What’s Your Preference?

areq79 · #1 (**permalink**) 07-20-2010, 07:45 AM

Currently I'm using Canon 450D Kit (EF S18-55). I love traveling and taking landscape as well as portrait photos. Now, I'm thinking of getting another Canon lens probably a wide angle lens. Can anyone recommend me which one is better? Not so expensive...

Elmo · #2 (**permalink**) 07-20-2010, 12:48 PM

Using a small sensor camera makes a UWA lens difficult to design. I use a canon 10-22 which has given me good results. However when I got it, the Tokina I wanted was out of stock everywhere, and I had to have it right then. I wish I had the Tokina pair of UWA. One is rectilinear (corrected for barrel distortion), the other ( zoom fisheye) is not corrected and introduces some neat distortions in certain situations.

areq79 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmo

Using a small sensor camera makes a UWA lens difficult to design. I use a canon 10-22 which has given me good results. However when I got it, the Tokina I wanted was out of stock everywhere, and I had to have it right then. I wish I had the Tokina pair of UWA. One is rectilinear (corrected for barrel distortion), the other ( zoom fisheye) is not corrected and introduces some neat distortions in certain situations.

what do you think abt Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM? or Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is worth buying?

OsmosisStudios · #4 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010, 03:58 AM

Well, the 18-200 and 18-135 dont go any wider than your 18-55. The 10-22 goes considerably wider.

sybren · #5 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010, 08:30 AM

I can certainly recommend the Canon EF-S 10-22mm, the lens is very well built and the optical qualities are excellent!

I have no idea why Elmo is talking about fisheyes, as the 10-22mm and the Tokina are both rectilinear.

Swisstony10 · #6 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmo

I wish I had the Tokina pair of UWA. One is rectilinear (corrected for barrel distortion), the other ( zoom fisheye) is not corrected...

I think Elmo's referring to a pair of slightly different Tokina wide-angle lenses, one being the 10-17 fisheye zoom, and the other being either the 11-16 or the 12-24 rectilinear lens...

PowerPix · #7 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010, 11:30 AM

Sigma 10-20mm -- much more cost effective.

Elmo · #8 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areq79

what do you think abt Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM? or Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is worth buying?

I have a rule of thumb, if the longer FL is longer than the shorter fl multiplied by 3, I don't buy it. This rule is from the old days of zooms an I am set in my ways.

BK553 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-29-2010, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmo

I have a rule of thumb, if the longer FL is longer than the shorter fl multiplied by 3, I don't buy it. This rule is from the old days of zooms an I am set in my ways.

(To be clear, this rule doesn't really apply anymore)

You really need to get a lens that is 10-12mm on the low end to see a major difference from the kit lens. The canon is expensive, but has very good quality. Tamron and Sigma both have similar lenses, but quality is worse. Remember with a crop sensor you're only going to be able to get 1.6x the lowest, so a 10mm becomes 16mm and 18mm becomes almost 30mm.