Wide angle lens advice

U

undesign

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
9,030
Reaction score
26
Location
Cape Town
Another lens question... :p

I'll make it quick. Currently primarily using the 50mm 1.8 on my Canon 550D (crop sensor). I find it too long - used mostly for indoor low-lightish shots of my daughter. I've set my sights on the Canon 28mm 1.8. I did look at the Sigma 30mm 1.4, but after doing some reading about the two the Canon seems to me the better choice.

Two questions -

1) Any general feedback or experience re. lens choice would be appreciated

2) Does it make more sense maybe to look at a zoom lens in the wide-angle range - I guess a large aperture requirement is a limiting factor.

Thanks, as always any advice is much appreciated! :)
 
I was thinking about getting the 28mm but have since decided to keep my 16-35 f/2.8. 16mm is usually way too wide for my tastes but I like the convenience of zoom lenses. :o
 
bwana said:
I was thinking about getting the 28mm but have since decided to keep my 16-35 f/2.8. 16mm is usually way too wide for my tastes but I like the convenience of zoom lenses. :o
Click to expand...

Are you happy with the 16-35? I think I may need something a bit faster though.
 
It's a very nice lens - just a little wide for my tastes. My sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is more suited for my needs. Neither will replace my 50mm f/1.4 though.
 
I have the 28 1.8 with hood gathering dust, and would part with it for a reasonable offer.
I also did research at the time I bought it, and the hit and miss receiving a good copy of the Sigma made me chose the Canon.

The 28 1.8 is a good lens, but the 17-55 2.8 IS stays glued to my 30D, and just haven't found the need for the 28 prime.
 
Frankie said:
I have the 28 1.8 with hood gathering dust, and would part with it for a reasonable offer.
I also did research at the time I bought it, and the hit and miss receiving a good copy of the Sigma made me chose the Canon.

The 28 1.8 is a good lens, but the 17-55 2.8 IS stays glued to my 30D, and just haven't found the need for the 28 prime.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I won't go the Sigma route on this one.

I've also seriously considered the 17-55 2.8 - obviously to replace the kit (which I hardly use atm) and maybe instead of a wider prime. Just worried that 2.8 is not fast enough for general indoor shots. It's about 1 and a third less stops (am I explaining it correctly?). Although the IS should make up for it somewhat (in comparison to the 50mm 1.8, which is my only reference). Advice here would be appreciated.

What is a "reasonable offer"? :p
 
SiriS said:
That's exactly why I won't go the Sigma route on this one.

I've also seriously considered the 17-55 2.8 - obviously to replace the kit (which I hardly use atm) and maybe instead of a wider prime. Just worried that 2.8 is not fast enough for general indoor shots. It's about 1 and a third less stops (am I explaining it correctly?). Although the IS should make up for it somewhat (in comparison to the 50mm 1.8, which is my only reference). Advice here would be appreciated.

What is a "reasonable offer"? :p
Click to expand...
2.8 is still pretty decent - especially if your camera has decent high ISO capabilities.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is by accounts a great lens but even if it did fit all my cameras (it only fits APS-C sensor bodies) 17-55 is a bit of an odd-man-out when compared to the focal lengths of my existing glass. So is the the 16-35 f/2.8 but at least it fits on both of my cameras. :o
 
bwana said:
2.8 is still pretty decent - especially if your camera has decent high ISO capabilities.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is by accounts a great lens but even if it did fit all my cameras (it only fits APS-C sensor bodies) 17-55 is a bit of an odd-man-out when compared to the focal lengths of my existing glass. So is the the 16-35 f/2.8 but at least it fits on both of my cameras. :o
Click to expand...

It will compliment the one you dislike, my 55-250, fine. :p:D
 
SiriS said:
It will compliment the one you dislike, my 55-250, fine. :p:D
Click to expand...
I have a sinking suspicion that when you start shooting quality glass like the 17-55 you're going to understand. ;)
 
bwana said:
I have a sinking suspicion that when you start shooting quality glass like the 17-55 you're going to understand. ;)
Click to expand...

I promise to give honest feedback when I buy one. :)

But will add that I really enjoy the 55-250. Sharp, great colours. The IS is a treat. Of course I don't have too many lenses to compare it with... :(
 
SiriS said:
That's exactly why I won't go the Sigma route on this one.

I've also seriously considered the 17-55 2.8 - obviously to replace the kit (which I hardly use atm) and maybe instead of a wider prime. Just worried that 2.8 is not fast enough for general indoor shots. It's about 1 and a third less stops (am I explaining it correctly?). Although the IS should make up for it somewhat (in comparison to the 50mm 1.8, which is my only reference). Advice here would be appreciated.

What is a "reasonable offer"? :p
Click to expand...
Say about 70% of B&H's online store price, and I'll throw in the hood - I have it with me in the US now and will be back in SA early Sept. - not sure what it would cost to mail it from here.

