Digital SLR Lens Advice

[Z_Fan]

I know some of you guys are pretty serious photographers...so this is a good place to ask!

I just got my Canon Digital Rebel XT today. :drool: :love: :drool:

It's nice.

Right, so I opted to not get the 18-55 Lens and instead got the 17-85 Lens with the optic stabilizer. Nice lens. But what I really would like is suggestions on a good wide angle lens from your experience. It seems there is a really huge price range for this kind of lens, and I'm just wondering about real world satisfaction with whatever lens you might happen to have selected.

So if you have an Digital SLR what wide angle would you recommend? Thanks for any advice.

[D'z Nutz]

I don't have one, but the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 comes very highly recommended. I'm 95% sure this will be my next lens in the upcoming month.

Your other alternatives might be Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 or the new Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. I think the Sigma 10-20mm just came out. I haven't read any reviews on it yet. I also hear very good things about the Tokina 12-24mm f/4.

[RC-Cola]

I have a drebel and I eventually got a canon 17-40mm f4 L lens. I haven't regretted it yet. You pay good money for it (around $1000) but it will last forever.

I have heard good things about the Sigma wide angles, but I got telephoto sigma and I haven't been that happy with it (it fairly soft).

Also, get as fast of a lens as you can afford, you won't regret it! :thumbsup:

[benyl]

Go big or go home.

Canon 16-35 F2.8 L

The extra stop gives you so many more possibilities, especially shooting indoors.

The difference between F2.8 and F4 (on the 17-40 F4 L) is night and day.

If you are looking at it from a sharpness perspective, copies of the 17-40 are usually better than the 16-35. The 16-35 is however twice the cost.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by benyl
Go big or go home.

Canon 16-35 F2.8 L

The extra stop gives you so many more possibilities, especially shooting indoors.

The difference between F2.8 and F4 (on the 17-40 F4 L) is night and day.

If you are looking at it from a sharpness perspective, copies of the 17-40 are usually better than the 16-35. The 16-35 is however twice the cost.
:werd: It's a pricey lens (bout $2100) but it's AWESOME for quality of your pictures and versatility. I dont know what I would do without it anymore. :)

[Z_Fan]

Alright

Special thanks for your advice. I know you guys are experts, and I frankly just want to take better pictures than I previously could. It's just a hobby, but I have always been interested in photographs. A good picture can definitely captivate and speak volumes.

I am travelling in a couple months, and I know I will need the Wide Angle Lens to accomplish what I want from my photography on that trip.

I guess I was just wondering if this lens is a place to cheap out or compromise in any way, but it doesn't sound like it! So, fair enough, I'm a fan of go big or go home so I'll go big!

I was also wondering if you guys are big fans of the UV filter. Like, do you just use it at all times or just for outdoor stuff...and has anyone done real world tests taking the same photo with and without and analyzed the difference.

Thanks again.

[benyl]

There are two camps on filters.

Those that say they are necessary, to protect your investment in your lens.

Then there are those like me who say, why pay $2K for a lens and put a $40 piece of glass in front of it.

Filter have their place, but I just don't see it as a permanent fixture for "protection."

A UV filter is kinda of like a condom. You can still take pictures, but it doesn't quite come out the same.

[Ekliptix]

I always keep either a UV filter or a Polarizing filter on my lenses for protection or effect. I use a kodak lens cleaner fabric to make sure they're always free of dust.

About a lens, any lens will have it's best quality at the middle of it's aperture range (F9-F11).
The difference with the high end lenses (canon L series) is that they usually produce better quaility then the cheaper ones when being pushed at their limits (wide open aperture).

Even at F2.8 (wide open on my Tamron 17-35mm) the center of the image is tack sharp, but the edges are not as sharp as a L series Canon may be.

Here's some pics taken with a Tokina 12-24mm, seems like very good quality:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/208724


Now it's important to remember that the difference with a Canon L series and a 3rd party lens is that are you really going to notice the difference in your application? If you're printing a max size of 10x12" I'd say it may not be worth it to pay double.

The Canon L series are very durable and much more weatherproof then other lenses, plus they seem to focus much quicker, oh and they hold their value.

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by Ekliptix
Here's some pics taken with a Tokina 12-24mm, seems like very good quality:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/208724


It's funny you mention that thread. Up until this morning, I was so positive I was going to get the Canon 10-22mm. When I saw that same thread earlier this morning on FM, I just about went and ordered the Tokina from B&H. It looks to be a very promising and still economical lens. I'll probably order it sometime this week.

With the money saved, I'll go get a Sigma EM-140 macro ring flash! w00t!

[RC-Cola]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
Alright

I guess I was just wondering if this lens is a place to cheap out or compromise in any way, but it doesn't sound like it! So, fair enough, I'm a fan of go big or go home so I'll go big!

I was also wondering if you guys are big fans of the UV filter. Like, do you just use it at all times or just for outdoor stuff...and has anyone done real world tests taking the same photo with and without and analyzed the difference.

Thanks again.

I would save a few dollars on the camera body and spend more on the lens. The len's are going to change much, where as the camera's are changing much, much faster. I've only had mine for two years and I'm about to upgrade to the 20D.

BTW, does anyone have the 20D and the vertical grip? Is anyone having issues with fitment?

As far as the filters are concerned, I keep a cap on the lens when I'm shooting and I only using filters when I'm trying to get aneffect, for example a polarizing filter. Then spend the extra dollars to get something that wont degrade your expensive glass!

[benyl]

Originally posted by RC-Cola


I would save a few dollars on the camera body and spend more on the lens. The len's are going to change much, where as the camera's are changing much, much faster. I've only had mine for two years and I'm about to upgrade to the 20D.

BTW, does anyone have the 20D and the vertical grip? Is anyone having issues with fitment?

As far as the filters are concerned, I keep a cap on the lens when I'm shooting and I only using filters when I'm trying to get aneffect, for example a polarizing filter. Then spend the extra dollars to get something that wont degrade your expensive glass!

The grip is fine. Although if you check on the forums, there is an issue with them right now. I can't remember what.

[Melinda]

^^ They dont always stay connected properly so you sometimes lose power

[RC-Cola]

Thanks for the info. I'll have to try it out in the store before I buy one I guess.

[Z_Fan]

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&postid=1065097#post1065097

Have a look at this thread and help me figure out how to take betters pictures...LOL

I am reading the book, but it's going to take a lot of time and practice. See thread for real world outcome of the Rebel XT in the hands of a mere mortal.

[benyl]

already replied.

[C4S]

I still recomend the sigma 12-24mm HSM ... however, if you won't even touch 35mm film camera, the new sigma 10-20mm HSM or the Tamron 11-18mm, Tokina 12-24mm is also highly rated, (fixed F4)

Of course, of a bit more money, the canon 10-22 is a good lens...


but most of those lens only fit with 1.5-1.6 crop Camera, if you want to use 35mm, or 1.3 x crop camera body .... won't work!:D