Wide Angle Basics

[Dilby]

Hi everyone - I was hoping someone could please help shed some light on what might be a very stupid question.

I don't have a huge lens arsenal, mainly because I mostly shoot video, with and have only a couple of primes and then a Canon EF-S 18mm - 55mm f3.5-5.6 Kit Lens. I'm looking at getting a wide angle lens though for photography and don't really understand the basics. For example, I tried a Sigma 10-20mm and loved it, although even zoomed all the way in I swear it was much wider than my kit lens, although it's meant to be 17mm. So I'm initially asking is the width in mm the actual width, or does it depend on the lens - for example is 17mm on one lens identical on another or are some wider than others, are there other factors?

For example my kit lens is hardly worth anything, but this lens from canon is LOTS more:

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro...enses/Standard_Zoom/EF-S_17-55mm_f2.8_IS_USM/

Is my kit lens a genuine wide angle because it's below 20mm?

Also, is there a lens out there that means you don't need a separate telephoto and say for example is 10-270mm?

Thanks for your patience!

 

[tezmed]

theres a million and one lens out there - enough to suit everybody....


the lower the xxmm number is the wider the frame, so a 10mm will shoot wider than a 50mm for example in basic....

the reason that even though you fully zoomed in it still appeared wide is that 20mm is still very wide (not as wide as the 10 but wide neverless)

with lens in general (and this is by no means all lens) the shorter the range eg 10mm-20mm (10mm), or 11mm-16mm (5mm) the better the lens optics are as they are effective nearer to a prime lens (general a fixed xxmm)

most kit lens are 18mm-55mm so you get some length aswell as available width

depending on what camera body your using will also depend on whether the numbers tally aswell.... if your using a full frame then the numbers correspond, however if your not (crop sensor)youl need to times the xxmm by a factor of 1.6 to make the correct xxmm lengths

if uyou want a lens that does it all in one thats fine- but its better to swap and have multiple lens that are good in their own lens category

hope this helps

 

[Dilby]

Hi thanks for your reply - so what would be the major differences between my kit lens (£100) and the one I posted (£1200)

 

[mjb123]

Hi thanks for your reply - so what would be the major differences between my kit lens (£100) and the one I posted (£1200)

The canon 17-55 is a constant 2.8 aperture better build quality better iq better is system!
Basically a much more professional lens!
That price isn't really a good example I think there around 6 or 7 hundred brand new!!

 

[damianmkv]

You really wouldn't believe how wide a wide angle is and how close to your subject you can get. I've just bought a sigma 10-20 off of eBay for £225 ( due to the crop factor it's 15-30 ). I've not really had a chance to play with it yet but it certainly makes you think about what you're doing.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Hi everyone - I was hoping someone could please help shed some light on what might be a very stupid question.

I don't have a huge lens arsenal, mainly because I mostly shoot video, with and have only a couple of primes and then a Canon EF-S 18mm - 55mm f3.5-5.6 Kit Lens. I'm looking at getting a wide angle lens though for photography and don't really understand the basics. For example, I tried a Sigma 10-20mm and loved it, although even zoomed all the way in I swear it was much wider than my kit lens, although it's meant to be 17mm. So I'm initially asking is the width in mm the actual width, or does it depend on the lens - for example is 17mm on one lens identical on another or are some wider than others, are there other factors?

They are roughly what it says on the tin, but don't be surprised if your kit for example was 18.9-53mm and 10-20 was actually 10.5-19.1mm (not saying they are). They make the lens first, and then decide how to market it. At the long end you will find more variation - xxx-400 probably terminates at 360mm, xxx-500 is likely just 420mm at normal settings.

For example my kit lens is hardly worth anything, but this lens from canon is LOTS more:

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro...enses/Standard_Zoom/EF-S_17-55mm_f2.8_IS_USM/

Is my kit lens a genuine wide angle because it's below 20mm?

wide angle - yes, but not ultra wide angle

Also, is there a lens out there that means you don't need a separate telephoto and say for example is 10-270mm?

That doesn't exist as it's too complicated to make one, and it would be rather big. there are 18-270mm but they are fairly rubbish at anything

Thanks for your patience!