I find the 17-55 great for indoor use - bump the iso and let the electronic tripod do the rest.
Many don't see the need for IS on a FL of 17-55, but they are horribly wrong.
 
SiriS said:
Just worried that 2.8 is not fast enough for general indoor shots. It's about 1 and a third less stops (am I explaining it correctly?). Although the IS should make up for it somewhat (in comparison to the 50mm 1.8, which is my only reference).
Click to expand...

While having fast glass is great and you always have the option of going to a wider aperture, at close focus distances with an aperture wider than 2.8 are you really going to get all critical parts of your subject in focus?? I use to also think go with fast glass for indoor shots, but the best thing you can do is get a swivel flash and shoot at more sensible apertures and don't be scared to push the ISO a bit. Also IS will reduce camera shake but not subject movement. Thus if you to freeze your subject under low light IS cannot replace or make up for fast glass. Its a compromise that you will have to make, paper thin DOF vs Movement Blur vs Noise... or... add more light.

I have the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Don't use it as much though as I still prefer using 24-105 f4 with flash indoors. I'd like to get my hands on the 17-55 f2.8 and play a little maybe one day.
 
28/30 mm on a crop sensor is not really wide. I'd start calling lenses less than 20mm wide angle???

I enjoy my Sigma 10-20 for really wide stuff ;)
 
BigAl-sa said:
28/30 mm on a crop sensor is not really wide. I'd start calling lenses less than 20mm wide angle???

I enjoy my Sigma 10-20 for really wide stuff ;)
Click to expand...

IIRC, the Canon web site lists the 17-55 as a "wide zoom" and the 10-22 as "Ultra Wide Zoom".

I have the 10-22 and enjoy using it, but it doesn't get nearly as much use as the 17-55.
 
Frankie said:
Say about 70% of B&H's online store price, and I'll throw in the hood - I have it with me in the US now and will be back in SA early Sept. - not sure what it would cost to mail it from here.

I find the 17-55 great for indoor use - bump the iso and let the electronic tripod do the rest.
Many don't see the need for IS on a FL of 17-55, but they are horribly wrong.
Click to expand...

Let me think about it! Seriously contemplating a 17-55 now. : ( I think it could be a lens that I will have on almost permanently). But first I need to get over the hesitation of buying a lens that cost more than the camera. :eek:

SubliminalThought said:
While having fast glass is great and you always have the option of going to a wider aperture, at close focus distances with an aperture wider than 2.8 are you really going to get all critical parts of your subject in focus?? I use to also think go with fast glass for indoor shots, but the best thing you can do is get a swivel flash and shoot at more sensible apertures and don't be scared to push the ISO a bit. Also IS will reduce camera shake but not subject movement. Thus if you to freeze your subject under low light IS cannot replace or make up for fast glass. Its a compromise that you will have to make, paper thin DOF vs Movement Blur vs Noise... or... add more light.

I have the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Don't use it as much though as I still prefer using 24-105 f4 with flash indoors. I'd like to get my hands on the 17-55 f2.8 and play a little maybe one day.
Click to expand...

Fair points, but subject matter is mostly my daughter. DOF with aperture of f/2 - 2.8 works fine for me. It seems that most lenses are sharper one or two stops smaller on the aperture, hence buying the widest aperture and stopping it down makes sense?

Flash is problematic in that most of the shots are "quick, grab the camera, shoot" type scenarios. Flash is just a hassle.

BigAl-sa said:
28/30 mm on a crop sensor is not really wide. I'd start calling lenses less than 20mm wide angle???

I enjoy my Sigma 10-20 for really wide stuff ;)
Click to expand...

In the region of 30mm would be perfect for me - indoors. But agreed, I would like something wider for outdoors/travel.

bwana said:
That would be me :)
Click to expand...

I want IS (call it noob stubbornness :p).

Thanks guys, as always discussing it here helps me make (a bit of) sense of the plethora of choices and variables that inevitably accompany a new purchase!
 
SiriS said:
Let me think about it! Seriously contemplating a 17-55 now. : ( I think it could be a lens that I will have on almost permanently). But first I need to get over the hesitation of buying a lens that cost more than the camera. :eek:
Click to expand...
The more you do it the easier it gets - trust me. :o

The solution is glaringly obvious . . . :D

BTW - what flash do you have?
 
OK so here's my short to medium term lens strategy -

- play around with the kit lens for a while (also have a nifty fifty and a 55-250)
- getting a 17-55 2.8 in a few months time (this will then be my general walk-around lens)
- most likely also a 10-22mm after that - then I'm covered from UW to 250mm
- maybe a wider prime than my current 50 if I'm feeling itchy with cash to burn (there's nothing that really interests me atm)

Frankie, send me a PM when you're back and still interested in selling. BTW have you had any dust and/or IS issues - from what I've read I understand it to be somewhat of a problem with the 17-55.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X