Wide Angle Lens Choices

[k_kujo_hurt]

Most of my photography is dedicated to nature, though I do venture a

little into architecture. I really don't have a dedicated wide angle

lens and have been doing research on options. I had been considering

the Canon 20-35mm f/2.8 (no longer made but can often be found on

ebay) and then came across the 17-40mm f/4. I do not shoot digital

now so I thought the 20-35mm/2.8 would be a better option. Then one

day, I began thinking about upgrading my short telephoto lens to

either the Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 or the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. Do you

think I could get by using either of these last two lenses as my wide

angle. From the Canon website, it appears these lenses focus as close

or closer than the first two wide angles I mentioned. Purchasing the

28-70 or 24-70 would be a bigger cash outlay now, but would save me

money in the long run by not having to buy a dedicated wide angle.

the 28-70mm would be cheaper. Is the 4mm advantage of the 24-70mm

worth the added expense? Thanks in advance for any responses.

[les]

That depends how wide you want to go. There is a BIG difference between 28mm and 17 mm at the short end.

Have a look here for focal length comparison:

 

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lens101/focallength/index.html

 

If you want the wide angle (and 28mm is not really that wide), then 20-35 or 17-40 would be the choice. If 17-40 is outside the budget, than maybe Sigma 15-30 is not.

[bill_goldman]

The 28-70L or its replacement, the 24-70L (on a full-frame film camera body) is more of a mid-range or what I call a "framing" zoom than a substitute for a wide angle lens. It is ideal for such things as wedding photography, when you don't have time to change lenses.

 

Unfortunately, these lenses are not only expensive, but large and heavy. If wide angle applications are your interest, the 24-70 would be the more suitable as 28mm is not really very wide. I don't think either of these lenses is a substitute for a short telephoto prime or zoom lens.

 

If you are really interested in wide angle applications, you would be better off with a 24mm prime lens or an ultra wide angle zoom, such as the 17-40L, depending on the range of subjects you would use it for.

 

There is also the very popular 28-135 IS if you are looking for a substitute for your short telephoto, whatever that may be.

[quentin_smith]

i think there is a huge difference between 28 and 24 mm. i find my 24-85 an excellent base lense. it never leaves my camera.

i find that lense speed isnt an issue for me as i shoot mainly landscape and are usually shoot above f11.

 

i think the 17 - 40mm f4 would be awesome but the 24-70 more verstile.

 

if you plan to get a 10d or 300d then definetally get the 17-40mm f4

[lindsay_robb]

I think for nature and architecture you probably are thinking 'get as much in as I can' and forgetting about the distortion you are going to get with a dedicated wide.

 

I own a 28-80mm and 28-200mm as my standards for nature/landscape. I find the hassle of bringing my 19-35mm isn't worth it when I get the photos back and the distortion doesn't look natural. I guess if you aren't into 'realism' photography then you might like it. I am now planning on trading my 19-35mm for something like a 24mm that I won't have to worry about flare as much.

 

Personally I would go for a new standard zoom like the 24-70mm.

 

Just my humble opinion.

[jt]

You talk about venturing into architecture. Take a look at the 24/2.8 lens; it's fairly cheap 2nd hand, and doesn't have as much distortion as the zoom lenses. It's very sharp, and I find the difference between 24mm and 28mm is definitely noticable - obviously, you need to go to a camera store and see the difference for yourself to see if it's what you want/need.

 

What lens do you use at the moment?

[gerry_szarek]

17-40F4L for nature by a mile.

 

Gerry

[digitmstr]

For achitecture I would use at least a 24mm. I don't know if you shoot film or digital so, the crop factor of certain sensors would have to be taken into consideration.

 

However, the important question would be: would you do mostly interiors or not? If yes, I would look at 20mm or wider. A shift lens would be great but, more expensive. You can always you programs to correct lines after scanning the pix.

 

For exteriors anything is game. I prefer to shoot from a distance (when/where possible) and concentrate on specific details of buildings so, I use long telephotos for that. But, of course, there are times when a wide will be desirable.

[k_kujo_hurt]

I appreciate everyone's answers. I have several lenses but the one I reach for the most is the Tokina 80-200 f/2.8. I can get some nice landscape shots with the 80-200mm lens but I lose the option of a wide angle perspective. When opting for wide angle perspectives, I use the Tokina 24-200 f/3.5-5.6. I bought this lens and gave it to my wife for general purpose photography. However, because it's the only thing I have that is near 24mm, I ask her to loan it to me whenever I want to take landscape/wide angle photos. I'm happy with the quality of the photos I can get with the Tokina lenses. However, the 24-200mm has one disadvantage in that the minimum close focusing distance is 2.9 ft. Not a problem on a vast scene but when wanting to use it on a close subject, it's limited. For those familiar with John Shaw's books, he highly favors the perspective of the 24mm for wide angle. I only shoot film and will most likely not shoot digital, not for the next 2-3 years anyway, so I guess the 24mm is the ideal perspective for film. Just as I was getting ready to make a bid on a Canon 20-35mm f/2.8 lens on ebay, the thought crossed my mind about the possibility of upgrading to the 24-70mm f/2.8 Canon lens and perhaps using that as a wide angle. Seems to be some mixed reviews but I do appreciate everyone's comments. Regarding the architecture use, as I mentioned, I only dabble in it as I'm trying to learn through trial and error how to make nice dramatic arch. photos. My main interest is still nature photography. Thanks again.

[gary w. graley]

I love my prime 24mm, but that 17-40 is calling my name very loudly!

 

G2

[yakim_peled1]

I am very surprised no one mentioned the 24/3.5 TSE. No AF capability, no zoom versatility, large, heavy, not-easy-to-use, expensive. The list goes on but it's THE lens for architecture. If you can afford the 24-70/2.8 you can have this one for a bit less.

 

I'd try to find a used one to lower the cost.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.