Wide-angle lens for my 350D??
 

Anybody have suggestions?

I'm looking to replace the 18-55mm kit lens but not sure what to get. Now to be honest I don't want to spend huge money on it since this hobby still isn't making me a huge income and I prefer spending money on the WRX.

I had a look at the ES 50mm F1.8 MKII which is nice and cheap, any limitations?

Any help appreciated, thanks :D

50mm is a normal lens and not wide angle by any means. I think wide angle starts with 10mm and goes to approximately 36mm.

The true wide angle lense like the 10-22mm or 12-24mm lens are awesome for landscape shots but are pretty useless for car photography unless you want to have fun distorting the cars.

Take a look at Martijn's and TT's photo thread where they talk about the various wide angle lenses - I think the 17-40mm and 17-35mm lenses were mentioned as decent lenses.

You may want to go thru your shots taken with the 18-55mm and see what percentage of them were taken at or near the 18mm end or the 55mm end. If you were taking a lot of stuff at 55mm then you will have be a lot closer to the action if you want to use the 17-35mm lens.

Fortunately Nikon has a pretty decent lens with 18-70 all the way to 18-200mm - so we are covered on the short end as well as the telephoto end.

I agree on the first part, but not on the wide-angle-part. Everything under 50mm is considered wide-angle (so 36mm on APS-C is correct) but goes to about 28mm (17mm on APS-C). Everything wider would be an ultra-wide-angle. :)

Indeed we discussed about wide-angles in TT's topic, but I'll summarize it here. 8)

Wide-angle:
- 17-40 f/4 L... pro: sharp, L, affordable - con: f/4
- 16-35 f/2.8 L... pro: sharp, L, f/2.8 - con: expensive
- 17-35 f/2.8 L... pro: sharp, L, f/2.8, affordable - con: can't be bought new anymore, only 2nd hand

For all those lenses I have to say that their range isn't perfect, 35/40mm on APS-C can be a little too short for some shots.


UWA:
- Sigma 10-20... pro: 10mm, cheap - con: less sharp, f/5.6 @ 20mm
- Tokina 12-24... pro: sharp, affordable, fixed f/4 - con: 12mm, CA
- Canon 10-22... pro: L-like-glass, 10mm, sharp, fast - con: expensive

These are more of a specialty lens, I wouldn't do a complete shoot with one for example. :)

If you got the funds, 16-35 all the way. I used it a few times and it's amazing!

if not, go Darkel's and TT's way with the 17-40 :)

If not - go Sameer's way and buy Nikon products :wink:

I can vouch for the 17-40mm F/4 L being good in everything but low light situations like indoor events. Once you start working with L glass you tend not to go back. There are rumors of new ultra wide zoom lens coming out in a few weeks time at some convention.

saamer's way is evil, he only seems to be good at buying cars :P

Canon will anounce the new products on February 22nd. 8)

Thanks guys.

But you say the 17-40 f/4 L is "affordable".....from what I've seen they are around $AU 1000. :shock: Thats quite a bit more than I was planning to spend.

So what I'm asking now is whether something a fair bit cheaper than that is available which will be a vast improvement over the 18-55, or should I just stick with it?

To stick with the 18-55 is suicide, but many of us survived 1 year, even more.

IMO if you are not ready to put down L money, stick to it and wait.

Even if yours is an hobby like for most of us, believe me: buying an L, even if it requires some more time, is definitely the right choice. Something inbetween will do it for a while, but soon you'll need something better ;)

One day you'll stop modding your riceburner and you'll have plenty of spare cash to throw into a proper wide angle and a 70-200 F2.8 IS ;)

Stick with what you got.

The 50mm 1.8 will be really useful for low light situations - e.g. indoor photography or twilight shots but may not be any sharper under normal shooting conditions. Furthermore, I am sure your 18-55 will autofocus thru the camera which the 50mm will certainly not.

I think 50mm can supplement and not replace your zoom lens.

I just got a 50mm f1.8 this morning and from just playing about with it in the house it seems much better for low light, the shutter speeds are much faster compared to the kit lens. It also gives a very narrow depth of field. I dont think i know enough about lenses to say about the quality but from what i read its supposed to be good for the money (only cost me £60). I suppose it will depend on whether u need the zoom or not.

Heres some pics i took just to show the depth of field.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/9...2720tm2.th.jpghttp://img224.imageshack.us/img224/2...2718yv2.th.jpghttp://img224.imageshack.us/img224/8...2713xc7.th.jpghttp://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6...2709tc6.th.jpg


This is a thread with lots of pics with this lense.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=186207

That soon eh? Time to save up. I'm looking to fill up my range from 40-300mm & a flash.

Popular cheaper options seem to be the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4, but I havn't got first-hand-experience with those.

Ok another little win on the stock market and I've decided to take a bit out for a new lens.

I've got it down to the following:

Canon 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 (about $AU 1000)

Canon 17-40mm F4 L ($1100)

I know they are different but I'm not sure what better suits me. I prefer to use my 70-300 for car shots and only use the wide-angle for cramped car shows and such. I am starting to get into landscape photography more so whatever i buy now should be well suited to that aswell.

Thoughts or other suggestions?