Hi thanks for your reply - so what would be the major differences between my kit lens (£100) and the one I posted (£1200)

It is not quite £1200, it's just the recommended price and has been discounted since.
The difference is f/2.8 constant aperture and much better optical quality.

 

[Nod]

I'm initially asking is the width in mm the actual width, or does it depend on the lens - for example is 17mm on one lens identical on another or are some wider than others, are there other factors?
Is my kit lens a genuine wide angle because it's below 20mm?

Also, is there a lens out there that means you don't need a separate telephoto and say for example is 10-270mm?

In theory (and generally in practice), the focal length is the focal length, so a 20mm from Canikon should give the same view as a 20mm from Sigronina but there can be differences.

In basic terms, anything shorter than "standard" (usually reckoned to be the diagonal of the recording medium) is termed a wide angle, with very short lenses being (now) termed Ultra Wide Angles (UWAs), extremely short lenses (not quite fisheyes but not much longer) are sometimes called Ultra Ultra Wide Angles and fisheyes are just called fisheyes (and are sometimes not as short as UUWs - Nikon do a 10.5mm fisheye and the Sigma 10-20 is 1/2 a mm shorter at its shortest).

It used to be true that zooms with a wide range weren't too good optically, being both soft and distorting quite heavily at the extremes of length but I believe that modern lens designs are far better in both respects, giving very useable results for most people. Personally, I prefer having 2 zooms covering 24-300mm but that's my choice (and allows me the luxury of f/2.8 from 24-70mm). If there was a single FF lens available that gave me the same quality, I would be very tempted but the Tamron I had a few years ago certainly didn't!

Hi thanks for your reply - so what would be the major differences between my kit lens (£100) and the one I posted (£1200)

Well, £1100 for a start! Also, the Canon lens is a lot faster (wider aperture) and almost certainly far better optically. Whether it's 12 times better is questionable! The Canon is also stabilised - IMO, an unnecessary feature on shorter lenses. It may in theory allow 3 extra stops of handholdability but at those shorter lengths, vibration is less of a problem than gross movement which even the best IS/VR/OS/VC systems have problems with. The Canon's also a bit wider (and 3mm is quite a bit when you're going that short) and a bit longer - but I'm not sure that flexibility makes it worth £1100 or so more, even when that's coupled with the other advantages. Hell, the Canon isn't even an L lens at that price point!

 

[Moreorless]

Hi everyone - I was hoping someone could please help shed some light on what might be a very stupid question.

I don't have a huge lens arsenal, mainly because I mostly shoot video, with and have only a couple of primes and then a Canon EF-S 18mm - 55mm f3.5-5.6 Kit Lens. I'm looking at getting a wide angle lens though for photography and don't really understand the basics. For example, I tried a Sigma 10-20mm and loved it, although even zoomed all the way in I swear it was much wider than my kit lens, although it's meant to be 17mm. So I'm initially asking is the width in mm the actual width, or does it depend on the lens - for example is 17mm on one lens identical on another or are some wider than others, are there other factors?

For example my kit lens is hardly worth anything, but this lens from canon is LOTS more:

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro...enses/Standard_Zoom/EF-S_17-55mm_f2.8_IS_USM/

Is my kit lens a genuine wide angle because it's below 20mm?

Also, is there a lens out there that means you don't need a separate telephoto and say for example is 10-270mm?

Thanks for your patience!

Generally lenes don't vary as much from there stated ranges, I'm guess what your seeing is just an effect of the wide end of the zoom being so much wider.

What you need to remember is that the wider you go the more difference each extra mm makes, so a 10mm lens will look significantly wider than say a 12mm lens(1/6th wider) where as a 100mm lens will look almost indentical to a 102mm lens.

Lenses with a 10-270mm range simpley don't exist, too many challanges optically, the best you can get are generally 18-300mmish ones.

Alot of Canons recommended sale prices are far far higher than the real street prices, you should be able to get the 17-55mm for less than £700.

The sad truth is though that as lenses get more specialised they tend to go up in price exponentially, a lens that costs 10 times what your kit lens or 50mm 1.8 costs is not going to give you 10 times the performance, in so much as it can be measured anyway. Ultra wide lenses espeically are not something you can really do on the cheap, the Sigma 10-22mm at £300ish is generally the cheapest.