Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wide Angle Lens Question!  
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4058 times:

So, I'm looking for a wide angle lens for my 20D.

As you can see from my profile, I'm a terrible photographer (well, I take a few OK ones like the flower near the bottom, but, yes, I know, it's crap too, please don't bash it!  Sad ) but I do need an acceptable wide angle.

I don't want an L lens, I can borrow my friend's when I want to do serious photograpy (he has many stinkin' white lenses litterting his house), but I also don't want a terribly cheap 18-whatever f/3.5-11 crap thing.

I'll be using it primarily to get pictures at college (Embry-Riddle Arizona! Whoop!) starting this fall, and for spotting, etc.

So, with my vague info, what do you suggest?

Thanks for the help in advance, let me know if you have questions!

Thanks,
Lucas

PS-is the Canon 18-55 acceptable?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4051 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Thread starter):
let me know if you have questions!

Whats your budget? Preferred focal length!? Do you have any other lenses (e. g. a tele lens)?


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4048 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Halcyon (Thread starter):
PS-is the Canon 18-55 acceptable?

That is the Kit lens you get its nothing special but would do the job .
If you want to fork out some cash for a decent lens i would go with the 17-40 L or the 24-105L IS USM.
those are great lenses and are as sharp as a new razor out of the Gillette factory. Smile
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4029 times:

Quoting EDDL (Reply 1):
Whats your budget? Preferred focal length!?

Well, I've saved money but now I want to keep some for college, so preferably below $500.  Smile Like I said, it does not have to be anything too fancy. And 10-18 is where I'd like to base the start at.  Smile

Quoting EDDL (Reply 1):
Do you have any other lenses

I've already got the 50-500 ranges covered. It's the buggery of wide angle that I have to get. Are off-Canon brands like Tamron any good? (As they should be cheaper.)

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 2):
That is the Kit lens you get its nothing special but would do the job .

I recall seeing a very nice/crisp pic with this lens on here about a year ago. I take it that is the exception and not the rule?

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 2):
If you want to fork out some cash

Well, not toooooooooooo much.

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 2):
with the 17-40 L

Found one in package for $456 + 20 SH.

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 2):
24-105L IS USM.

$900. Ow.  Sad

What of the 10-22?

Thanks for the help!  Smile

Luke


User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Thread starter):
So, I'm looking for a wide angle lens for my 20D.

The 17-40L is a wonderful lens not THAT expensive; if you need wider the 10-22 EF-S is a very nice piece of equipment with the disadvantage of being an EF-S mount.

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

Quoting Javibi (Reply 4):

Maybe the 17-40. Is the 10-22 better? The EF-S does not bother me, of course.  Smile

Also-is the 17-40 hurt by it's contrast in focal range, and is the 10-22 bad for fish-eye abberations?


User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

I'd recommend ... Canon 17-85 USM IS 4.0-5.6, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 or Sigma 18-50 2.8 (if you do a lot of low-light work). The Canon 18-55 is a nice lens for the price, but is inferiour to the ones mentioned above.

User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4017 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 5):
is the 10-22 bad for fish-eye abberations?

Judge for yourself:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier Guerrero - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier Guerrero - AirTeamImages


Those are full frame, first one @16mm, the other one @10mm.

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 5):
Is the 10-22 better?

17-40L is optically better; the 10-22 is much wider but not much worse.

Quoting EDDL (Reply 6):
Canon 17-85 USM IS 4.0-5.6

That one I'd stay away from, IMHO.

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4009 times:

Quoting EDDL (Reply 6):
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0

Looks good price wise.  Smile 4.0 is not too bad.

Quoting Javibi (Reply 7):
Judge for yourself:

Holy stink, not too shabby mate!

Quoting Javibi (Reply 7):
17-40L is optically better; the 10-22 is much wider but not much worse.

