Anyone use a Canon Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM?

[AnimalGurl]

Looking around for a good basic (under $1K) wide angle lens for my EOS 500D. Generally I would use it for landscape/scenery, and low light in-house shots or other indoor settings. I find mixed reviews when I search the web on sites like Fred Miranda.

Would love to see some samples of shots some have taken using this.

[OsmosisStudios]

Well, on your 500D, 28mm isnt that wide. You'd want something like the 14mm f/2.8 instead.

[AnimalGurl]

Thanks for the info! Nothing I read said anything about it not doing such a great wide angle job on the 500D. I looked at the one you recommended...and it must be a much better lens because I couldn't find it for less than $2K. As a new amateur, that is for now out of my budget

[inkista]

The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is probably the only low light option that's an ultrawide on a crop that's not a $1000+ L lens.

Since ultrawides are typically used for landscapes, there aren't many that have available light capability, too. Hard enough to build a lens that does wide angle well. A fast ultrawide is sort of like asking for the moon. It ain't gonna come cheap.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by AnimalGurl

Thanks for the info! Nothing I read said anything about it not doing such a great wide angle job on the 500D. I looked at the one you recommended...and it must be a much better lens because I couldn't find it for less than $2K. As a new amateur, that is for now out of my budget

2 things:
All lenses are measured in mm: your crop body 500D has a smaller sensor than full-frame cameras (for which the mm make sense). You have to multiply all focal lengths by 1.6. So the 28mm lens, which would normally be fairly wide on a full-frame body, is actually a 43mm on your camera. The 14mm I suggested becomes a 22mm.

Higher price DOES NOT MEAN better. It can be an indication, but that's not necessarily the case. The 14mm is VERY wide, and that's not cheap.

As inkista mentioned, a zoom may be better, as many have been made for the cropped sensors. Canon make a 10-22 which is very nice, but you can find options from Tokina (Inkista's example 11-16), Tamron (10-24, 12-24) and Sigma (8-16, 10-20, 12-24).

[TFord.LTTP]

If you want a lens that is great for a normal perspective on a crop body like you have I think it's a fantastic lens that I have myself. Any of the issues I saw in any reviews I have yet to experience myself, it focuses as fast and accurate as you can expect a lens in that price range to.

[AnimalGurl]

I had not heard the term crop body for my camera before. I haven't a clue what that means! But I'm going to go read up on it and find out.

Thank you for all the input on this lens, and the lens advice in general. I have so much to learn still...I guess that will come over time and trial/error. I think for now since I don't know what I'm really looking for in a lens I will just work and learn with what I have that came with my camera kit -- the 18-55mm, and the 55-250 IS and see what I can do with those. Until I learn more, that is.

Right now, for the majority of the photos that I take I need the zoom lens...and I'm saving my $$$ for either the EF 100-400mm, or EF 400mm. My favorite shots are zoo and wild animal park shots...so I think either of these might be what I'd do better with before a wide angle. Still learning though...so we'll see.

Thank you again for your advice....I hope someday I can be as knowledgeable as you folks are about this.

[inkista]

A crop body is one where the sensor is smaller than a frame of 35mm film (aka 135 format). In the Canon lineup, this means every dSLR, except the 1Ds and 5D models.

Most of Canon's dSLRs use an APS-C (another film format) sized sensor with a "crop factor" of 1.6x. That means it's 1.6x smaller than a 35mm frame of film. And that the field of view from a lens will be 1.6x smaller on a crop body than it is on film. This sounds confusing, I know, so here's an illustration of the difference between 1.6x crop and full-frame (it's also linked to a good thorough explanation of "full frame":



The effect of using a smaller sensor is similar to cropping off the edges of the images. On a full-frame camera, using the same lens will give you a wider field of view than when you use it on a crop body. It's kind of like having more zoom, but you're actually not changing focal length or zooming in more--you're just cutting off the edges.

But if you shot film, and you translated focal lengths to fields of view, you can use the crop factor to get an equivalent framing with a smaller-sensored dSLR. So, for example, if you're used to using a 50mm lens on a film camera, you'd know that if you put that lens on a crop body, you'd get a framing on the dSLR that's similar to using an 80mm (50mmx1.6) lens on a film camera.

That's what crop body means.

As for lenses, I'd recommend reading this basic guide to lens features.

[Michael_2010]

Okay you guys, after reading through this thread I did a oogle google for the Tokina lens and found a pretty thorough review from a Nikon user. He pretty much raved about every aspect of the lens and said it was superior to the Nikon equivalent.

I was ready to break out the plastic and put in an order for this bad boy, but..... but...... but..... at the end of his article he says, "If you shoot Canon, get the Canon 10-22mm, since it doesn't cost much more and has a much wider and longer zoom range. I have not compared its sharpness, however the Canon's distortion control is superior."

Since the price for the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS is about the same as the Tokina 11-16MM F/2.8 ATX 116 Lens for Canon EOS AF Digital - Tokina ATX116PRODXC, would anyone make the f/stop range a consideration?

I'm looking for a good lens (that won't break the bank) for landscapes and architectural interiors. Either of these lenses sound like they would offer the focal variance I'm lookin' for, but I also want the image as crystal clear as I can afford and my camera will allow. Any thoughts about this?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Michael_2010

... would anyone make the f/stop range a consideration?

Hellz yeah. Because that's NOT an "f-stop range". That's the maximum aperture of the lens and is just as important (if not more so) than the focal length coverage.

The maximum aperture of a lens is the widest the lens can be opened up, physically. Cheaper lenses tend to have smaller max. apertures, more expensive lenses have wider ones. (Remember that f-numbers are ratios, so the larger the number, the smaller the aperture setting). With zooms, you'll also sometimes get two numbers: one for the wide end fo the range and one for the tele end of the range. It's a really good zoom lens that has a constant max. aperture, and typically, the fastest/widest aperture you'll see on a zoom is f/2.8 (some of the Olympus zooms do f/2).

F/2.8 is considered by many photographers to be the minimum you need to do what's called "available light" shooting: that is, handheld indoors without using a flash. Lower light photography.

So, the Tokina 11-16 is the ultrawide you want if you plan on using it for, say environmental portraits, where you're taking a picture of folks inside and you want to capture the "feel" of the room around them. This is why so many people like this lens.

However, for the work you want an ultrawide for (architecture, landscapes), you may not need this f/2.8 capability, since your subjects aren't moving, and you can use a tripod as well for longer exposures. Just be aware that f-stop numbers aren't on a linear scale. The lower the numbers, the more significant the differences between the numbers becomes. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is identical to the difference between f/11 and f/16: one stop, or a doubling of the light. Which in practical terms is equivalent to halving your shutter speed, or doubling your ISO.

One more thing, it's kind of inherent in ultrawide design that you're going to have barrel distortion and problems with chromatic aberration control. I could see the CA from the 10-22 @10mm, at websizes. These are extreme lenses; adjust your expectations of performance accordingly. Most ultrawides are going to be weak around the following three points: distortion, CA control, vignetting.