Lets Get W I D E

binghott · December 19, 2005

i think i'm ready to purchase a wide-angle lens, before we get anywhere, here's my current gear:
digital rebel
(getting a 20d soon)
70-200mm f2.8L
28-75mm f2.8
18-55mm kit lens
50mm f1.8

ithe kit lens is my widest lens, but i just don't like it at all. i want to get wide, but i'm not sure how wide or how much i want to spend, that's where i need your help.

i'm choosing betwee the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.

i will be using this wide lens for live rock shows, model photoshoots, and weddings and other events. is the 10-22mm too wide for me? i think it might not be long enough, which is why the 17-35mm might be better.
i really like the 2.8 aperture of the Tamron, but how sharp is it?

i'm probably gonna go play around with my kit lens this week and try to ignore the things i don't like about it and just play with the 18mm end of it to see if it's wide enough.

any help or recomendations would be greatly appreciated! have you tried either of these lenses? are there any lenses that i'm neglecting? (i'm trying to stay under $1000)

thanks!

Andy · December 19, 2005

binghott wrote:

i'm probably gonna go play around with my kit lens this week and try to ignore the things i don't like about it and just play with the 18mm end of it to see if it's wide enough.

Great advice you gave yourself here!

Shoot 100 wide frames that matter with this lens and then you'll be in a much better position to decide.

DanielB · December 19, 2005

binghott wrote:

i think i'm ready to purchase a wide-angle lens, before we get anywhere, here's my current gear:
digital rebel
(getting a 20d soon)
70-200mm f2.8L
28-75mm f2.8
18-55mm kit lens
50mm f1.8

any help or recomendations would be greatly appreciated! have you tried either of these lenses? are there any lenses that i'm neglecting? (i'm trying to stay under $1000)

thanks!

Check out the Tokina 12-24 f/4

its built like a tank, delivers amazing products, and is an all-around great lense. can be had used for around 400 *hard to find someone willing to part with it though*

i plan to get this lense after i get money saved up again.

Mike Lane · December 19, 2005

Maybe the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 would be a suitable lens for you? I forked out the extra dough to get that lens with my 20D and I really like it. Of course, the 10-22 is a very fun lens to have too. Anyhow, I take it you're not up for spending a boatload which is why you aren't opting for the Canon 16-35L. Maybe the 17-40 would be a good choice?

David_S85 · December 19, 2005

I happen to own one of the many 10-22 Canon lenses that used to have Andy's name on it.

Fun lens, that's for sure. Lightweight and fast too. Darn near L quality. Some things to know about it, (and will probably be true of any super-wide zoom glass you buy).

Try not to shoot wide open. Start at about F8 if you have the light. The 10-22 likes F8 - F16.

Polarizer filters are probably not going to do anything but frustrate. That's a bad, but a good is that dark blue skies come natural with it. I don't know why, they just do. If you shoot 17mm or higher, and through water or through windows with glare, then a good Circ. Polarizer might come in handy. At 77mm, they're not cheap though.

Real wide (10-14mm) and there will be some non-removable image distortions around the outer regions. It just elongates everything near the edges towards the center. This is sometimes disturbing depending on the subject. If you're shooting landscapes, you probably won't notice it. People near the perimeter and they just don't look right.

Get yourself PTLens, or a similar fully enabled plug-in. Chromatic Abberations are noticible along high-contrast edges, and this plug-in can just about eliminate them, as well as de-barrelize the images at wide. Big difference for some images. Overall, I was impressed with how little barrel this lens exhibits. PTLens profiles already have the 10-22 profile at all settings. You won't have to de-barrelize images above 17mm.

Hope this helps.

Matthew Saville · December 19, 2005

Oh yeah, them super-wide zooms and people in the corners, the distortion is just disturbing! I've shot my fair share of thin people that end up looking wide, or if you put them in the corners, watch out, they're gonna be cone heads! Bad idea to shoot anyth lens wider than 15 or so mm if you're going to be photographing people and you're possibly going to have anything near the edges or corners of the frame.

I'd say, get a good f/2.8 zoom that starts at 17 or 18mm, like the Sigma 18-50, or a 17-35, or if you think you can work with the apeture get the Canon 17-85 IS, that's such an awesome focal range to have if it's sharp. But first, give lenses like the 17-35 2.8's a glance. (there are a LOT of 17-35mm lenses floating around!) They run real cheap and are pretty high quality...

-Matt-

DoctorIt · December 19, 2005

Matt has some good advice there. That Sigma 18-50 is a total sleeper - and its FAST. If you really want the wide and are NOT shooting people, the Sigma 10-20mm has been getting good reviews.

