Looking for wide angle lens

blueren

blueren

Explorer
Hi All,

I've owned a Canon EOS550 D for more than a couple of years now. I've owned :

  • Canon 50mm
  • Tamron 18~270mm

Now I'd like to experiment with extra wide angle lenses. I'm not really biased on the manufacturer. Kindly suggest some lenses that are not too sharp when it comes to cost. [I'm not too sure how much they cost, hence am unable to provide a proper budget] Your inputs will help a lot.

I've done a quick survey of JJMehta's website, found the following:

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM
Tamron SP AF10-24mm Di-II F/3.5-4.5 LD Aspherical

They however seem too costly.
Thanks.
 
If possible buy from outside India. These two are decent for beginners, as also Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC (HSM). They are all cheaper abroad, as well as sometimes have schemes on them as well. Below this, not much to suggest really.
Remember, the body is a fraction of the cost. The lenses make up the majority of the cost over time.
 
The Sigma lenses do sound good! Now have to hunt for people coming from abroad :| And hope the dollar rate comes down.
 
Design of the Wide Angle zooms are pretty complex and hence the higher prices. The Sigma 8-16mm gets very good reviews and its Ultra Wide. Another rave reviewed lens is Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. But both of them costs north of $500, Sigma is more because of the extra reach. If you don't need Ultra wide, you can get the Tokina 12-24mm lens. It has a higher range, pretty good reviews, can be used as a walk around lens at the long end and costs less then the previous two. Although here in India all the quality zooms are priced much higher than US/Int'l level.
 
If you are ok with complete manual focus and prime, Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 can also be considered.

Forgot one thing - It might not fit the ultra-wide category after adding crop factor.
 
Last edited:
Since your camera has APSC sensor, it will be impossible for you to get UW effect, with available lenses. Because a 10mm lens in your camera will behave like 16mm, because of 1.6x multiplication effect due to crop factor. Though I prefer Canon's 10-22mm, but Sigma's 10-20mm is a good alternative.
 
The Rokinon is available on Snapdeal but at a nonsense price. You can buy 3 lenses from US for that price and still have some change left.
 
blueren said:
Uh.. Any of these available locally? So from what I understand, ultra wide won't really be ultra wide?
Click to expand...
All the lenses I mentioned are available in flipkart, so they should be available locally. Although the prices are higher, about $150-250 more in general. The Tokina 12-24 / Tokina11-16 would be a very good starter for you :)
 
Canon DX DSLR'shave a multiplication factor of 1.6K .

So 10MM effective is 16.

If you want to try the wide angle lens you may go for any of the above but to get the true potential of a wide angle, you would need to upgarde the body first.
 
^ As far as I understand, Wide Angle is considered the FOV of 24-35mm focal length (FF equivalent) where as Ultra Wide is the FOV of 15-24mm (FF equivalent) focal length. Anything lower than 15mm focal length is usually fish eye category. OP should be fine with his current body if he has a lens that can reach 10-12mm (FF equivalent of 16-19mm) focal length at widest. Besides, going ultra wide is gonna cause significant distortion anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yea you are right.

However, I used a fish eye lens of a friend and the distortion is very low. That depends entirely on the lens you are getting.
 
AFAIK, all lenses below 16mm need not be fish-eye lens. and there are 8mm lenses available w/o fish-eye effect even though such lenses are super expensive. BTW instead of using terms like UW and SUW, let OP inform what is the purpose of his so-called UW lens requirement. Based on his photo needs it could be easier to judge the effective focal length needs. Unless he is into architectural/monument or wide interior photography, any lens with effective focal length of 20mm and above should be good enough for most of his other photographic requirements.
In fact using a Tamron's 17-50mm lens and using panorama technique one can satisfy the need for UW photography to quite an extent.
 
Arrgh ! Guys please stop posting half baked or wrong info !!! :(

@sabby - You are mostly correct. 15-24mm (FF equivalent ) is considered UWA territory so the Canon 10-22 and Sigma 10-20mm are considered UWA lenses. I personally use a Sigma 10-20mm.

However you do get (albiet a bit rare) lenses that give 12mm (FF equivalent) focal length that is not a fish eye. Even the Sigma 8-16mm gives a 12-24mm equivalent view when used on a Nikon camera.

@manoja2k - Please check your facts before posting as most of what you have posted is either partially correct or completely wrong.

In your first post you say that you can't get UWA on a crop sensor which is plain wrong. All the lenses the OP mentioned are UWA lenses.

In your second post you are correct to a large extent. The OP clearly hasn't stated his intended use for a UWA.

However your second part of the post starts tending to the incorrect.

First off I have a 10mm lens and I don't shoot architectural/monument or wide interior photography. However I want an even wider lens ! Yep thats right I want wider ! Why because UWA lenses are NOT for getting everything in the photo. You use them to make use of the tremendous perspective distortion that they provide.

