suchee Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Hi all, I am planning to purchase a wide angle lens. The main use will be for shooting panaromic views outdoors with a canon elan 7E body & color slides. So, far i have come across 3 (tamron, tokina, sigma) lenses with 19-35 mm f/3.5-4.5 that are not too expensive ($150-$200). Any views/opinions on how these lenses perform ? Other choices/suggestions are also welcome. Based on my initial seraches, i found lenses that go down to 15mm but cost upwards of $400.00. thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I would recommend the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 lens. If money is really tight, then the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 lens. For an inexpensive zoom in the range you're considering, I would go with the Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_wintheiser Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 You probably can't go to far wrong with any of your choices with the possible exception of the Sigma - the Sigma lenses sometimes have trounble working properly on Eos bodies. I have the Tokina 19-35 and have been very pleased with it. I also have the Canon 28mm f2.8 which I also like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_j2 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 If it were me, I would stick with the Canon's over any third party lens. But then again thats just me! Secondly - Of all the lenses mentioned in the prior post, my first choice would be the Canon 24. My second choice would be the Canon 28mm. In either case, the f/2.8 is certainly an advantage. Also most any prime will out perform any zoom. And I would think with landscapes that sharpness would be a strong consideration. Also, before I would "dish out the dough" for anything wider than the 24mm on a film body. I would want to see some of the results. Of course then again, that just me! I have had experience with a 24mm and limited experience with a 17mm lens used for underwater photography. However, the 17mm had too much fisheye effect for land photography to suit me on a film body. My .o2 worth! Enjoy whatever your decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthur_reyes1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Hi SuchiI too would suggest sticking with Canon. I would also recommend the Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. I have the lens for my ElanIIe. I think its a great lens. I can't afford L lens, so this lens is a great compromise. I like the convience of the zoom, especially for landscape work (Because sometimes zooming with your feet is not possible...else you fall off a cliff or something). I found the lens to be plenty sharp as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 "the Sigma lenses sometimes have trounble working properly on Eos bodies." I've never heard that when using a film body, as Suchi is proposing. The Canon 20-35 is $400 plus - Suchi is looking for lenses at around $200. Even Canon's wide angle primes are over the $300 mark. Panoramic views don't demand f2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_murray Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Ken Munn , apr 26, 2006; 07:40 p.m. "the Sigma lenses sometimes have trounble working properly on Eos bodies." I've never heard that when using a film body, as Suchi is proposing. Been an issue with Canon/Sigma for years on film bodies starting with the Elan7 timeframe... The Canon 20-35 is $400 plus - Suchi is looking for lenses at around $200. No not the L lens the 20-35 3.5-4.5 Check B&H price Even Canon's wide angle primes are over the $300 mark. Not the 28 F2.8 or 24 F2.8 I bet too. For $100 or so you can get the 22-55mm USM used. not bad stopped down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dillan k Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 The EF 24mm f2.8 can be had for $289.95 (US version) at B & H. It's true! I just bought one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 <p> The cheapest lenses I can recommend to you are the Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5 or Canon 20-35/2.8 L or Tokina 17/3.5. All used due to price limitation. Have a look at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html</a>. </p> <p> Also, <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#expensive">a small reminder</a>. </p> <p> Happy shooting, <br> Yakim. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchee Posted April 27, 2006 Author Share Posted April 27, 2006 Thanks for the suggestions and responses. I had overlooked the canon 24mm f/2.8 at ~$300.00. At this point i want to experiment with wider angle than 24mm . Hopefully, there won't be any fish eye effects for any of these lenses at the 20mm level. I will try to scout local stores for used canon lenses. 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