I have to disagree on the 17-85mm IS. I would not buy it again (it came with my most recent kit). If all I did was walkaround shooting, maybe, but for the money there is much better quality glass out there. CA, PF, and vignetting are huge issues on that lens. Why is Canon sticking IS on everything and trying to push it as awesome? Psssst, I'd like better glass without IS first.

gtc · December 20, 2005

not too wide
as already mentioned extra wide is not very good for people .in fact normal wide is not really good for people -maybe for crowd scenes etc.the distortion does awful things to peoples features.

if shooting indoors you will need speed if you aren't relying on flash-remember your 1.6 crop factor will narrow your field of view-something that takes you to between 28 and 35 mm should be wide enough for your purposes-also think about an old manual focus prime, such as a 28mm to give you something approaching a 50mm equivalent (44.8)-you will get something fairly fast for not too much money,although you will need an adapter.its a useful focal length.

good luck!

binghott wrote:

i think i'm ready to purchase a wide-angle lens, before we get anywhere, here's my current gear:
digital rebel
(getting a 20d soon)
70-200mm f2.8L
28-75mm f2.8
18-55mm kit lens
50mm f1.8

ithe kit lens is my widest lens, but i just don't like it at all. i want to get wide, but i'm not sure how wide or how much i want to spend, that's where i need your help.

i'm choosing betwee the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.

i will be using this wide lens for live rock shows, model photoshoots, and weddings and other events. is the 10-22mm too wide for me? i think it might not be long enough, which is why the 17-35mm might be better.
i really like the 2.8 aperture of the Tamron, but how sharp is it?

i'm probably gonna go play around with my kit lens this week and try to ignore the things i don't like about it and just play with the 18mm end of it to see if it's wide enough.

any help or recomendations would be greatly appreciated! have you tried either of these lenses? are there any lenses that i'm neglecting? (i'm trying to stay under $1000)

thanks!

binghott · December 20, 2005

wow, thanks for such quick responses!

i'll look into the tokina, but it doesn't look likely.

i'm not really interested in the 17-85 because i have almost all of that range covered by my amazong tamron 28-75 2.8.

the 16-35 f2.8L is too much money and i've heard isnt much better than the 17-40 f4L.

consider the 17-40 f4L on my list because i love L glass, but i think i want the tamron more though because it's cheaper, it can go to f2.8, and i absolutely love my other tamron lens.

i'm a little intimidated by the 10-22 now, if it's not very sharp opened all the way up then it's no good to me. if i'm using that lens to shoot a band in a bar with horrible lighting, i'd need to be wide open and to be relatively sharp. if i was going to use the 10-22 to shoot people it would be to shoot them in scenery, not close up at all.

i'm not really interested in the sigma 18-50 f2.8, i've read that it has some problems focusing especially in low light and i can't stand waiting for my camera to focus while i miss the action.

so far, i think i'm leaning towards the tamron 17-35.

thanks so much for your help!

Blurmore · December 20, 2005

I don't think the Tamron 17-35 is much different than the kit lens, and the quality I'd imagine would be in the same neighborhood if not a little more ghetto. 1mm wide at the wide end and 2.8 as opposed to 3.5 not a huge difference. I own the 17-85 EF-s and though I think it is a good choice to cover the range, I am not totally enamored with it. I'm a prime fiend, and when it is time for me to make the big bounce to a wide angle, I will be picking a prime for that as well. I think Canon gave the big center digit salute to everyone who purchased a crop body when they introduced the 5D, so I won't give any more money to Canon for an EF-S lens (unless they start fitting them with cute little red Ls, which they won't). So for me it will be the Sigma 14mm f2.8 EX, which will work nicely on my (future) full frame body as an ultra wide rectilinear prime.

binghott · December 20, 2005

i would only consider a wide prime if it was really cheap. i usually need the zoom ability.

DoctorIt · December 20, 2005

sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($370) is an awesome, awesome standard length prime. I've been lusting after it for some time.

PS. am I the only person who has had nothing but great Sigma experiences? Try that 18-50/2.8 ($400) before you discount it. I've used a friend's copy and have had not bad focus issues. Imagine a kit lens at fixed 2.8 and way better build quality...

binghott · December 20, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($370) is an awesome, awesome standard length prime. I've been lusting after it for some time.

PS. am I the only person who has had nothing but great Sigma experiences? Try that 18-50/2.8 ($400) before you discount it. I've used a friend's copy and have had not bad focus issues. Imagine a kit lens at fixed 2.8 and way better build quality...

you'd make a great salesman! but i'm still skeptical of the sigma.

and 30mm isn't wide enough, but that f1.4 sounds mighty atractive. . .