I'm thinkin' the 10-22 for the extra 7. Are they the same price wise? Hmm. I'm not too good at this, so which one would you choose? Currently, having a base of (fixed for 1.6 factor) 44mm, it's a pain in the rear getting shots of friends etc, unless I'm a thousand miles away.

It seems like the 10-22 is the best one, but I'd like your opinions. (Since you all know what you are doing.)

Also, never directly answered yet, but how are Tamrons when compared to the others? I've gotten some good ones with a Sigma I have, but the images have steadily become worse from it...kind of like the optics are shifting or something. I don't know why.  Sad However, I have a slight distrust of this brand due to that fact. Is this an isolated incident?

Thanks for all your help guys! I'll check back here later! Gotta go to bed now.

Lucas


User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3994 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 8):
I'm thinkin' the 10-22 for the extra 7. Are they the same price wise? Hmm. I'm not too good at this, so which one would you choose? Currently, having a base of (fixed for 1.6 factor) 44mm, it's a pain in the rear getting shots of friends etc, unless I'm a thousand miles away.

22 mm is still too much on the long end IMHO. People feel uncomfortable if you get that close ... These UWA-lenses are great for architecture, landscape, & cockpit photos, but not good for people ... AND airplanes. The 777-300ER is still too small for my Sigma 10-20mm, even at very close spots (e. g. CDG Sofitel).


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3986 times:

Quoting EDDL (Reply 9):
These UWA-lenses are great for architecture, landscape, & cockpit photos, but not good for people ... AND airplanes.

?? Phil, stick to the database... Wink

The Sigma 10-20mm does work well for airplanes.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeff Miller



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeff Miller



..and it is an awesome tool at weddings and large group portraits.


User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 10):
?? Phil, stick to the database... Wink

The Sigma 10-20mm does work well for airplanes.

Well ... you are right. But I was talking about standard shots (side-on, approach) ... some more samples: Big grin


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © EDDL Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © EDDL Photography



Quoting JeffM (Reply 10):
..and it is an awesome tool at weddings and large group portraits.

I avoid using this lens with people as the main subject as much as I can because of the heavy distortion. For fun shots it's OK though ...


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3944 times:

If you want a wider lens, look no further than the Tokina 12-24mm F/4 AT-X Pro. The best $500 dollars you could spend for a WA lens IMHO. Great reviews on this glass. Mine works awesomely. Just wish I had more chances to use it.

Here are a couple photos shot with this lens. Ill plug them because its related to the topic at hand. Stop crying already.  Smile



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chad Thomas - Jetwash Images
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chad Thomas - Jetwash Images



User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 44
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3931 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 8):
I'm thinkin' the 10-22 for the extra 7. Are they the same price wise?

I've had the 17-40 for almost two years already and love it to death. Quality is superb (better be for the amount I owe my dad!) and the focal length is fun to play around with.

On the other hand, I did just rent a 10-22 this past weekend for some rather up-close photos, and it completely blew me away. The extra 7mm on the short end makes a huge difference when you need that reach on either side. I agree with EDDL in that 22mm may be too short for people shots and the like, but it's be the perfect lens to have, say, for panel shots when you're flying around over Prescott.

Both lenses, new, are $689 or so. Needless to say, I'll be buying mine very, very soon.  Big grin

Click this picture for some samples with the 10-22 and the Nikkor 12-24 (as well as a sneak peek at possible uploads  Smile). The focal lengths should be in the description:


I'm headed to Purdue University in 2 weeks for flight training. I'll race'ya.  Wink

G'luck,

Brian



What the FUTT?
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

Quoting EDDL (Reply 11):
Quoting JeffM (Reply 10):
?? Phil, stick to the database... Wink

The Sigma 10-20mm does work well for airplanes.

Well ... you are right. But I was talking about standard shots (side-on, approach) ... some more samples:

You both are right.

Quoting EDDL (Reply 11):
heavy distortion

I don't need that...


