New Guy needs a Wide-Angle Lens

lawhonphoto

So, I just bought my first SLR. I bought the 40D with the standard kit lens, the 28-135mm. I am very pleased with my progress to this point but I'm wanting to look at getting something that's a little wider than 28mm but it good in low light. I really don't have alot of money to put into this very expensive hobby but I would appreciate some advice.

After finding that, I am also hoping to find something longer than a 135. I'm not as worried about this being low light because it will be mostly used for nature shots and sporting events.

Any chance that a guy could find two lenses that would meet these needs for around $800-$1000?

If any of you would like to check out my first 2 months of pictures have a look at lawhonphoto.smugmug.com

tjstrider

Two different types of wide angle... either super or just standard wide angle

Chances are standard would work

17-50 F/2.8 Tamron is my recommendation. Great lens great reviews. (340$ or so

For sports there is no easy way to get something longer that is appropriate for lower lighting. People will recommend you look at 2 different primes

85 1.8 and 100 f/2 Canon ... give them a look

Read about 2 reviews on these and then not more! http://www.photozone.com and http://www.the-digital-picture.com

both of these are great resources for Canon reviews.

congrats on holding otu 2 months before buying more stuff..

If your budget was unlimited I would have recommended:
Canon 17-55 (or 16-35 if you might go full frame) 900
and
Canon 70-200 F/2.8 (IS or not) 1100 or 1600
But like everyone else's budget it is not unlimited.

Enjoy those lenses... and Use your current lens to figure out whether 85 or 100 is better for you...

tata

Manfr3d

lawhonphoto wrote:

So, I just bought my first SLR. I bought the 40D with the standard kit lens, the 28-135mm. I am very pleased with my progress to this point but I'm wanting to look at getting something that's a little wider than 28mm but it good in low light. I really don't have alot of money to put into this very expensive hobby but I would appreciate some advice.

After finding that, I am also hoping to find something longer than a 135. I'm not as worried about this being low light because it will be mostly used for nature shots and sporting events.

Any chance that a guy could find two lenses that would meet these needs for around $800-$1000?

If any of you would like to check out my first 2 months of pictures have a look at lawhonphoto.smugmug.com

The following lenses would match pretty well:

~400$ Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 SP
and
~500$ Canon 70-300mm/4-5.6 IS or
~600$ Canon 70-200mm/4.0 L

All of them are great performers at a "bargain" price

Tee Why

If it was me, I'd sell the 28-135 to open up some funds (about $300 is my guess).

So with $1100-1300 you can get very good lenses.

If you want really wide, I'd recommend something like a Sigma 10-20 for $460, a Canon 18-55mm kit lens with IS for $170 and a Canon 70-300mm IS or a Canon 70-200mm f4L for about $560. Total would be about $1200.

A cheaper way to go would be a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ($460) and a Canon 70-300mmIS/Canon 70-200mm f4L for about $1100. Won't get you as wide but the Tamron delivers top notch optics and so does the 70-200mm f4L.

Good luck.

claudermilk

The ultra wides are mostly f3.5 or f4 at the fastest. Off the top of my head, I'd look at the new Tokina 11-16/2.8 for the OP's needs. I have the older 12-24/4 and it's fantastic, though a little slow for low light. The new lens is reportedly as good or better optically than the older one. If the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is wide enough, that gets universally good reviews so I'd look at it also.

davidweaver

Ditto on
17-50 F/2.8 Tamron. It is a very nice lens. I switch between that and my 12-24dx F/4 lens. I think the Tamron is a bit sharper too :-)


Tough to say on the longer lens. VR/ Image Stabilization isn't all that useful for sport shots (open: can of worms), and I would go for brighter lenses over VR/IS if you can afford them for sports shooting.