DoctorIt · December 20, 2005

binghott wrote:

you'd make a great salesman! but i'm still skeptical of the sigma.

to each his own. I know I'm not a pro, so I like to save my money. I don't need the best, 99% close enough is fine for me. And like I said, I've owned a few Sigma's now and have nad nothing but great experiences. Not selling, just trying to point out stuff to another young photog.

and 30mm isn't wide enough, but that f1.4 sounds mighty atractive. . .

fast glASS is always attractive

ginger_55 · December 20, 2005

just to say that I love my Canon 17-40L, however I am not a harsh critic, and I don't know what you don't like about the kit lens.

At this point I am using the 17-40 as just about a normal lens. Shooting church PEOPLE. etc.

I don't own a fast lens, will get one, but it was not a priority with me. And repeating that I LOVE the 17-40. And I don't know how much I paid. I got it used, here on dGrin, from fish, I think. Wonderful transaction.

I would not get a wider lens for all around shooting at functions. I personally would like a 10-22, or something like it, but as a fun/specialty lens.

I only own three lenses: the 400L (love it), the 70-200L (am liking it better) and the 17-40L (it was the easiest lens to learn, just super the way it felt to me, but then again, I don't know what you didn't like about the kit lens.)

ginger

(Am planning to buy a 50mm faster lens that does macro, plan to get it in the spring if things go right. I have missed not being able to do macro, but amazingly, I can do what I need with people with the lenses that I have, not meaning the 400 with people, for the most part. And I haven't done a concert lately. I really wanted the L part, the Canon part, and I had limited funds, so speed suffered, but I have not been aware of how deprived I may be.)

binghott · December 20, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

Not selling, just trying to point out stuff to another young photog.

haha, i'm just saying you do a good job persuading.

ginger_55 wrote:

(Am planning to buy a 50mm faster lens that does macro, plan to get it in the spring if things go right. I have missed not being able to do macro, but amazingly, I can do what I need with people with the lenses that I have, not meaning the 400 with people, for the most part. And I haven't done a concert lately. I really wanted the L part, the Canon part, and I had limited funds, so speed suffered, but I have not been aware of how deprived I may be.)

you need to get the tamron 28-75 f2.8 NOW. i love that thing. crystal clear, sharp, great contrast, and macro! it covers that focal range that you don't already have. it's like $370 and then there's a $30 rebate off that. you would absolutely love it.

Art Scott · December 20, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($370) is an awesome, awesome standard length prime. I've been lusting after it for some time.

PS. am I the only person who has had nothing but great Sigma experiences? Try that 18-50/2.8 ($400) before you discount it. I've used a friend's copy and have had not bad focus issues. Imagine a kit lens at fixed 2.8 and way better build quality...

I have used sigma for years (film) now (digital) and not had a bad experience yet.....looking to get the 18 - 70 also......usning 28 to 200 right now not the greatest lens but it is tack sharp and functions great...however I did forget the magnification factor when i purchased it or i would not have bought it....but now am getting used to it.

binghott · December 21, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

PS. am I the only person who has had nothing but great Sigma experiences?

muhuahaha!!!
i've caught you in your web of lies!!!
this doesn't sound like a "great sigma experience"

haha, i was looking up the review for the sigma 17-35 on fredmirand and noticed your avatar there right next to a negative review.

i'm just playing around, i still trust you. i'm considering the 18-50. . .

DoctorIt · December 21, 2005

binghott wrote:

muhuahaha!!!
i've caught you in your web of lies!!!
this doesn't sound like a "great sigma experience"

haha, i was looking up the review for the sigma 17-35 on fredmirand and noticed your avatar there right next to a negative review.

i'm just playing around, i still trust you. i'm considering the 18-50. . .

Ah, you're right! I had tried to block that one out of the memory banks. Luckily, it wasn't mine, it was borrowed. Let me fix that statement - all fixed aperture Sigma's have never disappointed me. Better?

let me know if you want to see some 18-50mm test shots. my friend has many as its become his favorite walk around lens.

robscomputer · December 21, 2005

I have been using the 17-40 f/4 with great results. It's sharp enough for me and while slow at f/4 I tend to use a flash when indoors instead of ambient light.

Really looking at a Sigma 10-20mm, I love the distortion you get from a 10mm. My current Peleng 8mm is really fun but the quality isn't there and the cropping of the frame is hard to work with.

Someday Canon will make a 10.5mm prime like Nikon.

