown]

but thats a mistake in composition (i.e. user problems and not equipment), focal points and foreground are important in landscapes, even more so when using very wide angles.

Slack-line makes a good point which I forgot. Composing a good landscape with an uber-wide is difficult, all the more so with the little viwefinders you get on modern budget DSLRs.

Call me old fashioned, but stitching to get round the lack of a wide lens sounds like a massive pain in the arse, and fraught with problems. Using a zoom at its widest will usually exacerbate any distortion and vignetting - both a pain for stitching. And you have to be meticulous with your manual settings and development. I only resort to stitching when I want to have an unusual aspect ratio) ie panoramic) without losing file size/ resolution.

[Paul B]

but stitching to get round the lack of a wide lens sounds like a massive pain in the arse, and fraught with problems.

He's not wrong, recently I did a couple of stitches and all I had to play with was my 50mm, they were a ball ache to stitch and one of them is still utter shite.

If you haven't got the 50mm its a great edition to anyones bag and everything else you'll look at after will seem both expensive and a compromise (or is this just me?).

[Baldy]

starting to get a tad  with the stitching thing but I havent exactly had bad results with photoshop's auto stitch feature...
Have you all tried that? Assuming you take the pictures quickish it does a very good job of sticking them together without too noticeable joints.

[Durbs]

But equally - you can use a wide-angle for so-much more than landscapes

Especially useful for cramped problems in font when you're stuck between rocks  - you can still get the whole thing in
(Albeit distorted to make it look like a pebble...)

Outside of a bouldering context, it opens up a load of creative possibilties

[Stu Littlefair]

Don't know what you mean by wide-angle. For a standard zoom, the Canon 17-55 is hard to beat, but well out of your budget. The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 gives similar optical quality (very good) for around 300 notes; you lose a few mm either end and the fast quiet autofocus.

Wider than that and I dunno; I've never been happy with my Sigma 10-20; my least used lens

[Fultonius]

yes

Woops, bit out of touch with Canon bodies as I'm not planning on buying one any time soon.

Re: the wide-angle thing - I perhaps didn't word that so well - what I was meaning was "landscape doesn't necessarily = wide angle".

There are circumstances where you won't get a shot without going to 12mm,14mm etc. I'd love to have a lens this wide, but I just don't see me using it all that much. My flatmate has a 10-20, he's a good photographer, but his shots are all starting to look a bit "samey", in fact the best ones are usualy at the longer end of the range.

Stu - yes, 17-55 is a "standard zoom". But 17mm is wideangle and 55 is (very) short telephoto. No, it's not a "wideangle-zoom" but what I was hoping to point out is maybe that's not really what he was looking for?

Fuck knows, you guys are probably more knowledgable anyway...

[Zods Beard]

What have you got at the moment Ste?

I have a smashed up kit lens and a zoom lens. Paul's suggestion of the Tokina sounds good, I was checking these yesterday on  t'web. A 50mm prime is also on the shopping list too.

Don't know what you mean by wide-angle. For a standard zoom, the Canon 17-55 is hard to beat, but well out of your budget. The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 gives similar optical quality (very good) for around 300 notes; you lose a few mm either end and the fast quiet autofocus.

Wider than that and I dunno; I've never been happy with my Sigma 10-20; my least used lens

I suggested wide angle as I understood they were pretty handy for climbing photo's? Sorry, bit of a noob really. As for the landscapes, these are a secondary concern, it will mainly be for action shots.

Unfortunately it's only 300 fuck alls if 1 fuck all = £2.67. (£800) They sell for similar prices 2nd hand!

Sadly my Fuck all/Cash exchange rate is 1:1 at the moment.

[nic mullin]

Wider than that and I dunno; I've never been happy with my Sigma 10-20; my least used lens

Is that because you don't like this range of focal lengths, or because of issues with this particular lens?

I've been thinking about getting something wider than my canon 17-85 and have been pondering the sigma 10-20, tokina 12-24 or 11-16 (winning at the moment because it's f/2.8 all the way through, but it is pricey) or canon 10-22 options.

Zod's - if your looking for something around 17mm at the wide end, I really like the 17-85 canon - it's built ok, decent zoom range, good optics, fairly fast and quiet autofocus and is well within your budget. It is fairly slow (f/4) and not super wide though, and it only mounts on 1.6x crop cameras. Also, if you already have the 17-50something kit lens with your 350d it's not any wider, but the image quility is a bit better.

