Hi
My better half has a stock Canon EOS 300D (and the lens that came with it). She is no 'expert' - and just takes photos for fun - but has often mentioned getting a 'wide angle lens'.
Any experts on here who would recommend something. Don't want to spend much - and would be happy with 2nd hand).
Cheers
Chat Forum
[closed]
Which canon camera lens?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
change the title to say 'Canon'
Posted 1 year ago # -
sigma 10-20mm is a good wide angle choice - probably the cheapest option that has full autofocus etc.
Couple of shots from mine
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yep I have the Sigma 10-20 and I think it's a cracking lens.
Here is Thom Hogan's Review: http://www.bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm
Posted 1 year ago # -
I concur, it's a nice lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Either the sigma or a 50mm f1.8 for £70 new - hell of a bang for buck
Posted 1 year ago # -
or a 50mm f1.8 for £70 new
NOT remotely wide angle...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I too have the Sigma 10-20 and it's ace. I'd recommend it to anyone ... with a use for it, I suppose it might make a good paper weight otherwise.
Posted 1 year ago # -
As an aside, can the Sigma be used on a full frame camera?
On the 300d a 10-20 should be good fun, go for it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
no it can't. there's a sigma 12-24 which can, its a bit more pricey though. 12mm on a full frame must be *really* wide
I think there's a couple of versions of the 10-20 now, but I'm not sure - been out of the 'scene' for a while
Posted 1 year ago # -
Depends how wide you want.
As a good all-round lens, I'd say the 17-55mm f/2.8 from Canon. About £780. I was using one at my sisters wedding recently, cracking lens and plenty wide enough. For me, 10-20 is *too* wide but that's just me. I used samuri's 10-20 lens very briefly last weekend.Posted 1 year ago # -
Cheers, I know the Canon 10-22 can't, just wasn't sure about the Sigma. I have just bought the Canon 17-40 L in preparation for the camera upgrade. Awesome lens and probably not on OPs budget.
Another option might be to go for fixed, I've also got a Canon 28mm f2.8, nice effect on cycling shots, low light not too much of a problem and only cost a couple of hundred dollars.
What's the budget??
Posted 1 year ago # -
lol... £780....!
Budget is 'don't want to spend much'...... (as per OP).
I'm now beginning to realise that a cheap WA lens doesn't exist!
Thanks all though for your comments.....
Posted 1 year ago # -
She could stand a bit further back!
Posted 1 year ago # -
I use a Canon 0.75 multiplier on the front of my kit 18-55 which gives usable shots but with some clipping at the corners if right back at 18 (which equates to about 13.5)
Either the sigma or a 50mm f1.8 for £70 new - hell of a bang for buck
Did you read the original post?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I use a Canon 0.75 multiplier
I never knew there were such things!
Posted 1 year ago # -
no simon it isnt, but he didn't specially say thats what she wanted he pointed out she was an amateur and what camera... the 50mm lens i suggested is an excellent lens for beginners into the slr world.
thanksPosted 1 year ago # -
I never knew there were such things!
It was an add-on to my compact. Oh, it's a 0.7x not a .75.
Does fairly well other than the clipped corners on some images, I can focus on something 2-3cm away with the canon 18-55 behind it and still get the entirety of the room behind, but it's not quite up to L standard for sharpness and obviously degrades the quality of the lens it sits on by a smidge, but it depends whether you're looking for getting pin-sharp results or just capturing the moment/image to deal with later.
One minor issue with it is its pretty heavy and it sits on the autofocus ring so I don't tend to use AF while playing with it, it does work but I don't like to think of the possible damage to the focus motor if used daily.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi
My better half has a stock Canon EOS 300D (and the lens that came with it). She is no 'expert' - and just takes photos for fun - but has often mentioned getting a 'wide angle lens'.
no simon it isnt, but he didn't specially say thats what she wanted he pointed out she was an amateur and what camera... the 50mm lens i suggested is an excellent lens for beginners into the slr world.
thanks??
Posted 1 year ago # -
lol... £780....!
Budget is 'don't want to spend much'...... (as per OP).Ah but you didn't define what "too much" was - to some photographers, £2000 is a reasonable amount to spend on a lens, with £4000 beginning to push the "too much" barrier. £1000 is not an unreasonable sum of money for a good lens - as you say, within certain parameters (eg specialist wide angle), cheap lenses just don't exist.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Sigma 17-70mm, good all round lens which will handle most situations very well.
