Wide Angle Lens For XSI/450D Body

[becks_panno]

Hi Folks,

 

Wondering if you could help me out. My head is spinning concerning what wide angle lens would be "best" for me.

 

I would would prefer a non-S lens. I currently own 1 lens for my crop body. A 24-105 L.

 

I did notice that Tamron is going to be releasing the SP AF10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD Aspherical [iF]. However, until

it is out and had some reviews I am on hold. In the mean time I thought I would ask for your suggestions with lenses

that you have had good experiences with and are happy with.

 

A prime would be fine as well. I want it for shooting landscapes.

 

 

Thanks :-)

[sarah_fox]

Hi Becks, If you have the 24-105, it's going to be very hard to be happy with the image quality of most other lenses. The 24-105 is simply an amazing lens. My recommendation would be the 17-40 f/4L. It's not quite the lens the 24-105 is, but it's still delivers excellent image quality, and the zoom range is a good complement. The only drawback is that it barrels a bit on the wide end, but that's easily corrected in postprocessing. Otherwise, it gives very sharp results from corner to corner, and vignetting is not a problem. I find the lack of IS isn't that big an issue when shooting wide, so I don't really miss it. Build is similar to the 24-105. The coatings are the biggest strength -- best I've seen on any lens.

[rainer_t]

-- "I would would prefer a non-S lens."

 

-- "Tamron SP AF10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD Aspherical [iF]"

 

Canons "EF-S", Tamrons "Di-II", Sigmas "DC" and Tokinas "DX" lenses are constructed for crop-1.6 cameras. The imagecircle will not be large enough for fullframe cameras. On top of that, Canons "EF-S" doesn't even physically mount on fullframe cameras. (EF-S lenses also don't mount on the older D30, D60 and 10D).

 

If you really want an ultrawide for a crop 1.6, the EF-S 10-22 is a good choice.

[m._scott_clay1]

Tokina 12-24. Good price for good IQ.

[becks_panno]

Sarah: Thank you..I have been eyeing that lens but, without first hand knowledge I was wary. Your comments help a lot. And I do shoot in RAW (lol..not in the raw) so post process. will be helpful. I also agree the the lack of IS is not as important with 17-40mm due to its slightly shorter barrel.

 

Rainer: The reason I do not want he S lenses is that with good glass being sooooo expensive (for me) I don't want my lenses to be married to a crop body. At some point (when my technique improves and the funds are avail. I will step up from the crop 1.6 body. I have heard good things about the 10-22mm. However, it is not an inexpensive lens and it is an S.

 

Scott: I havn't checked out the Tokina..I will now. Thank you.

[jimstrutz]

If you don't want an EF-S lens, I would assume you don't want any of the lenses designed to work only with the crop cameras. That would exclude Tamron's 10-24, 11-18, Tokina's 11-16, 12-24, Sigma's 10-20, as none of these will fill the frame of a full frame sensor at their widest zoom settings.

 

That leaves Sigma's 12-24, or several choices starting at 16 or 17mm.

 

Sigma's 10-20 will work on a full frame camera down to about 12mm, and Tokina's 12-24 down to about 17mm, so those could be options for you.

[becks_panno]

You are right Jim I didn't notice that the Tamron 10-24 was for a crop body only ugh.....the pitfalls of owning a crop body is rearing its ugly head on me.

 

I will look at the sigma 10-22 and the Tokina 12-24mm..thanks

[JDMvW]

There is a full-frame ultrawide from Sigma, their 12-24mm. Otherwise, the 17-40mm from Canon. The latter doesn't

gain you a lot over the 24mm though at this focal length a few mm makes much more difference than on telephotos.

 

Jim is right about the Sigma 10-20 working, sort of, on full-frames down to a certain point, but I'd recommend

that only to someone who already had the lens and was moving up to full frame. Some of us have legacy lenses that

would benefit from the larger sensor, but otherwise, something like the 50D is pretty good by any objective standard.

 

Have you really thought about your aversion to "crop" body lenses? Are you definitely going to be moving "up" to

a full frame camera? You should think about what's available in the 15x22mm sensor size and ask why you would

need a 24x36mm sensor size.

 

For the 450D you could just get the 10-20mm Sigma which is very reasonably priced for what it is. Sell it when

you move on.

[sarah_fox]

Becks, I totally "get" your reluctance to limit yourself only to crop bodies. I took the same approach long ago in assembling optics, and I ultimately did make the move to a 5D. I'm glad I did that. My only problem when I made the switch was that I needed to rethink what my walk-around lens would be. I got the 24-105 for that reason. However, you already have it.

 

I did get the Sigma 12-24 as an ultrawide when I was still shooting crop. I do like the lens very much, but it took me three copies to find one that didn't have horrible chromatic aberration. On a full frame, the 12-24 is simply too wide for anything but interior architectural photography (which I do find it extremely useful). The 17-40 makes a MUCH better lens for landscape work.

 

If it had been available back then, I think I would have bought the EF-S 10-22 (used if I could find it) for crop ultrawide photography, and then I would have sold it upon making the move to full frame. The 10-22 zooms approx. as wide on a crop as my 17-40 on my full frame, and I find that's plenty wide for me -- for anything I want to make pleasing to the eye. On the other hand, if you do architectural work too, the Sigma 12-24 might not be a bad investment as an ultrawide on your crop body. Just understand it's not going to give you nearly the image quality of the 17-40, the 24-105, or even the 10-22.

 

One final thought: What makes a Sigma 12-24 unpleasantaly wide on a full frame camera is the extreme "stretch" in the margins of the frame. (It's a matter of rectilinear geometry. The Sigma is AMAZING in its almost complete lack of distortion.) If you use a fisheye geometry instead, then you'll be able to go wider and not have the stretch in the margins. There's a really fun little Russian fisheye for full frame cameras -- the MC Zenitar 16mm f/2.8, which gives you 180 deg from corner to corner (filling the entire frame with image -- not one of the "tiny world" fisheyes that puts a circle in the middle of the frame) You obviously get a narrower image on a crop body. The fisheye will give you curved lines but is better for photographing shapes. The downside for landscapes would be that you would usually want the horizon running through the middle of the frame to avoid curvature (but you can crop later). I put up a page with some sample images here: http://www.graphic-fusion.com/zenitar16.htm. You can follow the links to other sites with other sample images, some of which are done on crop bodies. Be warned that the lens is fully manual (and therefore a bit more involved to use. However, for only around $200, it's an easy lens to buy.

 

Preparing your optics collection for a move from crop to full frame is hard to do gracefully, but hopefully I've suggested some useful options.

 

Good luck!

[phyrpowr]

Becks, I would reconsider the "crop body" lenses.

 

I recently moved to fullframe, great deal on a lightly used 5D, combined with decent sale price on my 20D

 

BUT, I kept my 40D (and XT) and now I can still use my excellent 10-22IS, and my 70-300IS /40D complements the 24-105/5D perfectly. Not to mention putting "reach" on my 100-400

 

I think you'll probably amortize out the cost of an "S" type lens in use plus trade, if you decide to go fullframe only "someday"