Wide Angle Lenses

Billfish · Sep 13, 2011

Hi, I want to know if anyone can help in which is a good entry level wide angle lenses for canon. I do offshore photography an already have a telephoto lenses but when I shoot Marlin fishing and they are close to the boat is difficult to capture it because of their big size and their fast jumps. Thanks!

Big Mike · Sep 13, 2011

Welcome to the forum.

What camera model do you have now, and what lenses do you have (besides the telephoto)?

Also, what is your budget for a new lens?

Billfish · Sep 13, 2011

Right now I have a Canon EF IS USM 28 mm - 135 mm 3.5-5.6 and the camera is a canon rebel xt. next week I will purchase a Canon 7D. budget is no more than 1,000. Thanks!

Big Mike · Sep 13, 2011

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

28mm won't give you a wide field of view (FOV) on either of those cameras. That was a more useful lens back when we shot film, because 28mm on a film SLR (or full frame digital) is fairly wide.

There is a 'made for digital' version of that same lens, it's the EF-S 17-85mm IS. It's a very similar lens, but with a shorter focal length, and thus a wider view. And, it's an EF-S lens, which means that it is made to work with only the digital SLR bodies with a crop (APS-C) sized sensor. (both of those cameras included)

I believe that that lens has been replaced in Canon's line up with the EF-S 15-85mm IS...which is priced at just under $1000. I think there is a recent thread around here, where someone was disappointed with it. I'm not surprised, it doesn't seem to be worthy of it's expensive price tag. The EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, on the other hand, is a superb lens with outstanding image quality.

A cheap option would be the usual 'kit' lens that comes with most Rebel cameras. The EF-S 18-55mm. You could probably pick up a lightly used one for $100-$200. It would give you a wider view, but it's a pretty cheaply made lens, if that matters to you.

So some better options would be the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 that I mentioned above, although it will cost more than $1000 if you buy it new.
The Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 is a nice alternative, for a lower price. There is a version with VC (their version of IS) for something like $700 and an older non-VC version for around $500. I have the older version and it was my go-to lens for wedding & portraits. (I say was, because i've since upgraded to a 5DmkII, and like EF-S lenses, it's not compatible with full frame digital bodies.)

So one thing to consider, is whether or not you think that you will ever upgrade to a full frame body. If so, then you shouldn't buy an EF-S lens (or similar style lens from another company). I did that, and now I'm sort of stuck with several lenses that won't work well with my new camera.
So if that's the case, then you may want to look at the Canon EF 17-40mm F4 L. As an 'L' lens, it's top of the line and has great image and build quality. It will fit your budget, and is often considered a good deal because it's such a great lens.

Now, all of those lenses will give you a wider view on your camera(s)...but not ultra wide. I also have a Canon EF-S 10-22mm, which gives me a really, really wide FOV on crop sensor bodies. It's a great lens, but a bit expensive as well. There are cheaper options from Sigma, Tamron & Tokina.

bazooka · Sep 13, 2011

It depends on how wide you need. I have the 10-22 (as does Big Mike) and I use it a LOT. It's not very sharp, particularly in the corners and edges at the wide end. It also has some pretty nasty chromatic distortion but that's easily fixable in post if you shoot RAW. However, compared to your 28-135, a 17mm is considerably wider. If that's more what you are looking for, check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It's a couple hundred dollars less and is more of a walk-around lens. I'd try to find a store or someplace where you can look through both of them and see if you actually need wider than 17mm.

Gah, ya beat me to it Mike!

Big Mike · Sep 13, 2011

bazooka said:
It depends on how wide you need. I have the 10-22 (as does Big Mike) and I use it a LOT. It's not very sharp, particularly in the corners and edges at the wide end. It also has some pretty nasty chromatic distortion but that's easily fixable in post if you shoot RAW. However, compared to your 28-135, a 17mm is considerably wider. If that's more what you are looking for, check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It's a couple hundred dollars less and is more of a walk-around lens. I'd try to find a store or someplace where you can look through both of them and see if you actually need wider than 17mm.

Gah, ya beat me to it Mike!

I think that the 10-22mm is actually a really sharp lens...for an ultra wide angle lens. Corner sharpness and CA are going to be factors is any wide angle lens...so you can't expect miracles.

analog.universe · Sep 13, 2011

Big Mike said:
bazooka said:

It depends on how wide you need. I have the 10-22 (as does Big Mike) and I use it a LOT. It's not very sharp, particularly in the corners and edges at the wide end. It also has some pretty nasty chromatic distortion but that's easily fixable in post if you shoot RAW. However, compared to your 28-135, a 17mm is considerably wider. If that's more what you are looking for, check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It's a couple hundred dollars less and is more of a walk-around lens. I'd try to find a store or someplace where you can look through both of them and see if you actually need wider than 17mm.

Gah, ya beat me to it Mike!

Click to expand...

I think that the 10-22mm is actually a really sharp lens...for an ultra wide angle lens. Corner sharpness and CA are going to be factors is any wide angle lens...so you can't expect miracles.

If you compare the Canon 10-22 to the Sigma 10-22 f/3.5, you come to expect a lot more than Canon offers you however, especially at the price they ask for it.

Billfish · Sep 13, 2011

Big Mike, I have also the 18-55 lense that came with the camera. Will that one work?

SensePhoto · Sep 13, 2011

I'm in the same boat, looking for a wide angle lens on a crop sensor body. My buddy has a tokina 11-16 f2.8 and images are very very sharp and its under $900. The only thing holding me back from getting one is a thought of upgrading to full frame down the road, I think it will be useless. If you're sticking with crop sensor that might work for you. Antoher one im highly considering is the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II but that will prob be over your price range at around $1600.

analog.universe · Sep 13, 2011

The 16-35 is sharp but also distorts pretty badly at certain parts of the range. If you're thinking of spending that much, have a look at the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 Distagon maybe?

Big Mike · Sep 13, 2011

Billfish said:
Big Mike, I have also the 18-55 lense that came with the camera. Will that one work?

It will certainly give you a wider view than you 28-135mm lens.

If that is wide enough for you, then problem solved. If that's not wide enough, then look for something that starts in the 10mm or 12mm range, like the Canon or Sigma mentioned above.

Billfish · Sep 13, 2011

Thanks, to all very much!! it was very helpful!!

bazooka · Sep 13, 2011

Maybe I got a softer copy than the norm.

jterry85 · Sep 13, 2011

I have the Sigma 10-20mm and for the price I think it's awesome. Keep in mind I'm a noob though so the slight issues there might be with it I haven't noticed yet (if there are any).

trizzo · Sep 13, 2011

jterry85 said:
I have the Sigma 10-20mm and for the price I think it's awesome. Keep in mind I'm a noob though so the slight issues there might be with it I haven't noticed yet (if there are any).

Do you have that f3.5 version (constant minimum aperture model) or the other one made by Sigma?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk