Is a 28mm Prime Necessary?

[yurik]

So, as you can see from my previous question ( Buying old, inexpensive lenses (http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1508) ), I'm interested in buying a wide angle lens.

I stopped by the store today (it was closed, but the lenses are on display), and the widest they have is 28mm.

Right now, I have a Rebel XTi with the Kit Lens, so it goes from 18mm - 55mm.

My question is, is it worth buying a 28mm, or will my kit lens have a wider view?
I'm still not sure about the whole talk about conversions with lenses.. will the 28mm be 1.5x the actual range?

I would just like something really wide so I can take some nice architecture or nature photos..

Thanks

[Nicole]

Your kit lens will have a wider view. But, that being said, a nice prime lens still might not be a bad thing to have (especially if it has a wide aperture).

As far as the sensor crop thing goes, yes, the 28mm will effectively have a 42mm field of view. Don't know if this will help, but there's always the Wikipedia article on Crop Factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor) which gives a pretty good explanation.

[Saralonde]

One advantage to most primes is the the aperture number. I assume the 28mm is an f/1.8 or 2.8 which makes them a faster lens then the kit lens. Primes are often sharper, too, and are small and lightweight. Of course, I'm speaking in generalities, not knowing exactly the lens you are considering.

[yurik]

well, I was looking at two used lenses at my local camera shop..

They have a promaster 28mm f2.8 for 40 and a hanimex 28mm f2.8 for 50..

My kit lens goes down to 18mm f3.5..

Does it seem worth it?

[mdwsta4]

a simple one word answer-yes!

you already said it, the prime has a wider aperture compared to your kit lens. that right there makes it better IMO. a prime lens is also typically sharper than zoom lenses (especially the kit lens). while the kit lens is a good lens to start off with, go to a store, try out some decent glass, and you'll realize how poor the quality is out of the lens.
there are wider prime lenses, you must not be looking in the right places.

[yurik]

Well, the main reason I bring up the two lenses I'm considering is because they are so very cheap at my local camera store.

I am considering it buying it, thanks to all your input..

I realize that I probably could get a lens with an even smaller apeture, but I'm looking for something cheap (which means used), and I'd rather be able to go to a shop and try the lenses instead of buying something used online.

If you guys don't mind me extending the thread a bit longer:
- what should I be looking for when I try the lenses out?
- the lens that is $10 cheaper is manual focus only.. do many of you manual focus anyway or is auto focus something that I should regard more highly?

[smc1377]

Well, I don't think any of those two will fit your canon anyways. Only EF and EF-S lenses will fit on your camera. I believe the promaster one is an FD mount and the other one is for a whole different brand of camera altogether. I could be wrong though.

[yurik]

you know what, you're absolutely right.
Right after I made my latest post, I did some more research and realized that the mounts are not the same..

Kinda disappointed, but I'm still interested in knowing whether I should invest in a wide-angle lens.

Thanks for the heads up though :x

[spartan sojourner]

Yurik,

Also keep in mind that your Rebel XTi has a 1.6 crop factor. The reason Canon puts a 18-55 on the camera as the kit lens is because it is the equivalent to a 28-80 lens. That is the stock range of their film cameras. Keep this in mind when you are thinking about buying at 28mm lens because it will be the equivalent of a 40mm. Not exactly a very wide angle. Granted, the faster aperture will probably come in quite handy, but if you want a truly wide angle lens for the XTi, you may have to go more extreme.

[yurik]

Does that mean I'll need to get something like a fisheye lens (15mm'ish) to get what is considered wide-angle?

Hm, this is all interesting and confusing at the same time..

[inkista]

Yup. You're looking for focal lengths below 18mm if you want to go wider than the kit lens. It's much more difficult to go wide on a crop body than to go long. (On the telephoto end of things, the 1.6x works for you, not against you).

A 15mm or 8mm fisheye (you might be able to pick up a Peleng 8mm for ~$150) will go much wider than the kit lens, but fisheyes are known for their distortion (it's the whole fun of a fisheye, really). When you're doing architectural photography or landscapes, you typically don't want distortion. Digital "defishing" can help, but it has its limits, like all post-processing.

The problem from where you're sitting is that the ultrawides have only recently been designed because of digital crop-bodies. The lenses you want to look at would be more like the EF-S 10-22, or the Tamron/Sigma equivalents, and they're mostly all brand new, so you're unlikely to find a used one, or much cheaper than the new price. Actually, you're unlikely to save a lot going used on any EOS-mount lenses, since they're all still usable on the digital bodies. Good glass depreciates very little. If you're happy to ditch autofocus, autoexposure (and possibly metering), than maybe spelunking for FD or screw-mount lenses might be worth it, but generally unless you already own the glass, it's typically not worth the time and money and trouble.

My advice would be to try using the 18mm end of the kit lens for wide shots, and see if you can make it work for you. Try "zooming with your feet" if it's not wide enough, and using a tripod if it's not fast enough (the kit lens gets very sharp when stopped down to f/8). I've seen at least one spectacular gallery of landscapes (http://www.pbase.com/zylen/big_sur) (and architecture (http://www.pbase.com/zylen/architecture)) that was taken with the 18-55 kit lens.

[mdwsta4]

pfffft. sorry, but this is just moronic and i'll ask the question 'why?' why are you even going to bother buying cheap glass because you want something different? you do understand that buying cheap glass will do nothing but deteriorate your picture quality, right? not to say that buying the most expensive glass will automatcially make your pictures better, but buying cheap lenses will result in absolute crap 95% of the time.

Well, the main reason I bring up the two lenses I'm considering is because they are so very cheap at my local camera store.

I realize that I probably could get a lens with an even smaller apeture, but I'm looking for something cheap (which means used), and I'd rather be able to go to a shop and try the lenses instead of buying something used online.

[yurik]

So I found an adaptor that allows FD mounted lenses for $40.

I would consider buying this because I would like to try to buy some cheap lenses (since EF lenses are so expensive -___-)

Is it worth it? Should I buy the mount and some cheap FD lenses?
Or should I just save up for some more expensive lenses?

[Saralonde]

The lens and adapter would cost you $80-$100. $70 would buy you a Canon 50mm f/1.8. Not wide angle, but probably a better lens. If you're just looking for a lens to add to your arsenal, maybe this would be better. You won't get much of a wide angle with the 28 anyway.

[yurik]

that's true, saralonde.. I don't know, I've just had a hankering for a wide-angle lens..

Also, I actually just purchased the thrifty fifty today! I hate ordering something and waiting it to ship, so I made a stop by Adorama and picked one up.. It was hard to leave that store without buying a zillion other things. Thank goodness (or too bad) I'm poor :x

[Saralonde]

I think you'll really enjoy that lens :) .