[Paul B]

I've been thinking about getting something wider than my canon 17-85 and have been pondering the sigma 10-20, tokina 12-24 or 11-16 (winning at the moment because it's f/2.8 all the way through, but it is pricey) or canon 10-22 options.

I bought a recent magazine which tested most of these, to sum it up the Canon won. You're welcome to the magazine if you're sheffield based and if its of any use.

[Durbs]

Ooo - which magazine?

Digital Camera liked the Canon in their most recent review, but the previous one it got slated (mostly in terms of value for money) and the Sigma came top.

My Siggy has pretty much become my walkabout lens, but I try to make sure I take it off every now and then to get some variety.

Couple of pics taken (with Canon 1000D) - No PP other than straightening horizons (Cir-pl used on first one)


Dome of the Rock by durbs_toast, on Flickr



Mohammed Ali Mosque, Cairo by durbs_toast, on Flickr

[Stu Littlefair]

Wider than that and I dunno; I've never been happy with my Sigma 10-20; my least used lens

Is that because you don't like this range of focal lengths, or because of issues with this particular lens?

For two reasons, one of which is definitely the lens, one might be me.

1) It's not sharp at all away from the very centre. It doesn't seem like this is a quality control issue; I've tested a few in the shop and they all seem pretty similar.

2) I can't get my head round the wideness and take decent pictures with it. That might just be me not 'seeing' wide angle shots properly, or it may be the fact that it has pretty horrible distortion (a blend of pincushion and barrel) which makes things look horrid. I suspect it's the former, as I have some shots taken with it that I love.

Out of a lightroom library of over 8000 shots, only 250 were taken with that lens.

[Stu Littlefair]

Zod,

It sounds like you should get a 17/18-something zoom. They're plenty wide enough for climbing shots, landscapes, whatever.

There are loads of these available in your price range as they tend to be the standard thing to put on a crop format DSLR. The sigma I've got is excellent and around 300 actual pounds these days. There are more modern things on the market which may be better.

[cofe]

I've got a tokina 12-24 and I like it. It's sharp, decent build and not too wide. I've used most of the others and I'd have a canon if I could have any of them, probably. The sigma is too wide and distorts badly I found. Certainly if you want to put people in the frame. The temptation with wide zooms is to use them fully wide all the time. You end up with too much in shot, rather than thinking about what you want to include and exclude.

Zod - Jim has a tamron 17-50 f2.8. Albeit for nikon, he sent me some full size jpegs once and they were sharp enough with good contrast and detail. It might be worth considering as it's in your budget. Check his out.

[dave]

I must admit I never found the distorsion n shit an issue with the sigma. It is a bit needlessly wide though, at least for most people. Where's a 16mm prime when you need one.

[Paul B]

Zod - Jim has a tamron 17-50 f2.8. Albeit for nikon, he sent me some full size jpegs once and they were sharp enough with good contrast and detail. It might be worth considering as it's in your budget. Check his out.

pretty sure there might even be a second hand one in Harrisons right now

[nic mullin]

I bought a recent magazine which tested most of these, to sum it up the Canon won. You're welcome to the magazine if you're sheffield based and if its of any use.

Cheers for the offer Paul - I would take you up on it, but I'm pretty hectic this week and then out of town for a while, so no worries - I suspect that Stu's point about learning to see and compose wide angle shots is likely to be the limiting factor, as opposed to the quality of the lens I wind up going for.

Where's a 16mm prime when you need one.

This is pretty much why I fancy the Tokina 11-16 - it's pretty much a prime in terms of its tiny zoom range, and it's fast and sharp (not so small though). When I looked through the exifs of all my bouldering photos with my 17-85, everything fell into clumps around 17mm, 28mm and 50mm. With decent, fast 28 and 50mm primes available for cheap, something fast at the wide end would be a nice addition to the bag. All 3 lenses for the price of the 17-55mm canon too.

[Zods Beard]

Thanks guys, lots of helpful stuff. I'm thinking of the Tamron 17-50, the review seem to think it's a bit more of an all rounder, or following Mr Littlefair's advice and ditching the wide angle idea. Cheers.

[Jim]

is that the 2.8 straight through like mine.
I love mine but only wish it was a little bit wider sometimes

[cofe]

I love mine but only wish it was a little bit wider sometimes

your lens?

[Jim]

no, both

[AndyR]

I just bought one of these and like it a lot.
http://www.canonlensreview.com/ultrawidezoomlensreviews/CanonEF17_40mmf4LUSMLensReview.php

[Paul B]

L-series  Budget ?