I want wider pics on my 300D :( - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/13/2004 03:08:55 PM · #1

I'm a big fan of wide angle shots and I really like photographing houses/buildings and interior shot. But as some of you know the sensor in the 300D is smaller than a 35mm frame and therefore there is magnification, 1.6x to be excact.. (is this with the 10D as well??)

So do you have any suggestions??

Any good, CHEAP lenses (I already have the 18mm EF-S, so I want smaller than that (18mm*1.6 = 28.8mm) ?

wide angle converters.. Are those any good? do they all give fisheye looking pics??
or just a new camera??

I don't have alot of money (200$-300$), but please give me all the options, even if it's out of my price range, I'd like to know what's good to get when I have some more cash :)

PS: are all digital SLR like this (sensor smaller than 35mm frame)?? Nikons? higher end Canons? I'm curious :)

valdiorn

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/13/2004 03:09:59 PM · #2

Sorry, I just realized this belongs in the Q & A forum.. :(

i'm new :)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

07/13/2004 03:11:23 PM · #3

Depends how cheap/ bad you want. You can get a 0.8 camcorder fisheye, and mount it on a 24mm lens and get a 8mm effective lens I think it works out at... pretty wide angle/ fishy and costs about $60

//www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/semifish

Message edited by author 2004-07-13 15:20:46.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

07/13/2004 03:17:46 PM · #4

the higher end pro digital slr's have a full frame sensor.
but you pay dearly for it...

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

07/13/2004 03:37:49 PM · #5

Originally posted by valdiorn:

Sigma makes a 12-24mm rectilinear zoom that does not have fisheye distortion. Makes for a 19mm equivalent on a 10D. Costs about $650.

Canon's widest lens is 14mm, but it's an L series and is about $1800

Canon also make a 15mm fisheye, that's about $580, but to get a rectilinear image, you will need to "de-fish" each image.

Sigma makes 8mm and 15mm fisheye lenses that are about $590 and $450 respectively, they will also require some "de-fishing" of the images.

Sigma also has a 14mm f2.8 rectilinear lens, and it is about $900

None of these options are particularly cheap, but I can say that I do like my 12-24.

Shot with Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm

wwwavenger

07/13/2004 03:48:06 PM · #6

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Shot with Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm

Damn that is spiffy.

Harryg

07/13/2004 04:04:32 PM · #7

as the 18- 55 efs is made for the 300d it is actually 18-55 there is no 1.6 factor
regards
Harry

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

07/13/2004 04:12:23 PM · #8

Originally posted by Harryg:

as the 18- 55 efs is made for the 300d it is actually 18-55 there is no 1.6 factor
regards
Harry

There is no 'crop factor' as it doesn't make a larger than the sensor image, but in 35mm equivalent terms, it is still a 28mm lens at the wide end.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/13/2004 04:21:26 PM · #9

Originally posted by wwwavenger:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Shot with Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm

Damn that is spiffy.

Well said. It sure is spiffy. :o)

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/13/2004 04:22:29 PM · #10

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Harryg:
as the 18- 55 efs is made for the 300d it is actually 18-55 there is no 1.6 factor
regards
Harry

There is no 'crop factor' as it doesn't make a larger than the sensor image, but in 35mm equivalent terms, it is still a 28mm lens at the wide end.

I don't know if that's true. From what I read, regarding the lense that comes with the 300D kit, the lense is designed to provide a true 18-55mm range. Unlike other lenses the kit lense actually goes into the body of the camera slightly, which 'removes' the 1.6x multiplier by placing all of the available light onto the sensor.

'Standard' EF Series and compatible lenses don't pour all of the available light onto the sensor, which is what creates the 1.6x multiplier.

I have read a few warnings to not ever put that lense into an EF compatible 35mm body or any other Canon-EOS bodies as the part that enters into the body could easily damage those camera bodies.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/13/2004 04:29:04 PM · #11

Hmm - so the 'kit' lens is a really wide, wide angle to standard lens then ? seems an odd choice of focal lengths for a kit lens. In the past canon provided medium wide angle to medium telephoto lenses as their starter lens.

Message edited by author 2004-07-13 16:41:38.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

07/13/2004 04:32:39 PM · #12

Originally posted by Nelzie:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Harryg:
as the 18- 55 efs is made for the 300d it is actually 18-55 there is no 1.6 factor
regards
Harry

There is no 'crop factor' as it doesn't make a larger than the sensor image, but in 35mm equivalent terms, it is still a 28mm lens at the wide end.

I don't know if that's true. From what I read, regarding the lense that comes with the 300D kit, the lense is designed to provide a true 18-55mm range. Unlike other lenses the kit lense actually goes into the body of the camera slightly, which 'removes' the 1.6x multiplier by placing all of the available light onto the sensor.

'Standard' EF Series and compatible lenses don't pour all of the available light onto the sensor, which is what creates the 1.6x multiplier.

I have read a few warnings to not ever put that lense into an EF compatible 35mm body or any other Canon-EOS bodies as the part that enters into the body could easily damage those camera bodies.

The 300D kit lens is a 18-55mm lens.

It does NOT provide an equivalent field of view to an 18mm lens on a 35mm camera. At least the one we have here at work doesn't, not even close. The crop factor give the wide end a field of view equivalent to a 28.8mm lens on a 35mm camera.

See Canon's own webpage about the 300D, specifically, the 2nd paragraph of the lens section where it mentions the 35mm equivalent of the 18-55mm kit lens.

Canon 300D

If you don't believe it, take a trip to the camera store and compare them yourself.

Message edited by author 2004-07-13 16:40:39.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

07/13/2004 04:47:37 PM · #13

Hmmm...

It seems the tech reviews I read about that camera were written by folks that didn't bother to devour all of the information off the Canon web-site regarding the 300D.

I didn't bother reading Canon's web-site myself since I am very leery of trusting the claims of vendors. Perhaps I should re-evaluate that stance and apply a strong 'filter' to what I read off a manufacturer's web-site, and compare that with the reviews I read.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Harryg

Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital ED

07/13/2004 04:56:59 PM · #14

me too thanks for that link, am going to stuff it right up the shop "Pro" with that.

regards
Harry

digistoune

Canon EOS-20D

07/13/2004 05:07:14 PM · #15

Originally posted by Harryg:

me too thanks for that link, am going to stuff it right up the shop "Pro" with that.

regards
Harry

LOL - don't you love camera store employees that don't know a friggin thing about the equipment they are selling! I usually just smile and nod when I run across those types. But once I was forced to correct a "knowledgeable" sales person because the load of crap coming out of his mouth was threatening to rise above the level of my boots ;-)

Do these people not realize that we have operational brains?!?

jonr

Olympus OM-D E-M5

07/13/2004 05:07:42 PM · #16

There are only 3 ways to do this.
1. Get the Sigma 12-24, it is a pretty nice lens, AFAIK.
2. Get full-frame body. Not the cheapest way. :)
3. Get a Olympus E-1 + the 11-22mm (22-44mm eq).