brent_mcdade1 Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Having performed a search and read the available reviews, I am seeking advice on a lens to allow my film photography to go wider. I currently use a 28-135 IS as a walking around lens, and I often want something both wider and faster for indoor available light shots. There are not a lot of threads about the various entries into the running to separate me from my dollars in this range. I don't think I want a 24mm prime, because it just does not seem different enough from 28mm to justify a spot in the bag. So if I get a prime, the choices in my price range appear to be the Canon 20mm f/2.8 USM and the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG DF RF. If I consider zooms, however, there are a number of entrants into the fray. I guess the 17-40 4L would define the upper end of my price range, and Sigma appears to have 3 lenses to compete with it (15-30, 17-35, and 20-40), Tamron 2 (19-35 and 17-35), and Tokina 2 (19-55 and 20-35). I am a relatively inexperienced amateur photographer, having shot an average of about two rolls per week for about three years now. Given that modest level of experience, it is tough for me to decide what I really need. I will say that springing for the 70-200 4L was a great decision, as I have taken what I consider to be some great shots with it. I will also admit to owning at least two consumer zooms (a Canon and a Sigma) that are unlikely to ever be attached to a camera body of mine again in the future, except perhaps to help close the sale of a body. I do not wish to purchase any more junk lenses, so I am seeking your advice. Is there a gem hidden in the third party lenses at this focal length (the Tamron 90mm macro of wide angle)? Is there a great zoom that is of similar image quality to the Canon L at a reduced price (the 50 f/1.8 of wide angle)? Any opinions will be greatly appreciated. Brent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendonphoto Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Pass on the Tamron 19-35mm. I owned it and quickly sold it. I've never used the Tamron 17-35mm, but I hear that it's an excellent lens for about $200 less than the 17-40mm L. Check out the latest "Sunday Morning Photographer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduardo2 Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 What about the Canon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brent_mcdade1 Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 I was not considering it due to several posts on this board that suggest that while it is an excellent lens for tripod-mounted landscape photography once stopped down, it is disappointing as a handheld available light lens. Brent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brent_mcdade1 Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 It just does not strike me as wide enough, overlapping almost completely with my 28-135 IS, with whose performance I am quite happy. It is no 70-200 4L, nor is it an 85 1.8, but I expected (and got) better performance from them than the 28-135. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brent_mcdade1 Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 Man. I guess I had something to learn about proofreading before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_burke3 Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Well, if you really want to go wider then there aren't actually many choices, are there? - the 14mm (megabucks), the 15mm (very specialised), and the 20mm. Why not get a prime lens that's covered by the 28-135? I don't have that lens, but I do have the 24-85. I also have the following primes: 28 f2.8, 35 f2, and 50 f1.8. (I mainly use film bodies, btw.) I'd especially recommend using the 28mm f2.8 or the 35mm f2. There is a real difference in using these primes compared with the zoom - you become much more aware of your position and distance from the subject and you start actively looking for ways to improve it. I've always found that with a zoom lens, it's too tempting just to zoom in & out. The other thing is that you start to actively look for ways to use that wide aperture. Believe me, shooting at 1/250 @f2 is nothing like shooting 1/45 @f4.5. With the zoom you can only do the latter; with the prime lens, you can do either or anything in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 The one lens that seems to be the closest to what you are looking for, the EF20mm f/2.8, is not particulary good wide open. Mind you, although I have this lens, and use it wide open frequently, I tend to do that when the light level is very low, and that means I am shooting around 1/15 - 1/45sec; so at least some of my not-so-good results are due to camera shake. On the other hand, photodo test rating for this lens used wide open is below prime lens averages. As a result, I have come to accept that the lens is not that great wide open. Stopping down, however, makes a noticeable difference. But if you are going to use f/4 and and smaller apertures, then there is the 17-40/4... <p> Since you are going to use this lens on a film body that one stop between the 20 and the 17-40 matters. The flexibility of the zoom lens outdoors, where you will use it stopped down %90 of the time, matters too. <p> What about filter sizes? Your 28-135 takes 72mm filters (what the 20 takes). The 17-40 takes 77mm filters - ouch! Another complete color + B&W high quality filter set will be super expensive... <p> There is also a slow but wild 12-24 (Sigma I believe) full frame lens out there! Samples and reviews indicate that it is pretty good. 12mm, full frame! I have been tempted. If low light is an important factor, I say forget the f/4 zoom, and go for the 20. Good Luck. <p> EF 20mm f/2.8 @ 2.8 (minimum focus distance, 25cm to the beast's eye - which leaves his nose out of focus range...) <p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/Untitled-22b.jpg"></p> EF 20mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6-8? It is wide, but it cannot shift... <p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/Untitled-103.jpg"></p> Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Check out the EF 24 2.8 prime. The 4mm makes a big difference over the short end of the EF 28-135 IS USM. In fact, the zoom is probably nearer to 29 or 30mm. Plus, the EF 24 2.8 has virtually no distortion or flare compared to the zoom and is tiny as a button. Personally I have difficultly composing with a 20mm or shorter lenses on a full frame or film body--it's actually too wide except for very tight conditions. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjb Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Hi, I guess you need to work out why you want wide angle if for fun maybe the 20mm 2.8, I agree with puppy its not that easy to compose with such a wide angle mine only sees daylight on some backyard pics for a pool builder, but its great for wide distorted shots like cars & bikes. If you want one for landscape & sunsets etc try 24mm less prone to flare & distortion.Just look at the angle of view in the lens specs. Zooms such as sigma 15~30 goes great on the digital but flares badly on 35mm. Tamrom 17~35 looks ok don`t know it myself.You may want to go digital at some stage so doesn`t hurt to think ahead. Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart_k Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Hi Brent, I second Puppy's advice to get the 24 mm / 2.8, it's a great little lens. Just like you, I've also got the 28-135 IS, but the extra 4 mm really makes a difference. Furthermore the 24mm is really tiny, so often I just take the camera with the 28-135 as walk-around-lens and just slip the 24 mm in my pocket for those wide-angle shots. Regards, Bart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Yeah; 24/2.8 or 17-40/4L are both great lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Yeah; 24/2.8 or 17-40/4L are both great lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 <p> <i>I've never used the Tamron 17-35mm, but I hear that it's an excellent lens for about $200 less than the 17-40mm L. Check out the latest "Sunday Morning Photographer". </i> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> Should be: <a href="http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column63/">Check out the latest "Sunday Morning Photographer"</a>. </p> <p> <i> I don't think I want a 24mm prime, because it just does not seem different enough from 28mm to justify a spot in the bag. </i> </p> <p> After having several 28-XX zooms as well as the 17-35/2.8 USM L, I bought the 24/2.8 and 35/2. Those two are exactly what I was looking for. Small, light, optically excellent and relatively cheap. In addition, I (like Puppy Face and many others) see the 24mm focal length as the "perfect" wide angle. 28mm is dull, 20mm is too wide. Zoom? I'd go for the 17-40/4.</p> <p>Happy shooting, <br> Yakim.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquilanebula Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I recently acquired the Tamron 17-35. It's an excellent lens. On a film camera it's a little soft in the extreme corners when used at 17mm at f/2.8, but by f/4 it's very sharp across the frame at all focal lengths. The build quality is very good and generally it's a very nice lens to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now