Posted 1 year ago # -
no simon it isnt, but he didn't specially say thats what she wanted he pointed out she was an amateur and what camera... the 50mm lens i suggested is an excellent lens for beginners into the slr world.
but isn't that focal length included in the kit lens ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ah but you didn't define what "too much" was
Good point well made...
I also realise I am out of my depth here... so need to do some research!
Posted 1 year ago # -
I know it's not wide but I second the 50 f1.8, for the money you'd be mad not to and I use mine so much!
Also got the Canon EFS 10-22...
Posted 1 year ago # -
sure simon, point out 50mm f1.8 on the kit lens for me please... oh your right, its a cheap kit lens that struggles to do 50mm at any less than f4.. making it a totally different lens, your point is like comparing a saracen to a ibis mojo... i really dont see why people bother when they dont know.
Posted 1 year ago # -
making it a totally different lens
50mm is still 50mm and I'm not sure 4 times as much light and less depth of field is that much difference. For me, fixed lenses are a bit like singlespeed bikes - nearly always the wrong gear (or focal length)
i really dont see why people bother when they dont know
I know people rattle on about narrow DOF as if it were wonderful, but the downside is actually not achieving a sharp image in many circumstances.
Posted 1 year ago # -
50mm is still 50mm and I'm not sure 4 times as much light and less depth of field is that much difference.
/Boggle!!!
I know people rattle on about narrow DOF as if it were wonderful, but the downside is actually not achieving a sharp image in many circumstances.
/Double boggle!!!
Touchpaper nicely lit there Simon.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think you'll find a prime lens is sharper than a variable mr.
and yes 4x as much light as it implies is a massive difference.Posted 1 year ago # -
alexx - simon is a documentary-style photographer, he doesn't do arty and tries to maintain sharp focus across his composition, you need to know how he works and a 50/1.8 wouldn't really aid him at all other than the odd low-light shot. I've got a 50/2 manual focus, it's possibly my favourite lens but simon would squalk if I offered him one for free
The 50/1.8, simon, is a pin-sharp lens, lovely bit of kit as it doesnt have to deal with all the length-changing optics. IIRC it has only 3 elements.
I know people rattle on about narrow DOF as if it were wonderful, but the downside is actually not achieving a sharp image in many circumstances.
Only if you're unskilled enough to miss focus on your subject.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Alass tis true what does mere me know with only extensive use of 100s of primes and stills and film production daily.
I'll leave him to it Coffeking
Posted 1 year ago # -
Only if you're unskilled enough to miss focus on what your subject.
my subjects often move unpredictably
The 50/1.8, simon, is a pin-sharp lens
isn't that a bit like hifi - if you have to listen to the sound you've missed the music ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
That reminds me to strip that MF lens, I dropped it and one of my elements broke loose
Clean-room I can borrow, anyone?!my subjects often move unpredictably
True, and a fair point indeed to be fair to you.
Regarding hifi stuff, no, IMO, it's not. And image can be made or broken by its sharpness/fuzzyness, so it's not quite the same as directional cables
If you pay enough attention to hiss in a musical recording it can spoil the music, if you rely on sharpness to contrast against softness in an image to help make the image, you'll notice a soft lens. It's fairly easy to lock out at f9 and get a nice evenly focused image, its not so easy to get a crystal-sharp closeup with a nice fuzzy rear when you're hobbled by a poor lens. In the same way it's easy to generate a fairly universal poppy chart topper to a format, but it's fairly hard to generate an iconic song that lasts generations and it takes attention to detail.'sup to you anyway, I'm a bit of a pixel peeper, I look for every imperfection in everything and bin 80% of my images.
Posted 1 year ago # -
In the same way it's easy to generate a fairly universal poppy chart topper to a format, but it's fairly hard to generate an iconic song that lasts generations and it takes attention to detail.
I think if it's a good song it still sounds good on a crappy AM radio
But I'm not really arguing against quality, it's just if the OP wants to try new focal lengths to assess their application and perspective, a fixed focal length already covered by the kit lens isn't it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think if it's a good song it still sounds good on a crappy AM radio
No it doesn't, it's INFURIATING to listen to anything on AM radio, it gets turned off and the CD found!
But I'm not really arguing against quality
You sort of were!
it's just if the OP wants to try new focal lengths to assess their application and perspective, a fixed focal length already covered by the kit lens isn't it.
Agreed
Posted 1 year ago # -
Folks - if anyone is on the lookout for a Sigma 10-20mm lens for a Canon my lady has one for sale. In mint condition barely used as she went full frame 5D two months after purchase.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
