DSLR Photography Forum

Hi tehre
I'm sure this has been covered so many times... but I'd like some advice please! Just bought Canon 400D, and am a beginner to SLR. I bought a standard 50mm lens but would like to upgrade. From what I've learnt a wide angle prime lens would suit me best - I'm redoing my flat so I'd like to take inside photos of rooms, and otherwise I take mainly landscapes and 'people' shots. And I don't want anything too heavy! Any thoughts? And how 'wide' should I go!?
I also don't think I can afford to buy Canon so any tips on best thrid party lenses?
Thanks!

Hi Clocke!

Welcome to ST!

Well how wide is a question that only you can answer.

But two primes that comes to mind is

Sigma 20mm/1,8
Link
Sigma 30mm/1,4
Link

Both greal lenses, and not to expensive either.

Iv owned both, but currently own the sigma 30mm/1,4

wich impression you can read more about in this thread.
http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6773

The sigma 20mm/1,8 is very sharp aswell (my copy was on pair with my nikkor 50mm/1,8)
It also has a very short focusing distance, wich means it can produce cool wideangle closeups.

Here is an example.



/Paul L.

clocke Wrote:I bought a standard 50mm lens but would like to upgrade. From what I've learnt a wide angle prime lens would suit me best - I'm redoing my flat so I'd like to take inside photos of rooms, and otherwise I take mainly landscapes and 'people' shots. And I don't want anything too heavy! Any thoughts? And how 'wide' should I go!?

Hi Clocke;

It sounds like you're doing a lot right -- you already have a prime, so you know how they behave, and you're certainly going to get a lighter lens out of it.

First of all, as Paul said, you're the only one who can decide how wide you want to go. I have some thoughts, but you'd be well-served by a trip to a good camera store. Try out lots of lenses on your own camera, and see what you like. Also try a few WA zooms, because even if you want to stick with a prime, you can use a zoom to get a feel for the differences between similar-sounding focal lengths.

Remember the conversion factor when you're shopping for lenses. Your 50mm lens is a short telephoto, which makes for a good lens when you want to isolate a subject at short range (as a 'walking-around' lens) and a nice full-length people lens. Paul's 20mm lens is about equal to a 32mm lens on the Rebel, which is nicely between the two traditional focal lengths of 28mm and 35mm. A number of digital-camera designed lenses have 18mm as their widest just to give back that little bit extra of a classic 28mm lens. They still call a 20mm lens an "ultra wide", but on a digital camera, they're really not "ultra".

The reality is that there's not a lot of primes being made these days, so most of them don't go wide enough at a realistic price. If you want wider than 20mm, you may have to get a zoom, with some trade-offs in terms of size and quality, and/or price. These might be very scarce on the used market, as well.

You may also find that you'll be surprised at the size and weight of the wide-angle lenses. The Canon 50 f1.8 weighs 130 grams, while the Sigma 20 f1.8 weighs half a kilo. WA lenses need a lot more glass.

For landscapes, I wouldn't suggest anything wider than 15mm. For people photos, 18 or 20 would be fine. For your flat, it depends on your intentions -- if you want to photograph it as architecture (a detail or less than half of a room) you're best served by a longer focal length, say 18-24mm. If you're fixing it up to sell it, and want to photograph it for that, then it's time to spend some money on the Sigma 10-20 zoom.

I do happen to be a big fan of wide-angle and ultra-wide lenses, but they're not for everyone, and the wider you get the more specialized they become. I do also need to point out that I'm not using a Canon camera, or even one with an APS-C sized sensor, so if anything I suggest goes against what someone else says, they're probably right.

Thanks so much for the input! Too many choices! I've been looking at so many, and reading lots of reviews...any thoughts on comparing the Canon 24/f2.8, and something like the Tamron zoom 19-35mm/ f3.5-4.5 ?

While were on teh subject, anyone got any recommendations on wide zooms...say 12-24 ish? For Canon also.

There are really only a handful of wide zooms out there. I have the Nikon 12-24 - but other than that one I think one obvious candidate to look at would be the Tokina 12-24. It is getting excellent reviews.

While I generally cringe when recommending him, here is at least one page where he has actually used the lenses he reviews:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-...arison.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

The one lens that he doesn't compare is the one I use, which is too bad. Its absence isn't surprising.

clocke, without having used either, I can't really comment on specific qualities. But, from my general experience, those are two very different lenses. While I would probably lean toward the zoom as a better all-around choice to compliment your existing telephoto prime, it's your own style and preference that needs to be considered. I think a short amount of time handling and using these two will answer any questions that you have far better than any amount of research.

Specs and all that aide, if you were tossing up between say a 20mm or 30mm, would also suggest maybe "fixing" your zoom lens to whatever focal length you're thinking of getting, and then seeing which perspective you prefer.

