DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Wide Angle Lens
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/30/2006 06:36:38 PM · #1
I sure this question has been asked before, but what is a half decent, cheap wide angle lens for my EOS 350 Digital RebelXT? I finally ordered the Tamrom 28-75 f2.8 yesterday, but with the crop factor, I am looking for something a little wider for certain applications.
 03/30/2006 06:57:59 PM · #2
The wider you go, the harder it gets to get something both good and inexpensive. If you are OK with 20mm (32mm equivalent AoV) then the Canon 20/2.8 or the Sigma 20/1.8 might be very good choices. Both have street prices of about $400USD. I don't know if that meets your budget requirements.
With WA lenses, I find I'm even more focused on sharpness than with longer focal lengths. That's because I'm normally using those lenses for work that depends for it's impact upon fine detail, corner to corner. The "half-decent" lenses wind up not impressing at all, showing worse distortion, more CA, softer corners, etcetera.
Perhaps the ultimate versatile tool for you would be the Canon 10-22mm, but that runs $800USD. An outstanding lens in every respect, however.
 03/30/2006 07:08:56 PM · #3
Check out the Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di. One of the best "bang for the buck" wide angles out there.

Review1

Review2
 03/30/2006 07:13:30 PM · #4
Originally posted by dudephil:
Check out the Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di. One of the best "bang for the buck" wide angles out there.

Review1

Review2


Pick up an olympus 21 with an adapter. All manual, but doesn't really matter on a wide lens.
 03/30/2006 07:19:43 PM · #5
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Check out the Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di. One of the best "bang for the buck" wide angles out there.

Review1

Review2


Pick up an olympus 21 with an adapter. All manual, but doesn't really matter on a wide lens.


Hmmm, yes, true! focus on a WA is much less an issue, often it's "set and forget" for landscape work. Brent, I have no experience with the Oly 21mm WA glass, would you say it's superior to the Canon 20/2.8 or Sigma 20/1.8? Are there particular versions that are best?
 03/30/2006 07:30:16 PM · #6
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Check out the Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di. One of the best "bang for the buck" wide angles out there.

Review1

Review2


Pick up an olympus 21 with an adapter. All manual, but doesn't really matter on a wide lens.


Hmmm, yes, true! focus on a WA is much less an issue, often it's "set and forget" for landscape work. Brent, I have no experience with the Oly 21mm WA glass, would you say it's superior to the Canon 20/2.8 or Sigma 20/1.8? Are there particular versions that are best?


Yeah, they are close to the distagon, but much, much cheaper. FM has a few tests of them. Just do a search. Mike hatam over there did some tests on FF cameras.
 03/30/2006 07:34:44 PM · #7
Close to the distagon??? Well, that might be worth looking into. I really need a 20mm or so rectilinear that will do astro stuff well. My weapon of choice at the moment is the 24/1.4L, and it works well but I'd like a wider option. Manual focus and aperture is perfectly fine for this application. Thanks for the info!
 03/30/2006 08:32:32 PM · #8
Originally posted by kirbic:
Close to the distagon??? Well, that might be worth looking into. I really need a 20mm or so rectilinear that will do astro stuff well. My weapon of choice at the moment is the 24/1.4L, and it works well but I'd like a wider option. Manual focus and aperture is perfectly fine for this application. Thanks for the info!


Here you go Kirbic...I've been thinking of getting one myself.

//www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/239431
 03/30/2006 08:47:36 PM · #9
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Close to the distagon??? Well, that might be worth looking into. I really need a 20mm or so rectilinear that will do astro stuff well. My weapon of choice at the moment is the 24/1.4L, and it works well but I'd like a wider option. Manual focus and aperture is perfectly fine for this application. Thanks for the info!


Here you go Kirbic...I've been thinking of getting one myself.

//www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/239431


Thanks Brent! Yep, that's close alright. Methinks the Oly 21/3.5 may be in my future :-)
 03/30/2006 08:59:38 PM · #10
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Close to the distagon??? Well, that might be worth looking into. I really need a 20mm or so rectilinear that will do astro stuff well. My weapon of choice at the moment is the 24/1.4L, and it works well but I'd like a wider option. Manual focus and aperture is perfectly fine for this application. Thanks for the info!


Here you go Kirbic...I've been thinking of getting one myself.

//www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/239431


Thanks Brent! Yep, that's close alright. Methinks the Oly 21/3.5 may be in my future :-)


Keep in mind you might go through a few copies to get the sharpest one.
 03/30/2006 09:28:02 PM · #11
Originally posted by dudephil:
Check out the Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di. One of the best "bang for the buck" wide angles out there.

Review1

Review2


Yup sweet lens, nice and sharp... throw a CP or ND4 on it and have some fun... I don't think I have taken any challenge shots with mine but I got a bunch of landscape here somewhere... will put one up in a few.
 03/31/2006 04:32:15 AM · #12
Hate to get into this pixel peeping stuff.
I know of a guy that read about the Olympus Zuiko MF primes and bought three lenses of differing focal length. I think 21, 24, and 28.

When I saw his lens test shots on tripods and stuff, compared to the 16-35, first the colors were off, the old olympus had more CA, and it was softer. He subsequently resold them all to the next sucker on FM and eBay and kept the 16-35. I think the sharpness thing might be a variation/good copy vs. bad copy issue, but the colors and the CA, I don't think so.

I've seen them first hand and wasn't impressed by these old lenses that sell for over $500. So I don't think it's that cheap either.

If you want cheap and wide, the only option is a Zenitar 16mm fish in my view.

Message edited by author 2006-03-31 04:33:15.
 03/31/2006 06:11:00 AM · #13
It's not terribly wide, but I'm really enjoying my Tokina 19-35 f/3.5-4.5. That said, I have my eye on a Canon 17-40 f/4L. =]

Message edited by author 2006-03-31 06:12:57.
 03/31/2006 10:16:02 AM · #14
Originally posted by yido:
Hate to get into this pixel peeping stuff.
I know of a guy that read about the Olympus Zuiko MF primes and bought three lenses of differing focal length. I think 21, 24, and 28.

When I saw his lens test shots on tripods and stuff, compared to the 16-35, first the colors were off, the old olympus had more CA, and it was softer. He subsequently resold them all to the next sucker on FM and eBay and kept the 16-35. I think the sharpness thing might be a variation/good copy vs. bad copy issue, but the colors and the CA, I don't think so.

I've seen them first hand and wasn't impressed by these old lenses that sell for over $500. So I don't think it's that cheap either.

If you want cheap and wide, the only option is a Zenitar 16mm fish in my view.


The 16-35 isn't terribly sharp, so those copies of the olympus must be real dogs.

So I guess you could just get a 21 distagon then and blow everything away...

current thread on this topic @ FM.

"Isca wrote:
The Zuiko 21's seem to have a lot of sample variation as well. Mike Hatam had to buy about 10 to find one good one.

Well, it's not quite that bad

I bought around 12 of the Olympus Zuiko 21/3.5 lenses, and carefully tested all of them. If I recall correctly, I think 5 were exceptional (much better than a Canon 16-35, and close in sharpness to a Zeiss 21), 4 were decent (a bit better than the Canon 16-35), and 3 were bad (worse than a Canon 16-35).

Don't waste your money on the Canon 14/2.8L. I've tried a few, and it's just not a sharp lens, and full of CA.

Mike

____________________________
Mike Hatam

1DsII with lots of glass...

Canon • Zeiss • Leica • Zuiko"

Message edited by author 2006-03-31 10:22:34.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 04:28:49 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 04:28:49 AM EDT.