Need advice on a third lens.

[robert_thommes]

I currently shoot with a 300D, and use Canon 70-300 4-5.6 USM IS and a Canon

50mm f1.8 lens. I'm looking for a third lens to fill a wide/angle void and to

function as a walk around lens. But funds are limited. Around $200, and no

more.

Is there something out there? What would you suggest? A zoom or prime?

Thanks

[keith_lubow]

Hello,

 

You are very limited at $200. Maybe the wretched under-$100 18-55 kit lens would hold you over until you could save up for a wide and faster fixed-focal-length lens like the 20mm. 28mm is faster, but is normal, not wide, on that camera.

 

Keith

[digitmstr]

<a href=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12096-USA/Canon_2505A002_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html>Here's</a> a good lens for LESS than you want to spend.

[gtx2]

how about a used tamron 17-50 2.8? you might be able to pick one up on the

auction sites for around $200?

[colin carron]

I agree with the kit lens suggestion. They are not at all bad if you don't shoot wide open.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/nw-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LnLA

 

And start saving for something better.

[jcolwell]

A prime is the right answer for you. Giampi's suggestion of the 28/2.8 is a good one, and so is the 24/2.8, which is wider, has better image quality, and costs a bit more, like <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800533032-USE/Canon_2506A002_Wide_Angle_EF_24mm.html">this one at B&H</a>.

[david_moreland]

Buying used might help you stretch the budget.

 

Try www.keh.com

[John Crowe]

The 28/2.8 lens is a good suggestion to go with your 50/1.8 but it would still leave you without true wideangle on your 1.6x body. The cheap 18-55 certainly gives you the kind of range that would be nice but perhaps a used Canon EF 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 USM zoom would provide a range almost as useful but with better image quality. You would not miss anything in the 35 to 50mm range.

[zackojones]

Robert,

 

I'm also looking for a wide angle lens for my Rebel XT and may end up getting the EF-S 10-22 zoom since it's designed for our 1.6 crop sensors. When considering primes remember that due to the sensor the focal length is longer than you may be expecting.

 

For example the 24mm lens recommended above would be 24mm on a full framed camera. On ours it would be the same as an 38.4mm lens (24 * 1.6) so even though it's a 24mm lens on some cameras it isn't on ours.

 

I have the kit lens and really gets a bad rap, but it's not that bad of a lens. If you can make do with what you have I'd wait until you can spend a bit more on the lens. If you need to buy now I'd get the kit lens. You'd think as much as they are bashed here on PN the classified would be flooded with them. You might want to post a Want to Buy ad there and see if anyone will sell you one cheap.

[jimstrutz]

A used Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 goes for more than $200. I can't see a Tamron version going for less since it has a better reputation. Sigma does have an 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6, but it's not any better than the Canon version, so I wouldn't get it. Sigma's 17-70 might be an option used, but I think the Canon 18-55 kit lens is the one to get.

 

I'll sell you mine for $50 plus $10 shipping in the USA. It's nearly new.

[ben_goren]

I have the 28mm f/2.8 that Giampi linked to, which is just 1.3 mm longer than the

standard definition of a normal lens for the format. It's adequate...but, to be honest, I

much prefer the kit lens. Even on the image preview on the back of the 5D, it's noticeably

worse than my newly-bought Tamron 28 - 75 f/2.8...which probably isn't a very fair

comparison, but still. I never was very happy with the lens on the 300D, and I now have a

much better idea of why.

 

If you're looking for cheap and wide on an EF-S mount, you're not gonna do better than

the kit lens. If you're looking for cheap, period, the 50mm f/1.8 blows away the kit lens --

but it's a medium telephoto. If you're looking for wide, period, all sorts of things blow

away the kit lens -- but they cost hundreds of dollars, if not well over a grand. The kit lens

is a truly amazing $100 lens (the price difference between the camera alone and the

camera with the lens). It'd have to be in the top five of anybody's list of best price /

performance ratio lenses that Canon makes, and probably in the top three.

 

In fact, I wouldn't recommend the 28mm f/2.8 *unless* you actually, really truly need the

extra stop...in which case the $400 28mm f/1.8 is likely to be a much, much better choice,

or maybe the $300 24mm f/2.8.

 

Both of which, you've already noticed, are out of your price range....

 

Good luck!

 

Cheers,

 

b&

[robert_thommes]

No one has mentioned the off-brand 19-35mm 3.5/4.5 lenses. These appear to be within my price range, but all would probably be in used condition now. How do these compare to those suggested thus far?

