Wide Angle Lens suggestions

I

Ice2Cool

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
18
Location
Dbn
Hey guys,

So ive been looking to get a new lens for my Canon 600D. Ive currently got a Canon 100mm Macro and a Canon 18-135mm zoom lens. My biggest problem is that the 18-135 isnt sharp enough and i get terrible bokeh. The 100mm is a great lens but generally impractical for use as a portrait lens (gotta stand like 10 meters away from the person to get them in frame).

I was thinking my next lens should be a prime lens as I wanted sharper image qualities and decent bokeh. I am not into video at all but more of a holiday photographer, ie portraits and landscape shots. I would like to get into some long exposure photography as well. I was condering the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 but was a bit worried about the lack of image stabilization. Any other suggestions? I would like EF lenses that are compatible with a full frame if i ever decide to upgrade my camera body in the future. My budget is around R5000.
 
The 50mm is a great lens but on the 600D with a 1.6x crop it's well into the tradition range of a telephoto lens - definitely not a wide angle. What you want is something much further down the line… like in the 10-28mm range perhaps?
 
Thanks! Let me check out some options. Do you think a 35mm would still be in the telephoto range?
 
Also, whats your opinion on image stabilization? I dont use a tripod most of the time - do you think IS is a must?
 
Ice2Cool said:
Thanks! Let me check out some options. Do you think a 35mm would still be in the telephoto range?
Click to expand...
35mm on a 600D would put it in the "Normal" range.

Ice2Cool said:
Also, whats your opinion on image stabilization? I dont use a tripod most of the time - do you think IS is a must?
Click to expand...
IS can be nice to have but I rarely have cause to use it.
 
I think if you shoot wide open around F2.8, you wont need IS, unless its really really dark.
 
17-40L gets my vote - future proof if you decide to move to FF and very sharp and usable wide open. Perhaps if you going to do a lot of indoor work you will require a 2.8 or faster for low light performance - if you willing to save get the Sigma 18-35 1.8 when it comes out (is the rated the best zoom on DxOMark for a reason!)
 
thanks - i was considering the 17-40L but thought it didnt really have a large enough aperature. I will check out the 18-35! choosing lenses is harder than choosing a car!
 
Liam111 said:
17-40L gets my vote - future proof if you decide to move to FF and very sharp and usable wide open. Perhaps if you going to do a lot of indoor work you will require a 2.8 or faster for low light performance - if you willing to save get the Sigma 18-35 1.8 when it comes out (is the rated the best zoom on DxOMark for a reason!)
Click to expand...

I must be reading dxo incorrectly because the only way I can get that lens to the top is if I limit it to sigma zooms.
 
bwana said:
I must be reading dxo incorrectly because the only way I can get that lens to the top is if I limit it to sigma zooms.
Click to expand...


Sigma 18-35 is crop sensor only:( it's a bit pricey at about $800 which I maybe would have gone for it it were future proof by being compatible with full frame :/ tough decisions! I think the 10-22mm might also be a bit too wide for my purpose. I guess the 18-35 probably fits my requirement albeit it's for crop sensors only.
 
Ice2Cool said:
Sigma 18-35 is crop sensor only:( it's a bit pricey at about $800 which I maybe would have gone for it it were future proof by being compatible with full frame :/ tough decisions! I think the 10-22mm might also be a bit too wide for my purpose. I guess the 18-35 probably fits my requirement albeit it's for crop sensors only.
Click to expand...

Remember the Crop factor on the 10-22 will put you in the range you're looking for.
 
I've got the Canon EF 18-35L F/2.8 which is a :love: piece of glass but I suspect it's out of your price range. I can't remember what I paid for it.

But I'd also suggest looking at the 10-22, I've looked at it, and like it, but I don't do that many landscape shots so it'd be a waste for me.
 
froot said:
I've got the Canon EF 18-35L F/2.8 which is a :love: piece of glass but I suspect it's out of your price range. I can't remember what I paid for it.
Click to expand...
No you dont. :p

The one you do have is pretty expensive. If I had to do it all over again I'd probably have got the 17-40 f/4.
Ice2Cool said:
Sigma 18-35 is crop sensor only:( it's a bit pricey at about $800 which I maybe would have gone for it it were future proof by being compatible with full frame :/ tough decisions! I think the 10-22mm might also be a bit too wide for my purpose. I guess the 18-35 probably fits my requirement albeit it's for crop sensors only.
Click to expand...
Sigma, and canon of course, make a good 24-70 f/2.8 (and also a f/4 in canon's case).
 
Another alternative is the Sigma 10-20, which although doesn't fit your future proofing to "full frame" it does fit your budget. It's as good as the Canon 10-22 - I have used both.

Many of the pictures in this gallery (including the indoor shots, excluding the animals) were shot with the 10-20.
http://smu.gs/19jqVx9

(Hope the link works, got it from the Smugmug Android app.)
 
Ice2Cool said:
Thanks! Let me check out some options. Do you think a 35mm would still be in the telephoto range?
Click to expand...

It seems like you are not 100% sure what focal length (field-of-view, actually) you really want. You have the 18-xx zoom, so you can either set up some experiments, or look at your archive of photos to see what focal length you used (preferred) for which type of shot.

If many of your landscape shots bottom out at 18 mm, then you will find something like a 10-20 mm ultrawide angle lens useful. There are not many primes below 18 mm, and they tend to be expensive, so something like the Sigma 10-20 mm is about as good as it gets while remaining reasonably priced. Note that this is definitely not a lens you would choose for maximising pleasing bokeh.

Just for reference, 35 mm on an APS-C body is a nice all-round focal length, especially for people shots (though not necessarily ideal for headshots).

I am not 100% sure what you (personally) interpret as pleasing bokeh, though. Keep in mind that longer focal lengths have a smaller field of view. For a portrait shot, this means that only a relatively small region of the background will be visible around the head of the person. Thus, long focal lengths appear smooth, because they fill the image with a relatively small section of the background, effectively limiting the amount of detail in the background --- but you have to stand back to get the person's head the right size.

With a wider angle lens you will be standing much closer to the person the obtain the same size head (relative to the entire frame). This will effectively include a much wider section (angle) of the background, which inevitably makes the background appear more detailed, and less smooth.

Using a large aperture helps to keep the depth of field (the in-focus region) shallower, which causes more of the background to be out of focus, thus appearing blurry. This also helps to make the background appear smoother, but if you are using a wide angle lens, you will still end up with a busier background.

Keeping this in mind, "bokeh" refers to the quality of out-of-focus highlights (say, small bright point light sources), with "good bokeh" meaning that the highlight produces a uniform, flat, smooth disk. In contrast, "bad bokeh" means that the disk will not be uniform --- typically, the disk will have a bright ring on its edge, or even multiple rings. The shape of the aperture blades also have an impact on the quality of the bokeh, with rounded aperture blades typically producing more perfect out-of-focus disks, which is considered more desirable.

In summary: "bokeh" is really independent of focal length, some lenses just have good bokeh, and others not. Orthogonal to this is the relative magnification of the subject to the background, with longer focal lengths typically producing "smoother" backgrounds (as explained above), and shorter focal lengths producing "busier" backgrounds (whilst keeping the subject the same size relative to the picture).

From your description so far, it sounds as if you really need two new lenses --- one for portraits (maybe 50 mm), and another for ultrawide landscapes (maybe 10-20 mm Sigma?).
 
Last edited:
I think ive settled my mind on the Sigma 18-35 even though its only for APS-C. Luckily im heading to new york next month so im hoping to pick one up there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X