Ultra-wideangle

[JayBey]

Hi!
Christmas is coming up, and I've thought about giving myself a little present (yupp).

A friend of mine is going to USA and the prices on lenses is ca. half the price of what it is in Norway, so I've been thinking if he could buy one to me while he's there.

I already own a Canon 400D, mounted on that I got Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 and I'm really happy with that. I've thought this back and forth and have decided to get myself a ultra-wideangle.

I've browsed, and found som candidates, if you can pick one of them out for me it would be great.

Sigma 10-20mm
Tokina 12-24mm
and the Canon EF-S 10-22 mm

And one more thing, if I put the Sigma 10-20mm on the 400D will it look like 16-35mm because of the 1.6x crop? In that I mean, would it be like if I had 16mm on the Tamron?


Thanks upfront.

:blushing:

 

[lkWinnipesaukee]

We have the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 at my school and I absolutely love it.

Yes, with the APS-C 1.6 crop sensors, a 10mm will look like 16mm (take the focal length and multiply by 1.6).

 

[Steph]

And one more thing, if I put the Sigma 10-20mm on the 400D will it look like 16-35mm because of the 1.6x crop? In that I mean, would it be like if I had 16mm on the Tamron?

You need to read about the crop factor (google it). The crop factor applies to any lens you put on your 400D. The 10-22mm is equivalent to a 16-32mm in terms of field of view when compared to full frame (24x36mm). Similarly, the 17-50mm is equivalent to roughly 28-80mm.

 

[JayBey]

You need to read about the crop factor (google it). The crop factor applies to any lens you put on your 400D. The 10-22mm is equivalent to a 16-32mm in terms of field of view when compared to full frame (24x36mm). Similarly, the 17-50mm is equivalent to roughly 28-80mm.

ah, thanks for explaining. I just forgot to multiply the 17-50mm
That's what confused me a little.

 

[Big Mike]

If you don't have a 35mm film camera (or full frame DSLR) then don't even concern yourself with the 'crop factor'. You have a 17-50mm lens...so you know what 17mm looks like, through your camera. The fact that it's equivelent to 28mm on a film camera...is irrelevant.

I bought a wide angle lens this year. I read all the reviews and considered all the options. I went with the Canon 10-22mm because it seemed to be the best lens in the group. It was more expensive than the others...but that's to be expected for Canon gear. I can say that it's a great lens.

 

[JayBey]

If you don't have a 35mm film camera (or full frame DSLR) then don't even concern yourself with the 'crop factor'. You have a 17-50mm lens...so you know what 17mm looks like, through your camera. The fact that it's equivelent to 28mm on a film camera...is irrelevant.

I bought a wide angle lens this year. I read all the reviews and considered all the options. I went with the Canon 10-22mm because it seemed to be the best lens in the group. It was more expensive than the others...but that's to be expected for Canon gear. I can say that it's a great lens.

hm. I've read around a little too and I'm currently holding my finger on the 10-22, in Norway it costs 1100$!

 

[Big Mike]

Ya, it was $1099 Canadian when I bought it. However, I ordered it from B&H (New York) and it was only $699 or something like that.

 

[jack lumber]

If you don't have a 35mm film camera (or full frame DSLR) then don't even concern yourself with the 'crop factor'. You have a 17-50mm lens...so you know what 17mm looks like, through your camera. The fact that it's equivelent to 28mm on a film camera...is irrelevant.

I bought a wide angle lens this year. I read all the reviews and considered all the options. I went with the Canon 10-22mm because it seemed to be the best lens in the group. It was more expensive than the others...but that's to be expected for Canon gear. I can say that it's a great lens.

Mike, thats the best explaintion of the crop factor I have heard, and I totaly agree.
I have the sigma 10-20 and I find it a great lens, with vibrant colors, yes its a stop slower than the Canon, but its a stop cheaper!