Advertising

Murray's Blog


20D wide-angle lens

I keep seeing wonderfully dramatic wide angle photos, so I am now severly tempted by the Canon 20D wide angle 10-22mm lens.

However, at 600 Euros (From DigitalRev, for instance) it’s just too expensive a toy for someone with zero talent. Surely there’s some lower-quality non-USM maybe-not-so-wide alternative?

This entry was posted on Monday, December 12th, 2005 at 3:18 am and is filed under Tech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

8 Responses to “20D wide-angle lens”

  1. Alex Says:
    December 12th, 2005 at 3:47 am

    There sure is. But it’s gonna be lower-quality, non-USM, maybe-no-so-wide. Sure you want that?

  2. Janne Says:
    December 12th, 2005 at 4:10 am

    Consider the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. On an APS body it is pleasantly – but not too – wide, and a _lot_ cheaper. 15mm fisheye will give you coverage vaguely like 12 mm or so.

    Also, the fisheye projection is usually less distorting than the equirectangular one (which stretches objects out in the edges). You have probably seen quite a few wide fisheye photographs without realizing it; the bent lines only becomes an issue if you really work to make it obvious.

    Ideally, I’d want the new Pentax 10-17mm fisheye; it won’t work on a Canon body, though :)

  3. Birdy Says:
    December 12th, 2005 at 4:53 am

    There are basicly two options to the Canon 10-22. The Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24. I do have the Tokina myself, and I can only recomend it. The Sigma has some more distortion I think…

  4. sam Says:
    December 12th, 2005 at 6:22 am

    amateur photographer 3rd december 2005, as a big reveiw of the canon 10-22 and the sigma 10-20. they were given 87% and 86% respectivly. the sigma lost marks for having a smaller max apature, and being heavier.

  5. Ken Says:
    December 12th, 2005 at 8:54 am

    That’s the same field-of-view on the 20D as 16-35mm is on 35mm. The things that make this lens so expensive are (1) it’s really wide, and (2) it’s a zoom. So eliminate those! My 24mm is under US$300 (and at f/2.8, it’s faster). The 28mm f/2.8 is under $175.

    Then go out and buy the cheapest EOS body you can put it on; these days it looks like that’s the EOS Rebel K2 (under $150). When you’re shooting wide-angle, you don’t need the hottest autofocus system. Buy inexpensive film, and you’ll have to take quite a few shots before it matches the price of the 10-22mm zoom.

    (Yeah, I’m still using film, because I like wide-angle. It’s the one thing holding me back.)

  6. David Zeuthen Says:
    December 12th, 2005 at 8:54 pm

    I own the Canon EF-S 10-22mm and can wholeheartly recommend it – one nice feature is also that it uses 77mm filters like other quality lenses. Btw, I also heard nothing but good things about the Sigma 12-24; recommend to peruse Fred Miranda’s site at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

    Most of the non-Zoo shots here

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidz/sets/1328001/

    is shot with the Canon 10-22mm on a Canon 20D body, ie. 16-35mm in 35mm equivalent. Getting this lens was quite an eye-opener; suddenly there was a whole lot of new photos to capture – highly recommended.

    Btw, you also want to be careful with a polarizer on a super-wide angle (regardless of the brand) – otherwise you end up with nasty vignetting as seen here

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidz/60899505/

    (There’s also a link on that photo to some discussion on how to avoid vignetting)

  7. Damon Says:
    January 16th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    If you find an alternative lens, I’d be interested in hearing it. So far all my research is leading me to this lens for ultra wide angle.

  8. murrayc Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    By the way, I ended up buying this for my trip to Romania. It’s also been very useful for taking pictures inside and outside of buildings

Leave a Reply

«
»