What is the Ideal/best wide angle lens?

35mm is not really wide angle, especially not on a cropped sensor (450D, 30D) etc.
For cameras like these, wide would be a zoom that starts at 16, 17 or 18mm. I have been pleased with Canon's 17-40mm, but even second hand they are about £400. Cheaper is a standard 24mm lens, Canon does an f2.8 version that second hand should not be much more than £200. I've used it, old technology, but excellent. I have also heard good things about one of the 18-55mm zooms, but I can't remember which one, and they are usually really cheap.
Jonathan
 
35mm is not too wideangle. In fact on crop body it's not wideangle at all... What body do you have?
 
mumof3 said:
Hi Thanks I have a Canon 450D, Arh someone is selling a 35-70 mm stating its wide angle on ebay.
Click to expand...

That's not a wide-angle.

Wide angles on Canon crops (like your 450d) start around 15mm, with ultra wide angles starting at 10mm plus.

The lens you have been looking at is a very old lens designed for 35mm film cameras.

Your 18-55 is classed as a wide angle zoom.

What's your budget?
 
Last edited:
18 is ok for wide....

10-22 is better....
 
You will not get much wider than your Canon 18-55 without spending a far bit of money(at least £300) although I'm not sure a ultrawide like the 10-22 would be the best choice for taking pics of people.
 
mumof3 said:
Ok, what would any of you recommend for a wedding? Im doing a friends next year.
Click to expand...

I'm really not much of a people shooter let alone wedding but if you want something cheap that might be affordable perhaps the Tamron 17-50 2.8(not the VC version) might be a decent buy although I'd guess alot would depend on the venue.

There are a number of pro wedding photographers here who I'm sure could give you great advice(and maybe warnings) aswell.
 
You might want to consider two lenses as wide angle and portraits tend not to work due to distortion.

Generally is the 18-55 IS kit lens is a decent len, unless you want to start adding polariser or graduated filters the barrel rotates with focus is pretty much useless - ok maybe not useless but frustrating (if you ARE using these filters).

With that budget, (which is over buying brand new) I would buy a 17-50 f2.8 which has a useful fixed aperture, can go wide if not ultra wide and can do portraits at the longer end.

I would also consider the 50mm f1.8 (nifty fifty) primarly for the larger aperture and cost

Tamron AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Canon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-17-5..._1?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1314809767&sr=1-1

Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B00005K47X/ref=dp_cp_ob_auto_title_1.


Just seen you adding the W word :lol: I would definitely get those two lenses. I wouldn't stop there of course (I'd definitely have a flashgun), but depends how serious you are about the wedding and all round expectations.
 
Last edited:
Moreorless said:
I'm really not much of a people shooter let alone wedding but if you want something cheap that might be affordable perhaps the Tamron 17-50 2.8(not the VC version) might be a decent buy although I'd guess alot would depend on the venue.

There are a number of pro wedding photographers here who I'm sure could give you great advice(and maybe warnings) aswell.
Click to expand...

Ok thank you, will look into everything ive been messaged, Thanks so much :)
 
AndyB1976 said:
You might want to consider two lenses as wide angle and portraits tend not to work due to distortion.

Generally is the 18-55 IS kit lens is a decent len, unless you want to start adding polariser or graduated filters the barrel rotates with focus is pretty much useless - ok maybe not useless but frustrating (if you ARE using these filters).

With that budget, (which is over buying brand new) I would buy a 17-50 f2.8 which has a useful fixed aperture, can go wide if not ultra wide and can do portraits at the longer end.

I would also consider the 50mm f1.8 (nifty fifty) primarly for the larger aperture and cost

Tamron AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Canon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-17-5..._1?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1314809767&sr=1-1

Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B00005K47X/ref=dp_cp_ob_auto_title_1.


Just seen you adding the W word :lol: I would definitely get those two lenses. I wouldn't stop there of course (I'd definitely have a flashgun), but depends how serious you are about the wedding and all round expectations.
Click to expand...