One of these THREE

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 12):
Tokina 12-24mm



Quoting Futterman (Reply 13):
17-40



Quoting Futterman (Reply 13):
10-22

I'm thinking the 12-24 because:
budget
range compromise
clarity of what I've seen.

Before I do, if I'm making a big mistake, TELL ME!


Quoting Futterman (Reply 13):

I'm headed to Purdue University in 2 weeks for flight training. I'll race'ya.

Certainly. I'll leave early. Nah.
I'm looking forward to college except for:
COST, ick. You WILL NOT BELIEVE HOW MUCH ERU costs.
Missing my girlfriend for a while.
COST, ick.

Does anyone know how the weather is there?

[Edited 2006-08-01 08:24:12]

User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 14):
I'm thinking the 12-24 because:
budget
range compromise
clarity of what I've seen.

Before I do, if I'm making a big mistake, TELL ME!

You don't want an ultra-wide-angle lens as your "walkaround lens", do you?


User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

Quoting EDDL (Reply 15):

You don't want an ultra-wide-angle lens as your "walkaround lens", do you?

No, but hear me out...

12-24 actually is 19.2-38.4. I need the UWA for panoramas. With the money I sace on this cheaper lens I'll be able to get a cheap 18-55 for my boring friends shots and the like.

I think that is the best way to go, unless I am missing something more. I don't need a good lens for the other stuff.

What is your "walkaround lens" though. You have me worried.


User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3856 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 16):
No, but hear me out...

12-24 actually is 19.2-38.4. I need the UWA for panoramas. With the money I sace on this cheaper lens I'll be able to get a cheap 18-55 for my boring friends shots and the like.

I think that is the best way to go, unless I am missing something more. I don't need a good lens for the other stuff.

What is your "walkaround lens" though. You have me worried.

12-24 AND 18-55 will be fine!  Smile
I thought you were thinking about the 12-24 as your sole wide-angle-lens. Apologies if I misunderstood you. The Tokina 12-24 is a great lens and a good buy, but after comparing the Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 a few months ago, I decided to buy the Sigma. The Sigma is just slightly more expensive. You might want to visit your local camera store ...

Phil / EDDL


User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3826 times:

Quoting EDDL (Reply 17):

12-24 AND 18-55 will be fine! Smile
I thought you were thinking about the 12-24 as your sole wide-angle-lens. Apologies if I misunderstood you. The Tokina 12-24 is a great lens and a good buy, but after comparing the Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 a few months ago, I decided to buy the Sigma. The Sigma is just slightly more expensive. You might want to visit your local camera store ...

No, it was my fault. I never mentioned buying TWO lenses, I just thought ut. Ooops. I mean, sheesh guys I expect you to be psychic with me! Jks.

I can get the 10-20 for $460 and the 12-24 for $465. (Odd. Both are "New.")

However, I am going to go to "The Darkroom," our local camera store. They've always treated me well before. Will see what they have.

Thanks for all the help EVERYONE, I really appreciate it!


Lucas


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Choosing A Wide Angle Lens - Some Links... posted Sun Nov 14 2004 14:53:02 by Maiznblu_757
Wide Angle Adaptor Question posted Thu Jul 1 2004 21:17:13 by AvroArrow
Wide Angle Lens Advice Please? posted Tue Jan 6 2004 17:26:07 by Manzoori
Wide-angle Lens Advice posted Mon Jun 2 2003 16:53:01 by Jarek
Coolpix 4300/extra Wide Angle Lens posted Sat May 17 2003 04:08:50 by Hmmmm...
Canon D60 Wide Angle Lens? posted Sat Feb 8 2003 14:26:54 by BA747-436
Looking For A Good Wide Angle Lens posted Sun Nov 24 2002 14:05:22 by Apuneger
Lens Question posted Sat Sep 9 2006 11:39:08 by AirbusA346
REbel XT Vs XTI Plus Lens Question posted Fri Sep 8 2006 07:38:12 by Flamedude707
Very Stupid Lens Question posted Tue Jun 20 2006 17:57:57 by Aero145