:

Rob

leebase · December 21, 2005

Blurmore wrote:

I don't think the Tamron 17-35 is much different than the kit lens, and the quality I'd imagine would be in the same neighborhood if not a little more ghetto. 1mm wide at the wide end and 2.8 as opposed to 3.5 not a huge difference.

The Tamron is in a different league. Not only is it 2/3 stop faster on the wide end, it's a full stop faster on the long end as well. My Tamron 17-35 is the same quality lens as the much raved about Tamron 28-75 f2.8. It is not "just like the kit lens".

Had I to do it over, I'd probably opt for the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, but since I already had (and liked) my Tamron 28-75, I bought the Tamron 17-35 instead.

Lee

binghott · December 21, 2005

leebase wrote:

The Tamron is in a different league. Not only is it 2/3 stop faster on the wide end, it's a full stop faster on the long end as well. My Tamron 17-35 is the same quality lens as the much raved about Tamron 28-75 f2.8. It is not "just like the kit lens".

Had I to do it over, I'd probably opt for the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, but since I already had (and liked) my Tamron 28-75, I bought the Tamron 17-35 instead.

this is exactly what i'm going through right now. i absolutely love my tamron 28-75 so if the 17-35 is anything like it, i'd probably get it. do you like the 17-35? would you recommend it?

leebase · December 22, 2005

binghott wrote:

this is exactly what i'm going through right now. i absolutely love my tamron 28-75 so if the 17-35 is anything like it, i'd probably get it. do you like the 17-35? would you recommend it?

As I mentioned in my email to you (and for the benefit of others) -- I like this lens very much. It compares favorably with Canon's 17-40 L which is twice the price and is f/4 while the Tamron is f2.8-4.

This is a wide open (f/4 at 35mm). The Tamron 28-75, a lens I love, is simply not wide enough and I really struggled with my "bride getting ready" shots as the rooms are often small.

f8 at 35mm.

Traditional Serbian wedding....the groom comes to purchase the bride. I'm standing at the door...crushed by the groom's friends/family bargaining with the bride's friends and family. If I didn't have the wide 17mm I could not have gotten these shots.

Lee

binghott · December 22, 2005

thanks lee!!!

i'm pretty sure i'm gonna pick up the 17-35 today!

Art Scott · December 22, 2005

11-18 mm
Has any one been able to shoot with Tamrons 11 to 18 or sigmas' 10 - 20 mm or 18 to 50 mm lenses??

binghott · December 22, 2005

i just got home from my local camera store, kenmar camera. when i walked in i asked if they had any used wide canon mount lenses for sale. they had just gotten a used canon 17-40 f4L in! i was so excited! it only cost me $100 more than the tamron would have! they let me try both of them out and i liked the feel of the canon lens a lot more. i know i wanted the 2.8 on the wide end with the tamron, but i coudln't resist an L lens. i'm so happy!

you'll see some shots with it very soon.

thanks for all of your help!

leebase · December 22, 2005

Only $100 more? That's either some deal on the Canon (normally around $700) or a really bad price on the Tamron (normally around $400). I'd have gone for the L lens for only $100 more as well.

Lee

binghott · December 23, 2005

leebase wrote:

Only $100 more? That's either some deal on the Canon (normally around $700) or a really bad price on the Tamron (normally around $400).

it was a steal for the canon, plus it's mint.
i forgot to mention that i picked up a uv filter to protect it. i was going to buy a polarizer, but didn't want to spend any more for the day so i went home without one. when i got home i realized that it shares the 77mm filter size with my 70-200 f2.8L. that might wind up saving me some compared to the tamron. sweet!

leebase · December 23, 2005

binghott wrote:

it was a steal for the canon, plus it's mint.
i forgot to mention that i picked up a uv filter to protect it. i was going to buy a polarizer, but didn't want to spend any more for the day so i went home without one. when i got home i realized that it shares the 77mm filter size with my 70-200 f2.8L. that might wind up saving me some compared to the tamron. sweet!

FYI - the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 XR Di is also 77mm

Do I understand correctly that you bought a used Canon 17-40 L? That would explain how it was only $100 more than a brand new tamron.

Lee

binghott · December 23, 2005

leebase wrote:

FYI - the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 XR Di is also 77mm Do I understand correctly that you bought a used Canon 17-40 L? That would explain how it was only $100 more than a brand new tamron.

haha, yes, it's lightly used. came in the box with the case, hood, waranty, not a mark on it.

leebase · December 23, 2005

binghott wrote:

haha, yes, it's lightly used. came in the box with the case, hood, waranty, not a mark on it.

You'll have to change your avatar....you have a new lens to kiss

Lee

Lets Get W I D E

Comments