Super wide-angle reccomendations...

[Lord Blackadder]

I have been using the 18-55mm kit lens for wide angle shots with my Rebel XT, but it doesn't give me the results I had with an EOS film camera mounting a Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM lens (I understand the quality difference between these two lenses; I'm just talking about focal length here).

I know that my crop-sensor body needs a wider angle lens to get a similar field of view, so I have been cross-shopping the Sigma and Canon 10-20/22mm zoom super wide-angle lenses. This seems to be just what I'm looking for; however these are EF-S lenses, which won't do me any good if I ever upgrade to a body with a full-sized sensor.

Are there any comparable lenses that use the regular EF mount? Or would I have to get a 15mm fisheye or the like? I can't afford an "L" lens either...

 

[miloblithe]

You're looking for 12.5mm, so there aren't that many full-frame options.

There are Sigma's 12-24 f/4.5-5.6

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1224_4556/index.htm

Sigma's 15-30 f/3.5-4.5

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1530_3545/index.htm

Or fisheyes.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Thanks!

Hmm, that 12-24mm looks nice. The most attractive thing about the 10-20/22mm lenses is the lower price, but I like the thought of future-proofing my lens collection, so it looks like either the 12-24mm or a 15mm fisheye are my options.

 

[Abstract]

^^^Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing 2 years ago. However, I still bought the Tokina 12-24 mm, and just recently purchased the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4, which is also a reduced lens "DC" lens from Sigma. I won't regret it.

And besides, the Tokina 12-24 mm supposedly works quite well on a full frame. A bit of vignetting at the corners, but not as much as you'd expect, and not as much as other reduced frame lenses produce.

 

[MacUserSince87]

10-20mm

I've got the Canon 10-2mm along with the 24-70mm L f/2.8 and 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS for comparison quality-wise. It's sharp and contrasty and a ton of fun to use, especially in tight places. Here's a recent shot from Colorado:

Chuck Gardner

 

[miloblithe]

In terms of future-proofing, I'm not sure sure that you need to stick to full frame lenses. Understand, I'm just like you and have stuck to full-frame precisely for the reason that I hope eventually that FF camera reach the middle range and I can afford the middle range. But it occurs to me, expecially given the Nikon D3, that future FF camera might be able to operate in a cropped mode the properly uses non-FF lenses.

Just a thought.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I was under the impression that the EF-S lenses were physically incompatible with the current full-frame lineup - they sit deeper in the body and would damage the mirror of a full-frame camera. So unless future full-frame cameras adopt the EF-S mount, EF-S lenses are destined to become orphans when (if?) Canon's entire lineup goes to full frame sensors.

Very nice photo, MacUserSince87!

The price of the Sigma 10-20 lens is low enough that I might consider getting it anyway, but having a regular EF lens is a little more reassuring. Probably when the time comes to buy I'll get the Sigma or Tokina 12-24mm if I have the cash, but I don't think I'll regret getting the 10-20mm.

 

[150hp]

I just ordered the Sigma 10-20mm from Target online. They have 10% of the lens ending today & I found a coupon online that worked for ANOTHER 10% off after that. I was quite pleased.

10% Coupon

They only downside is 2-6 week shipping. But hey, I've waited this long to get it, a few more weeks isn't so bad.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I was nosing around and discovered another contender - the Tamron 11-18mm zoom.

Unfortunately it is an EF-S lens, so it offers no advantage over the Sigma 10-20mm zoom.

 

[JFreak]

I just ordered the Sigma 10-20mm

I've heard it's a very good lens for its price so let us know how you like it when you get it

 

[freebooter]

I've had the Sigma 10-20mm for months, and I have no regrets. It is solid, has nice color, works well, and it makes sharp pix if you know how to use it (I have to be careful with the really close corners).
From the reviews I've read, a Nikon owner would have to spend more than twice the price--I paid about $500 for the Sigma--to get a lens only slightly better in the corners at wide apertures, which are not essential for the kind of deep-focus shots ultra wides are used typically used for. I imagine things would be similar for Canon.
Oh, it is a full-frame lens, too.
I like it and would buy another if I wrecked this one.

A sample photo from the Sigma 10-20mm, recently posted on the Picture of the Day thread:

If you want to take the trouble, you can find more photos I've taken with this lens by checking my other picture of the day posts.

 

[Abstract]

Probably when the time comes to buy I'll get the Sigma or Tokina 12-24mm if I have the cash, but I don't think I'll regret getting the 10-20mm.

Just a note: The Tokina 12-24 mm isn't an "EF" lens, either. They're not for full frame cameras. All I meant in my last post was that although the Tokina 12-24 mm wasn't designed for full frame, it actually covers most of a full frame sensor (or more than many other "EF-S" equivalent lenses). I say get the Sigma 10-20 mm, and when it's time to get a full frame DSLR, then sell it. That's what I plan to do if I ever get a full frame camera. When I need a wide angle, my Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 will be almost wide enough on a full frame.

