Is there a cheap wideangle out there?

[bluphoto]

I want to start experimenting with wideangle shots. The kind where you get a

figure stanting in the corridor of a derelict building (old hospital or the

like) with large windows coming from the side.

 

I think I'd like to use a wideangle to emphasise the "corridor" effect and to

distort slightly the perspective.

 

I just bought a Canon Eos 1V as my 20D has the 1.6 crop factor which works

precisely against my desired effect. Okay that wasn't the ONLY reason why I

bought the 1V but that's another story.

 

The 20D came with an 18-55 lens which I believe is EF-S and as such won't fit

on my 1V. I do have a couple of 28-80/28-90 kit lense from older cameras whch

should fit, but I'd like something considetably shorter than 28mm on my film

camera.

 

Can I get spacer/adapter rings for my EF-S lens? would these defeat the purpose

by increasing the image circle on the negative, effectively giving me back by

1.6x crop factor (or similar)?

 

Are these "wideangle adapters" you find on ebay any good? If I could get down

to a true 18mm on the film camera I'd be happy.

 

Are there any cheap lenses out there with or without adapters to fit my camera.

I'd rather not spend a fortune.

 

any tips appreciated.

 

Guy Carnegie

[rainer_t]

The EFS 18-55 cannot be adapted for the 1V. The imagecircle isn't big enough. Placing a ring in between the lens and the camera will not help. (You'll also loose infinity focus).

 

A wide adapter will give only very poor quality.

 

The cheapest lens that comes to my mind is the Cosina 19-35/3.5-4.5. I think the same lens can be bought with the brand names of Soligor,Phoenix and Voigtlander as well. Don't expect wonders, however, quality will be better than with adapters.

 

Rainer

[chrisjb]

If you want good pix I`d suggest a S/h 20mm 2.8m even if you converted the 18 55efs, it would distort & vignette badly.

 

I dohave a Tokina 19 35 which is a bit better then some others. also the sigma 15 30 works well but dearer.

[chrisjb]

BTW those lenses will work with both cameras.

[bluphoto]

So do I understand the limitations of using the 18-55 EF-s lens on a FF SLR are, I think...

 

1. Rear element too far back - potential collision with mirror - solution, move lens forward.

 

2. Image circle too small for FF - need to make the image circle bigger - solution, increase distance between lens and film plane.

 

3. EFS lens mount will not fit onto std Eos bayonet - solution, source or make adapter to go between lens and body.

 

4. Slow lens means large DOF - potentially not great for portraits - solution, move infinity out of focus by increasing lens-film distance - use tripod and increase exposure time.

 

 

I'm seeing a pattern developing here, although I'm not sure if such an adapter exists, I would think that it would work quite well if it did.

 

Any comments?

 

thanks

 

Guy

[bluphoto]

Will an EF-S lens go onto a Canon Eos extender tube?

[chrisjb]

This was the original method to convert the efs to EOS. Have not tried a tube, someone else can answer that Q.

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html

 

HTH

[will_webster]

Sounds like you'll be taking your time setting up your shots. I'd consider a used M42 mount (Pentax screw thread) manual lens and a Pentax - EOS adapter. You've got a great viewfinder for manual focus and you don't need the instant response of an EF lens.

 

EF-S lens will (I think) mount on the latest model Canon brand tubes; not on the earlier model or 3rd party. A wide angle lens will only focus at macro distances on even a short tube, however.

[rainer_t]

-- "Will an EF-S lens go onto a Canon Eos extender tube?"

 

No, neither on Canon's 1.4*TC nor on the 2*TC. To my knowledge it doesn't fit on any 3rd party TC either.

 

Rainer

[robin_sibson1]

Any EF-S lens will fit onto a Canon EF25II or EF12II extension tube and then onto your 1V. This is, however, of no practical value except possibly with the 60/2.8. There is no point whatsoever in trying to make any use of the 18~55 in this way. Just forget completely about EF-S-to-EF adapters or converters of any kind. To do what you want, you will have to buy an EF-mount (FF) WA lens, balancing what you want to spend against what results you will be satisfied with. You can also fit some other-brand MF lenses (which will be manual-everything, including stopdown) with adapters, but NOT Canon FD lenses. I would guess that Pentax lenses might be worth looking at for this purpose. It will work, but don't expect it to be convenient.

