Recommended WIDER than 28mm lenses or whatever you think is best!

[peter_todd4]

<p>Hi. I want to get something that works out at 24mm at least, on my A200. Ive' been thinking about the Minolta AF 17-35 F2.8-4 D and also read that the Tamron SP AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF could be better. I also read a review on Dyxum that said there are better wide angle lenses than the Minolta AF 17-35 F2.8-4 D that are suitable for an APS-C camera. What does everyone think and recommend (bearing in mind I am an amateur who just wants something beyond the standard range of what is considered wide at 28mm). Thanks.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What is your current lens? Isn't the A200 sold with either 18-70 or 18-55 kitlens already?</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Sounds like you're thinking zoom rather than prime, but if not then the Sigma 24mm f2.8 is a good choice that can be had for less than $100 (keh usually has a few). If you dont have the 18-55 kit lens yet than that would be another good choice on the low budget side. 17-35 is barely wider than 18-55, though of course it's nice to have f2.8.</p>

<p>Personally if you have $300-400 to spend then I'd probably prefer either a prime like Sigma's 20 f1.8 over a 17-35 zoom, or alternatively a real super wide zoom like a Sony/Tamron 11-18 or Sigma 10-20 for example.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>None of the lenses that you or anyone else has mentioned "works out at 24mm at least, on my A200"; given your title and text, the only logical conclusion is that you mean that the kit lens "works out" to 28mm, given the crop factor. If you want a lens for you A200 that is at least as wide as a 24mm lens on a 35mm (or full frame) camera, you need to get a lens whose true focal length is at least 15.7mm or wider, given the 1.53x crop factor. (Personal disclosure: I am eyeing the Sony 16-50, but the test-reported true wide end is given as 16.58mm, or the equivalent of 25.4mm on your A200.)</p>

<p>I cannot comment based on personal experience on any of these lenses. But there are a variety of 10-xx, 11-xx, 12-xx zooms out there, some of which have pretty good reputations. None of these lenses goes longer than about 24mm (37mm equivalent).</p>

 

[oleg_kosyakovsky]

<p>Well, Zeiss 16-80 is _recommended_, though apparently overpriced. Depending on what you already have; if you want a good standard zoom, you can take 16-80 or maybe 16-105.</p>

[peter_todd4]

<p>Sorry, probably didn't explain myself properly (and still mightn't!). Yes Dave, I want a lens for my A200 that is at least as wide as a 24mm lens on a 35mm (or full frame) camera, so as you you say, I need to get a lens whose true focal length is at least 15.7mm or wider, given the 1.53x crop factor!<br>

Is there an appreciable difference in images taken at 24mm and 25.4mm (which is what you say 16mm would be on my A200) or even 26.1mm (which is what 17mm would be on my A200). Sorry to be so amateurish, but I am less than an amateaur! I really only want a frugal way of experiencing images beyond the 28mm (thats ~18mm on APS-C) mark.<br>

Yes Wouter, I had an 18-55 and 18-70 but am submitting to the lust for something wider - I don't know - there seems to be a nicer or more unique feel to images taken on wider lenses, if you see what I'm getting at. I appreciate your replies...</p>

[ian green]

<p>given the drastic difference of 28 vs 24 mm lens you sure do not want any petty 26mm<br />i am following this thread with interest as i need to purchase a 17-50 and wander about any wider choices for small sensor too</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Peter,those are fair questions, and hopefully I can give you an idea of how much wider we're talking about. On a 35mm camera, as you go from a 28mm lens to a 24mm lens, the field of view gets 17% wider (and 17% taller), that is, 1.17x as wide (and 1.17x as tall). So if you can fit a 100 ft wide scene with a 28mm, from the same camera position you can fit a 117 ft wide scene with a 24mm. Whether that difference is drastic I suppose depends on your idea of drastic, but to me it can be a significant difference.</p>

<p>You can check the math all you want, and there are different ways to calculate it, but comparing a 28mm lens to a 24mm lens, the 24mm's field of view is 28 / 24 = 1.17x as wide. (And the same would go for any focal lengths, e.g., comparing a 28mm to a 35mm lens: the 28mm lens gives you a field of view 35 / 28 = 1.25x as wide.)</p>

<p>Using the same fairly simple math, a true 24mm is 1.06x as wide as a 25.4mm and 1.09x as wide as a 26.1mm. I say "true" because all such specifications are nominal (as are maximum aperture specifications), and some true values are quite close to nominal but others are not. Going in order from the widest, use test report data in <em>Popular Photography & Imaging</em> (US):<br /> Sony 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6: truly 15.59-101.74mm f/3.31-5.52<br /> Sony Zeiss DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5: truly 16.56-77.47mm f/3.57-4.61<br /> Sony DT 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM: truly 16.58–50.02mm f/2.61–2.84<br /> Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 OS: truly 16.64–50.01mm f/2.54–2.91<br /> Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS HSM: truly 17.53–49.71mm f/2.83–2.81<br /> Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 SAM: truly 18.59-54.18mm f/3.35-5.82<br /> Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6: truly 18.79-69.21mm f/2.83-5.83<br /> Among these lenses, the widest will give you a field of view that is 1.21x as wide as the one that is the least wide. Also, for example, the Tamron at nominal 17mm is <em>almost</em> as wide as two of the three Sony lenses at nominal 16mm, and approaching 1 mm wider than the Sigma at nominal 17mm (16.64 versus 17.53). So basically, the widest nominal 16mm is IMO truly, substantially wider than the least-wide 18mm, but otherwise, among the various in-betweens, each of us has to decide how much wider is usefully wider.</p>

<p>Really, though, if you want something <em>much</em> wider than the common lenses of nominal 16, 17, and 18mm wide ends, you need to be looking at lenses like the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, the Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5, and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.</p>

[peter_todd4]

<p>A belated thankyou to all who contributed. Your comments were much appreciated.</p>