Hey there everyone. Im new to this forum.. and to to be honest never been much of a forum surfer but it seem as if you want some specific info from peolpe that know what they are talking about its the only way.

I've got a similar issue as the original post.

I want to get a wide angle lens to take interior pics of flats and houses. Work reasons really.

I got a Pentax K100D with the standard 18-55mm lens (28mm - 89mm equivelant I believe)

Have been tempted to go for a cheap screw on converter that screws onto the 52mm thread that supposedly will give me an increas of x0.5 on the wide angle. I take it that means I will end up with the equivalent of 28 x 0.5 = 14mm?!? I think that would be great.. But I am a bit worried about the quality of such screw on adaptors.

Anyone heard of any good adaptors or cheap lenses that are OK quality? I mean they are only interior shots of rooms.

Anyone used a Marumi Wide Angle Converter Lens M52S050?

Nad

Nadeem Wrote:I want to get a wide angle lens to take interior pics of flats and houses. Work reasons really. ... Anyone heard of any good adaptors or cheap lenses that are OK quality? I mean they are only interior shots of rooms.

Hi Nadeem, and welcome to shuttertalk.

What sort of work is it? (And is there any chance that someone else can be persuaded to pay for it?)

Unfortunately, good and cheap rarely go together... it's a question of whether it can be good enough for your use. Are you planning on doing web-sized images, small prints, or large prints? I can't help you with any specific recommendations for Pentax or WA converters, but it it might help other people to know what sort of quality you'd need.

I do a bit of interior photography, and find that most of the photos that I use are around 21-24mm effective focal length. Remember to factor your crop ratio in when you're looking for lenses for your Pentax.

This is at 24mm-e:



-

This is at 18mm-e:

Thanks for the pics Mathew they were great. I think an 18- 24 Equivalent lens would be great...

Work I do. Photos will be for letting and estate agents for marketing purposes. So website use and maybe printed off.. No bigger than perhaps 5 x 4 inch or so. Unfortunately I cant get someone else to pay for it. And I really dont fancy paying hundreds of pounds for something like a 12mm fisheye lens (18mm equiv) . Hence looking at the front filter thread mounted adapters.

What are you using?

My first post so i don't no if the photo has uploaded but if it has it was taken with my 400d
using a EF-S10-22mm lens.
Just love my 10-22mm, it lives on my 400d and only comes off for my 70-200mm f4.

Hey davoxt, great shot! I love the wide angle perspective, and the wave capture is just perfect in timing!

Welcome to Shuttertalk, by the way!

Nadeem Wrote:Thanks for the pics Mathew they were great. I think an 18- 24 Equivalent lens would be great...

Work I do. Photos will be for letting and estate agents for marketing purposes. So website use and maybe printed off.. No bigger than perhaps 5 x 4 inch or so. Unfortunately I cant get someone else to pay for it. And I really dont fancy paying hundreds of pounds for something like a 12mm fisheye lens (18mm equiv) . Hence looking at the front filter thread mounted adapters.

What are you using?

Hi Nadeem; sorry I missed your message.

18-24 equivalent sounds perfect, but even something as 'long' as 21 to 21mm should be fine. You're doing the same thing that I do, and the requirements are fairly modest. I never deliver anything higher than an 600x800 image over the web, and the agents will use that for 3/4 page images without complaint. (Higher resolution files would be on CD, for extra charge, and nobody's ever needed it.) Chromatic aberration / purple fringing and smearing or softness at the corners probably won't matter much.

One thing to watch for is distortion. A fisheye lens is the exact opposite of what you need -- you'll want all of the vertical lines to be straight and natural. When you're trying out lenses, find a strong vertical line (wall, display case, doorway) and slowly pan the camera until it reaches the edge of the frame. If the vertical line bulges or bends in the middle, then it's not the lens for you. I'll use a narrower field of view over one with barrel distortion.

I use a pair of cameras with different lenses. One is a 22-44 equivalent, which is a nice wide-to-normal lens that I mostly use for exterior photos. The other is a 14-28 equivalent, which is great for interiors, but I almost never use it at its widest angle. (except when I'm shooting for myself, when it's permanently there.)

What's even more important than the lens is the lighting. Lenses are an easy way to 'prove' to a client that you can do something that they can't. If they're shooting with an equivalent 28 or 35mm, and you can show them what a room looks like at 21mm, that's an easy difference to see with some numbers to explain it. But, a too-dark room with a blown out window looks much the same no matter what focal length it's shot at. A powerful flash, or a light with some sort of diffuser or reflector, will let you fill the foreground and choose how the room lighting is recorded. Add a solid tripod with a head that can be precisely adjusted, and you'll take dramatically better interior photos.

Also check out this blog: http://larrylohrman.wordpress.com/