[bluphoto]

Okay, so what should I look to spend to acheive my 18mm target for FF?

 

thanks,

 

Guy

[lester_wareham]

You should just have got yourself a Canon EF-S 10-22mm for your 20D. That will take you from ultra wide to an almost normal angle of view and allow plenty of experimentation. It is also a very good quality lens.

[awindsor]

You seem to be looking for an ultrawide.

 

The two very wide zooms you want are the Sigma 15-30 and the Sigma 12-24. Both are full frame lenses. The wide Canon lenses are all expensive.

[awindsor]

These are cheap in relative if not absolute terms.

 

There is a Canon EF 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 (not the 2.8L version) that is relatively cheap.

[J.W. Wall]

Among other possibilities - a Zenitar 16mm that fits, with manual focus. They're around $125 on eBay, with a Canon converter ring. The Zenitar is a fisheye but that effect can be converted in post (search for threads if you would like more info).

[mattbutterfield]

I recently bought an EF-S 10-22 on amazon for less than $700, and trust me, it was well worth the money. If you want true wide angle shots, this is the lens you should buy. It is incredibly sharp compared to the kit lens, plus an ultrasonic motor and it goes as wide as you will ever need. I highly recommend ditching the 1V and getting a 10-22.

 

While you're at it, shell out an extra $70 for a 50mm 1.8 and with these two lenses you will never want or need to touch your kit lens again!<div></div>

[bluphoto]

My whole point is that I want it for 35mm film use. Even if I didn't I wouldn't want to stick with my 20D forever - I would want to upgrade to Full Frame at some point.

 

I think the 1V is less likely to age and need upgrading.

 

I'm already quite satisfied with the 18-55 for general use on the 20D and I already have a 50/1.8 for the more important shots, I'm just looking for something as wide for the 1V.

 

cheers,

Guy

[mawz]

Get the Cosina 19-35. It's available as a Tamron, Tokina or Vivitar lens.

 

It's actually pretty decent for a $150 ultra-wide, nearly as good as the 20-35 f3.5-4.5 USM that costs twice as much.

[mars c]

Matt , dont make us drool of you're 10-22, The OP only want a cheap wide lens.

 

But sorry GUY, there is no other way to get really wide , other than buying an expensive lens.

[digitmstr]

Buy a cheap Zenitar MC fisheye and mount it on the 20D - done deal.

[fourfa]

the tokina 12-24 goes to 18mm coverage full frame. I was quite fond of using my Nikon 12-24 AFS on my F100, the tokina should be quite similar. of course it works great on the 20D for the same maximum field of view.

 

but I guess $500 isn't really "low budget"

[robert lee]

"Are there any cheap lenses out there with or without adapters to fit my camera. I'd rather not spend a fortune."

 

There're two good solutions for getting cheap wides.

 

First, as Will Webster's mentioned, adapt Pentax M42 screw mount lenses to your 1V. The adapters can be had for less than $20 on EBay. They're purely mechanical, and thus do not lessen image quality from additional lens elements. Check KEH for the lenses to get an idea of what you can get.

 

Second, shoot digital panos. To get a 14mm equivalent FOV, for example, stitch together 4 shots with a 35mm lens on your 20D. You'll get higher resolution, roughly 24MP, to boot.

 

Either way, you'll be hard pressed to spend more than $300.

[carbon_dragon]

How about the EF 17-40/f4L? That's "relatively" cheap and it has a good reputation. Maybe you can find it used at KEH. Probably be better off doing that then buying a "cheaper" lens new.

[aaron_lam]

Should have gotten less of a body (EOS 3/7n) and 17-40 instead of the 1V.

 

IMO. But I guess that is another story.

 

 

aaron

[images_in_light_north_west]

17-40 f4, cheap for what you get