wide angled lens canon fit

den

den

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,607
Name
Dennis
Edit My Images
No
Hi, i am looking for a wide angled lens for mainly landscapes but that would also allow me to take some macro shots ,....i have a 100-400mm that i mainly use for my wildlife shots but would like a wide angle /macro lens that i could switch to when needed, i dont want to pay more than £400 , could any omne please advice what i may need.Thanks
 
Wide angle or macro - the two are totally different. There is no one-lens solution.
 
Try Looking at a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 or canons 10-22mm.

The Sigma retails around £330 new and the canon come's in around £530 new, but with luck you could land yourself a 2nd hand unit around £400-450.

Alternatively Look at a Tokina 11-16mm Lens, I've heard nothing but good reviews about them, and they retail around £400.

The only one i've used extensively has been the Canon, i loved it! used the sigma for about 30 mins, not much can be said apart from simular looks as to the canon,just found it lacked a little contrast(however it was a refurbed lens)
 
Sigma do two 10-22 lenses. One is F3.5, the other is F4-5.6 I believe. The former will set you back around £500, the latter about £100 cheaper.
Tokina do a very nice UWA which is around 11-18mm or thereabouts but it's a little more expensive.
Canon do a 10-22mm but I am not sure of the price.

Andy
 
Used Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6mm and a set of used Kenko Auto Extension Tubes on your 100-400 should get you the best results for your budget.


Andy
 
I use a Tamron 10-24 and it is a great lens, I donot use it too often but when I do I am always pleased witht the results

spike
 
Thanks all ,the sigma 10-20 seems to be the one, which could leave a bit spare for a decent tripod,i got one free with a canon a purchased from jessops and to be honest its like wrestling with crocodile .
 
den said:
Thanks all ,the sigma 10-20 seems to be the one, which could leave a bit spare for a decent tripod,i got one free with a canon a purchased from jessops and to be honest its like wrestling with crocodile .
Click to expand...

Good Plan! Now you need to look into a Decent Tripod :P That's a whole other mission it's self :( But my personal advise, and it's worked for me, get something that suits your height. I dislike bending down to see what im shooting
 
I understand the 24mm f2.8 is not all that, particularly when the 17-40mm is not that much more, is wider and apparently has better iq...
 
mrthingyx said:
I understand the 24mm f2.8 is not all that, particularly when the 17-40mm is not that much more, is wider and apparently has better iq...
Click to expand...

I would say the 17-40mm but it seems he is using a 50D, and the 17-40mm is designed for full frame. I was looking at it not to long ago as it covered a nice range for me but the fact its designed for full frame put me off.

I think the 24mm on a crop as well still wont be wide enough, i have a 28mm 1.8 as my wide option atm and looking at getting rid of it for a 10-22mm
 
Hello Brody, welcome aboard

Best plan is to create a new topic and ask your question there. Try and add as much info as you can and people will be able to help you to the best of their ability.
 
Just to throw a little more to this, my vote goes to the Tamron 10-24mm too. I went through all this and almost bought the Tokina 11-16 - but the lower cost and extra reach of the Tamron (at both ends) is lovely. It's well built, feels solid, and is pleasing to use.
Quick example:
5751629205_45999a83e6.jpg
 
I have just returned a Tamron 10-24 - I was really disappointed with the quality of the shots it produced. They weren't terrible, but not great either.

The advice I received was to get the Tokina 11-16.
 
I have both the Tamron 10-24 and the Tokina 11-16mm

At f/5.6 the quality is identical so if you will use it for landscapes then there is not much reason to pay more for the faster lens, I got the Tokina for indoor shots where I need the f/2.8
 
Tyler138 said:
I would say the 17-40mm but it seems he is using a 50D, and the 17-40mm is designed for full frame. I was looking at it not to long ago as it covered a nice range for me but the fact its designed for full frame put me off.
Click to expand...


That's a really weird attitude. Almost the whole of Canon's range of lenses are EF (designed for Full Frame) with just a few EF-S (designed for APS-C) lenses. Restricting yourself only to the latter seems a bit daft. Just what is it about EF lenses that puts you off?
 
hollis_f said:
That's a really weird attitude. Almost the whole of Canon's range of lenses are EF (designed for Full Frame) with just a few EF-S (designed for APS-C) lenses. Restricting yourself only to the latter seems a bit daft. Just what is it about EF lenses that puts you off?
Click to expand...

I have just heard that it was designed for full frame and the quality isn't as good on a crop.
 
The myth that the 17-40 is rubbish on a crop sensor seems to be spreading around the forum. I regularly use it on a crop sensor camera it is great.

The myth seems to stem from people saying that there are EF-S lenses more suited to a crop sensor camera, such as the 17-55f2.8 due to f2.8 and IS etc. However it doesn't make the 17-40 rubbish, it's just that there is an other option.
 
And when you factor the build quality, the difference in price and the potential for using it on ff at a later date and from what I see it holds its price a bit better too the 17-40 is a bargain imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top