 

Bob

[bueh]

I'd either go with an inexpensive 18-55mm kit zoom or a 20mm f/2.8 prime lens. While the former is really a great steal and definitively recommend at its price, the later is optically better, faster and sadly even used a bit over your budget. I'd still get it, because it solves your wide angle needs.

 

Another prime lens I can recommend is the Tokina AT-X 17mm f/3.5, an excellent super-wide.

[arie_vandervelden1]

Avoid off-brand 19-35 lenses - the 18-55 kit lens will blow these away. Get a used kit lens - very cheap and there are plenty of them out there.

[jimstrutz]

I had a Phoenix 19-35 f/3.5-4.5. I found it a good lens for the money, since it was the first affordable wide zoom for film cameras. However, I have to agree, the 18-55 is a better lens optically, and the build quality wasn't any better on the 19-35 either. If you had a full frame camera and wanted to save cash, it is an acceptable low end lens.

[brett_cole]

I owned the 20-35mm zoom years ago and would recommend against it. Just bad quality all around. 24 2.8 is my recommendation

[freelance]

The kit 18-55 is very versatile and cheap. I show you two pictures, one made with the kit at 18 mm at the other with the Canon 15 mm f2.8 EF.

 

 

 

Both with Rebel XT (350D)

[robert_thommes]

Significant distortion with the prime. That surprises me. Or did you do any processing to get rid of the distortion on the "kit" lens 18mm image? Either way, I'm inpressed with the cheapo "kit" lens, and am leaning towards it to solve my "3rd lens" decision.

Thanks for the samples.

[freelance]

The images are untouched. Direct from the camera. I am not an expert but an amateur.

[ben_goren]

Robert,

 

The ``significant distortion'' from the prime would be because that's a fisheye lens. The

fisheye effect isn't especially noticeable on an APS-C sensor, but the distortion sure is.

 

If you're gonna use that lens on anything less than full frame, you really need to ``de-

fish'' the image, which crops the image even more.

 

Some people swear by using a fisheye and ``correcting'' it in post-processing as a way to

go wide on APS-C. Now that you can get 10mm zooms, I frankly don't see the point. And I

*really* don't see the point now that I've got a 5D....

 

Cheers,

 

b&

[mike t.]

My experience differs from Ben's. Even Canon's 20/2.8 compares well to the Tamron 28-75/2.8 in terms of IQ. The "cheap" EF primes (20, 24, 28, 35) are all well-corrected for distortion, if that matters to you (where the Tammie isn't). All perform well stopped-down and I believe the primes are superior to the Tammie wide open, at least my copy.

 

I recommend any of the f2.8 primes, all of which are near your budget. And the 28/1.8 (USM!)is something to consider if you're feeling fuller in the wallet. It's underrated, imho.

[ben_goren]

Michael,

 

I generally agree with you. But have you actually tried the 28 mm f/2.8? The only cheaper

prime Canon sells is the 50 mm f/1.8, and the 28 isn't even close to being in the same

class. At least, mine isn't. I never noticed a problem with distortion, but it's soft overall,

has bad light fall-off, is unusably soft in the corners on full frame, and is rather lacking in

contrast. The colors don't ``pop,'' either. The only thing it has over the kit lens is

maximum aperture.

 

Looking at Fred Miranda's reviews forum, it would seem that I'm not alone in my

experience with this particular lens...and it would also seem that there's a lot of variation

either from lens to lens or person to person.

 

I haven't seriously compared the Tamron and the 20mm, but my general impression is that

the 20mm is better. Sharpness wide open seems to be about the same, but there's a *lot*

less light fall-off on the 20. Contrast seems better on the 20, too.

 

With the 28mm f/2.8, though...there's simply no comparison.

 

Cheers,

 

b&

[freelance]

In order to help in this conversation I would like to show you some more pictures.

One with Canon 28 mm 2.8, another with 50 mm 1.8 I (old) and another one with the kit 18-55 at 31 mm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is very interesting learning from you. I suppose you know you have the originals in flickr.

[robert_thommes]

To my eyes, no contest between the 28 prime and kit lens. Kit takes it hands down. Do you folks agree with me? Or am I either not looking at the image the way you are, or my compter monitor is failing (which I think it might be)?

[ben_goren]

Robert,

 

That's exactly the same thing I discovered with my kit lens and the 28mm f/2.8, and the

point I've been trying to make in this thread.

 

And the 28 gets much worse on full frame....

 

Cheers,

 

b&