Ultrawide lens

T

Tika

Messages
6
Edit My Images
No
I've recently purchased a canon eos 450D and would like to get another lens, an ultrawide lens for good portraiture and different photo's. Does anyone have any preference to any good ultrawide lenses for this type of camera?

Cheers :)
 
Welcome to TP, Tika.

The best ultrawide lens for a Canon 450D is without doubt the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. It's not cheap, though. Some people would see the alternatives from Sigma or tamron as offering better value for money.

But ... an ultrawide lens "for good portraiture"? I wouldn't have thought that was an appropriate use at all.
 
An ultra wide lens is going to give you very distorted portraits,, is that the effect your after? a short telephoto is usuallly the lens of choice for portrait photographers say 50 to 90 mm on your camera.
 
The 10-22 mentioned above was great fun to use on my 400d. Angle of shot was around 110 degrees, good for making things look a little different/out of perspective.

For portrait, the 50mm /1.8 is good (and cheap), I have heard the /1.2 is even better.
 
Tika, can you define what you mean by ultrawide?

Only the ultrawide lenses we are thinking of are very poor for most portraits.
 
Yes i want something different. I'm getting into concert photography and promotional stuff, i've seen a few examples of some really good photos i like and they all have used ultra wide and macro. Just wanted to know which was the best to get.
 
At 22mm an ultrawide can give you a reasonable portrait on a crop sensor (though its not ideal for that sort of shot) but you'll have to be very close! The 10-22mm will certainly be able to give you an angle suitable for getting a shot of the whole orchestra though...

Can you post examples of what you are after?
 
I have the Canon 10-22 lens and it certainly used to be the recommended ultra-wide, if you have the money.

Nowadays there is another strong contender - the Tokina 11-16/2.8. I have no personal experience of this lens but it seems an interesting alternative. The fixed f/2.8 aperture is appealing, especially if you shoot with manual exposure, and want to get a little more creative with DOF, or simply shoot in poor light.

I'm not a Ken Rockwell fan but a review of the Tokina by Ken came up near the top of a Google search, so here you go - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm :)
 
^ having used a tokina 11-16, i can only recomend it, its a brilliant little lens... sharp with great colours... however, the range is quite limmiting, and not always conviniant, especially if your shooting concerts, and may not be quite close enough to the performer. I ended up buying the tokina 12-24 f4, just for that bit of extra reach on the end :) so far its been a great lens, although the f4 wouldnt be brilliant if you had a low light concert to shoot
 
coldpenguin said:
For portrait, the 50mm /1.8 is good (and cheap), I have heard the /1.2 is even better.
Click to expand...
LOL, you'd hope so, as it's about 15 times the price :D
 
Okay pixel-peepers, here's a comparison between the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16 at 11mm, f/8. Different bodies, but say which you prefer before I reveal what's what.

test-1.jpg


test-2.jpg
 
The first image looks brighter and more contrasty, while the second image looks flat and dull. Colours in the brochures on the table look far more vibrant and punchy in the first image as well - but is that the light, the body, the camera settings, the processing or the lens?

The thing is, f/8 is not much of a challenge for a lens and you (probably) don't buy an f/2.8 lens in order only to use it at f/8. A more valuable comparison, IMHO, would be to shoot the slower lens at its widest aperture and set the Tokina to match.

EDIT : The more I look, the better the first picture appears, as I notice further differences that I did not pick up on initially.
 
Thanks for taking the time to peer at these; I usually try to avoid such activities.

fabs said:
. . . but is it a fair comparison if they were shot on 2 different bodies?
Click to expand...

I've taken a recent diversion into pastures new, but didn't want to risk a dodgy 2nd-hand Sigma to duplicate my first (non-dodgy) one from my other system. I can use Tamron Adaptall-2 lenses between the sytems, and have duplicates of the Tamron 24-135 for both, to show differences due to the bodies.

Custom WB was used for both, then a WB plug-in. There was a very marked difference between the snaps before the WB correction. The raw processing was very similar.

These shots were from a series that naturally included wide open apertures, and you'll have access to the lot via a Rapidshare download at a later point. At this resolution and distance (1.5m from the central edge of the wall), the wide aperture doesn't come into its own. I'd use it at very close quarters: across a table or in a vehicle.

I do have a "flatter" view of the world than many, but aim for accuracy.
 
So which is which?

I have the Sigma 10-20mm but I just bought the Canon 10-12mm. I'm trying to sell my Sigma 10-20mm now.
 
Not sure you can do a realistic and reliable comparison using 2 different bodies - would be better to use the same body set to M.
 
andyred said:
Not sure you can do a realistic and reliable comparison using 2 different bodies - would be better to use the same body set to M.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But judging both the bodies and lenses, I'd prefer the top image. I'm not sure if that's because of the lens or the body though.
 
I hope to try a Tamron Adaptall-2 24mm on both bodies in the same church when it's overcast again. For those who don't know, the Adaptall mount allows the same lens to be used on bodies from different manufacturers, bearing in mind the lenses pre-date dSLRs and any advances in mount design. A similar approach could be used with an M42 mount lens and adapters, though there may be limitations with far focus.

I could also ask for some fine TP member to lend me a Sigma 10-20 with the appropriate mount ;)

The difference between bodies is of interest, but they are both non-mainstream, so not of particular interest to most members.

Comparing zooms relies on the accuracy of the specs (is the focal length as stated?) and reading of the lens markings or setting the same field of view in the viewfinder (differing coverage between brands). Try displaying the two snaps, above, in IrfanView, alternating back and forth: they'll occupy the same position onscreen and reveal the difference between the shots quite strikingly, due both to differences in focal length and distortion.
 
For an ultrawide lens for the 450D I don't think you can get better VFM than the Sigma 10-20mm. If money isn't a problem go for the Canon 10-22mm. These ultrawides aren't usually used for portraits, you probably need something in the 50mm to 80mm range.

Paul
 
The site: lensesforhire.co.uk have the Canon 10-22, the Sigma 12-24 in their hire pages. You could perhaps hire one (maybe the widest) and see whether it does what you need. They also have fish-eye lenses, which can give a different view as well.

I hired the Canon 10-22 for my 400d, I wanted wider I thought for my landscapes (than 17-55mm kit). It is strange the difference it makes to the kind of shot you can take
 
Photon,

#1 for me has a more vibrant colour but #2 looks a little sharper looking at the roof detail. Based on the review I have here infront of me, I am guessing #1 is the Tokina, and #2 is the Sigma. Now all i need is a comparison to a Canon 10-22mm and I can go out and buy one :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top