Thank you,Will have a look at those. Am i mad agreeing to do this wedding LOL!
I have taken pics of couples and families but never a wedding!! I done a photoshoot with two families at once and there were 6 kids all together,I coped just about :lol:
 
AndyB1976 said:
You might want to consider two lenses as wide angle and portraits tend not to work due to distortion.

Generally is the 18-55 IS kit lens is a decent len, unless you want to start adding polariser or graduated filters the barrel rotates with focus is pretty much useless - ok maybe not useless but frustrating (if you ARE using these filters).

With that budget, (which is over buying brand new) I would buy a 17-50 f2.8 which has a useful fixed aperture, can go wide if not ultra wide and can do portraits at the longer end.

I would also consider the 50mm f1.8 (nifty fifty) primarly for the larger aperture and cost

Tamron AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Canon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-17-50mm-F2-8-Aspherical-Canon/dp/B000FZ3FY8/ref=sr_1_1?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1314809767&sr=1-1

Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B00005K47X/ref=dp_cp_ob_auto_title_1.

Just seen you adding the W word :lol: I would definitely get those two lenses. I wouldn't stop there of course (I'd definitely have a flashgun), but depends how serious you are about the wedding and all round expectations.
Click to expand...

It's a common mis-conception that UWAs suffer distortion. Good UWA lenses suffer no more distortion than other good lenses. The extreme view is caused by the massive field if view provided by 10mm lenses.

At 22mm the Canon 10-22 is actually quite a nice portrait lens, though I tend not to use it as such as I use my 35mm f/2 for portraits.
 
Some will say you are crazy to do a wedding.

When you look at what the pros deliver you won't get anywhere close to that quality.

There are a multitude of scenarios that a pro can cover with their extensive kit list and experience such as equipment failure, low light, inclement weather. If you doing it on a commercial basis it also raises issues regarding insurance(s) amongst other things.

I am not going to tell you NOT to shoot the wedding, there are a 100 folk on here lining up ready to tell you that. Speak with your friend and think hard about the consequences of screwing up.


Andy
 
odd jim said:
It's a common mis-conception that UWAs suffer distortion. Good UWA lenses suffer no more distortion than other good lenses. The extreme view is caused by the massive field if view provided by 10mm lenses.

At 22mm the Canon 10-22 is actually quite a nice portrait lens, though I tend not to use it as such as I use my 35mm f/2 for portraits.
Click to expand...

Maybe distortion is the wrong term I'm using - but as you allude to at 10mm its unlikely you will be taking portraits at that focal length. I know some children and pets have been done to great effect with the exaggerated perspective at 10mm. I wouldn't take my 10-22 as first choice for a portrait shoot.


Andy
 
AndyB1976 said:
Maybe distortion is the wrong term I'm using - but as you allude to at 10mm its unlikely you will be taking portraits at that focal length. I know some children and pets have been done to great effect with the exaggerated perspective at 10mm. I wouldn't take my 10-22 as first choice for a portrait shoot.

Andy
Click to expand...

Agreed, it wouldn't be my first portrait choice either! But I'm always surprised at how versatile the 10-22 is, from ultra wide to something you could easily use as a portrait/ walkabout at the top end.

But yes, a good fast prime is the only ideal choice.
 
odd jim said:
Agreed, it wouldn't be my first portrait choice either! But I'm always surprised at how versatile the 10-22 is, from ultra wide to something you could easily use as a portrait/ walkabout at the top end.

But yes, a good fast prime is the only ideal choice.
Click to expand...

It is a great little EF-s lens :thumbs:
 
An early piece of advice I was given was.......

If you're going wide, then go W....I....D....E

A 10-11mm should do the trick.

D in W
 
Tokina 11-16mm - very good at f8-f11 and you can get a lot in (link to my pics in siggy).

Samyang 8mm fisheye - very wide and distorts, novelty, but can be useful. Manual focus/aperture but once set mostly everything is sharp.

Sigma 10-20 (f4 older version? meant to be sharper?)


Depends how wide you need to go. If you have time and cen get to a meet perhaps other people may have the lenses you are interested in to see exactly how wide they go on your camera and which you'd prefer to invest in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top