However, I may likely stick with cameras that have the smaller APS-C sized sensor. I love wide angle shots, but the extra reach you get from "DX" lenses for Nikon is fantastic. I never need anything longer than my 105 mm macro!! Besides, if I want both long AND wide angle, it would be much more expensive for me to get a super-telephoto prime/zoom lens (ie: Sigma 120-300 mm f/2.8, 400 mm f/4, etc) for a full frame sensor than it would for me to buy an ultrawide angle for a Nikon DX camera. In a way, DX saves you money.

I haven't needed a telephoto lense yet, but I can't imagine getting an FF DSLR, which would completely change the usefulness of my Sigma 24-70 mm, which is my primary lens. I like things the way they are now.

In terms of future-proofing, I'm not sure sure that you need to stick to full frame lenses. Understand, I'm just like you and have stuck to full-frame precisely for the reason that I hope eventually that FF camera reach the middle range and I can afford the middle range. But it occurs to me, expecially given the Nikon D3, that future FF camera might be able to operate in a cropped mode the properly uses non-FF lenses.

Just a thought.

That's true. I never thought of it that way.

 

[MacUserSince87]

The EF-S issue

I was under the impression that the EF-S lenses were physically incompatible with the current full-frame lineup - they sit deeper in the body and would damage the mirror of a full-frame camera. So unless future full-frame cameras adopt the EF-S mount, EF-S lenses are destined to become orphans when (if?) Canon's entire lineup goes to full frame sensors.

It's true that the EF-S lenses are only compatible with the 1.6 crop cameras, but also a fact of life that we will not see full frame bodies get cheaper anytime soon because the cost of making them is so much higher.

Canon makes its own sensors and the machines which make them. The 1.3 crop is the largest which can be currently made with a single exposure per layer on the wafer when making the sensor chips. The FF sensors require overlapping three separate exposures. So aside from less yield per wafer there is more manufacturing time required and likely an order of magnitude more spoilage. So don't expect to see a $1,300 FF body anytime soon.

FF cameras certainly have their advantages but they also have drawbacks such as being bigger and heavier and causing you to loose the extra 60% in effective focal length on the long end. The current generation of 1.6 crops are not lacking in resolution or IQ.

Personally I didn't opt to buy a DSLR until the 20D. I know a bit about digital reproduction and felt that its 8MP resolution would be more than adequate for my needs over the long haul, which is a consideration for me because I don't sell and upgrade with every model. The thing that also kept me on the fence in 2003 was the lack of a ultra-wide lens for the 1.6 crop. The 10-22mm which was launched with the 20D solved that.

I figured that if I did ever upgrade to a FF body for portrait work I'd keep the 20D as a second body for WA and TELE shots in the field. Or alternately since there would still be lots of 1.6 crop camera users around looking for an ultra WA the 10-22mm would be easy to sell at a good price.

So my advice is get what you feel best meets your current needs rather than worrying too much about the FF thing...

Thanks for the comment on the photo. It's Emerald Lake in Rocky Mtn. National Park which is easily accessible from the Bear Lake parking area. FWIW, the light weight of the 10-22mm was a joy when trekking up the mountains. Unfortunately I also had a 24-70 2.8, 70-200mm IS w. extender, and flash to haul

-

My wife took the above with her Panasonic DMC-FX9 which is the size and weight of a pack of playing cards. But then women are smarter

Note to self: By a camera backpack before the next hike to 11,000 ft.

Chuck Gardner

 

[Lord Blackadder]

(That's quite a bit of gear to haul!)

Thanks for all the advice guys!

You all make some good points in favor of the EF-S lens. It's funny, but I actually like the lighter weight of my Digital Rebel; I've used a 10D with all-metal lenses and though it feels more solid the Rebel is handier to carry around. Of course, the more expensive cameras are probably more rugged.

Since I'm just starting to build my lens collection I've been looking into cheap lenses to gain some experience with the different types. But their isn't a cheap option on a super-wide angle, so I was being a bit more careful in my choice. I'll probably go with a low-end telephoto for now and get a nice one later, but there is no $150 super-wide angle out there.

 

[150hp]

Sigma 10-20mm...Oh, it is a full-frame lens, too.

From the Sigma website: "* Vignetting will occur if the lens is used with digital cameras with image sensors larger than APS-C size or 35mm SLR cameras."

I do love your sample pic.

 

[sjl]

This seems to be just what I'm looking for; however these are EF-S lenses, which won't do me any good if I ever upgrade to a body with a full-sized sensor.

Unless you're planning on going full size in the next six months max, I'd suggest putting the money down on the Canon 10-22mm (or the Sigma, your choice; I have the 10-22mm and I'm very happy with it.) You'll get more pictures with a lens that you have in your kit than you will with a body you haven't yet purchased.

What you're saying implies that you only have EF mount lenses, designed for full frame bodies; you won't suffer by adding a single EF-S lens to your collection. Remember: quality glass holds its value well, and the EF-S 10-22mm is no exception, the fact that it isn't L series notwithstanding.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Actually I only have two lenses at the moment - the EF-S 18-55mm "kit" lens and the EF 50mm f/1.8.

The more I think about it the less I'm worried about getting an EF lens, especially with the positive reviews that the 10-20/22mm lenses have recieved.

Even after I get a super wide-angle and a cheap telephoto I'll have spent less on my entire system than the price of one "L" lens...