Try getting a photo like this with a Tamron 17-50mm lens using a panaroma technique -

8269829272_6201d11a56_c.jpg
 
You are right Brendon , there are a few rectilinear lenses available with effective focal length < 15mm. But I tried not to confuse the OP and hence said < 15mm is usually fish eye territory. Anyway, the lens selection totally depends on what OP exactly wants to shoot. :)
 
Woah. Thanks everyone for pitching in with a lot of mojo :)

Lets start from here. I'm only doing photography as a recreation. I do have a passion for it and i'd like to continue working at it. I've been wanting to try out UW category lenses since i'm really liking the distortion they provide while clicking pictures like @Brendon has mentioned.
I'm not particularly a fan of interior photography, nor a fan of clicking people. Lens will equally be used for scenery + something conceptual/cretive.
I'd like to go with something that balances the factor of money, as well as it's role in providing good distortion pictures when used with the current camera body I have [550D][DOUBLEPOST=1375955608][/DOUBLEPOST]What I'd also like to ask is, lets say I go in for the Sigma 8mm, Will it be compatible later on if i buy a full frame camera?
 
Last edited:
Brendon said:
Arrgh ! Guys please stop posting half baked or wrong info !!! :(

@manoja2k - Please check your facts before posting as most of what you have posted is either partially correct or completely wrong.

In your first post you say that you can't get UWA on a crop sensor which is plain wrong. All the lenses the OP mentioned are UWA lenses.

In your second post you are correct to a large extent. The OP clearly hasn't stated his intended use for a UWA.

However your second part of the post starts tending to the incorrect.

First off I have a 10mm lens and I don't shoot architectural/monument or wide interior photography. However I want an even wider lens ! Yep thats right I want wider ! Why because UWA lenses are NOT for getting everything in the photo. You use them to make use of the tremendous perspective distortion that they provide.

Try getting a photo like this with a Tamron 17-50mm lens using a panaroma technique -
Click to expand...
I agree with what you have stated from a perspective of technical correctness .

Whatever I have stated is with an intention to simplify the matter. Strictly speaking if an FF UWA lens is used in APSC then the effects of perspective distortion is equally reduced, especially the compression effect towards the edges because of reduction in area of coverage. So don't you feel even if the term UWA used for that particular lens, me or any other APSC camera user is likely to be disappointed because he/she was using a UWA but did not get desired effect.
Is n't it correct to start analyzing the lens from the perspective of effective FL rather than the nomenclature provided by the manufacturers based on film cameras/FF cameras?
I agree that UWAs are also used for selective distortion of images and add creative artistry to an image. In this case, I was most likely wrong in assuming that OP will first try doing city/water/land/vista-scapes (like me) before trying out his/her hand in creative usage of UW.
 
manoja2k said:
I agree with what you have stated from a perspective of technical correctness .

Whatever I have stated is with an intention to simplify the matter. Strictly speaking if an FF UWA lens is used in APSC then the effects of perspective distortion is equally reduced, especially the compression effect towards the edges because of reduction in area of coverage. So don't you feel even if the term UWA used for that particular lens, me or any other APSC camera user is likely to be disappointed because he/she was using a UWA but did not get desired effect.
Is n't it correct to start analyzing the lens from the perspective of effective FL rather than the nomenclature provided by the manufacturers based on film cameras/FF cameras?
I agree that UWAs are also used for selective distortion of images and add creative artistry to an image. In this case, I was most likely wrong in assuming that OP will first try doing city/water/land/vista-scapes (like me) before trying out his/her hand in creative usage of UW.
Click to expand...

Dude, you seem to be getting more confused !

First off I was referring to the FF equivalent FL ONLY ! You said it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to get an UWA effect. And yes you are correct that perspective distortion will be diminished with FF UWA but it will still be very much present. The OP was also discussing with APS-C UWA lenses like the Canon and Sigma 10-20mm so he was on the right track. And UWA are not also used for selective distortion but its their primary purpose. Those who are using it to get it all in are DOING IT WRONG ! Shooting landscapes without using the distortion effect (i.e. having a valid foreground) will result in a boring landscape. Hence you need to use the distortion creatively to make the most of an UWA. If you don't you will get bored of its images very quickly.

This is what you had posted -
manoja2k said:
Since your camera has APSC sensor, it will be impossible for you to get UW effect, with available lenses. Because a 10mm lens in your camera will behave like 16mm, because of 1.6x multiplication effect due to crop factor. Though I prefer Canon's 10-22mm, but Sigma's 10-20mm is a good alternative.
Click to expand...

@blueren - Unfortunately no the Sigma 8-16mm won't work on FF. If you want an UWA that works on both FF and APS-C then the Sigma 12-24mm is the ONLY UWA zoom that starts at 12mm on a FF sensor.

The downsides is that it cannot take filters. Some lenses work for a limited FL on FF. The Tokina 11-16mm for e.g works on a FF camera between 15-16mm. How the IQ is I am not sure however. :P
 
manoja2k said:
Whatever I have stated is with an intention to simplify the matter. Strictly speaking if an FF UWA lens is used in APSC then the effects of perspective distortion is equally reduced, especially the compression effect towards the edges because of reduction in area of coverage.
Click to expand...
All/most lenses mentioned here are designed for APSC sensor cameras. So, you won't be loosing compression effect towards the edges. You see, the coverage of lens designed for APSC sensor camera is good enough only for ASPC sensor camera. If you were to use the lens designed for APSC camera on FF camera, you will get vignetting as coverage area of lens will be smaller than sensor area.(Mostly lens designed for APSC sensors don't fit on FF bodies, but some of them do).

Yes, if you are using a UWA lens that's designed for FF cameras, you will loose out on whatever effect that's present on edges, as sensor size will be smaller than coverage area of lens.
 
Back
Top