Ok wideangle lens wanted but not fully understood.

Ok wideangle lens wanted but not fully understood.

Author
Discussion

Tampon

Original Poster:

4,637 posts

224 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
I may be missing the plot but if you want a wide angle lens, why do you want a 50mm lens (a focal length that's probably covered by the kit lens you (may) already have (you haven't said what lenses you have)
I have always just used what ever the camera came with, always spent time on learn shutter speed and appature rather than worry about lens. SO never really learnt anything about them.

SO my first slr was a canon eos ( film ) with a 18-55 lens and a 50-200mm ( I think but cant remember as I sold it a few years back now )

My wife bought me a 1000d when they came out when we were traveling in asia as a 30th Bday pressie. It came with the standard 18-55mm lens. I was chuffed as I have gone up from film to digital.

That was 2 years ago. I have always been happy with that and just worked around it, happy with the shots I was getting. That was until last month when I got to play with someone else very good kit. It was the first time I had used a wide angle and I can see the benefits of having one, so I want one.

As for the 50mm, all this research into lens and I kept hearing about this "niffty fifty", did some research and it seem to be the ultimate "work around" lens, ie you have to work to get the shot and it rewards you with blinding quality, great depth of field and low light handheld shots compared to basic lens you get with the camera. This seems pretty much what I do now, ie concentrate on the shot and focus rather than zoom.

Now looking at the prices seems I can get one of these basic bad boys for £60-£70. Since I don;t have the budget for the wideangle lens I want I think I will get one of these now so I have a new (cheap) toy to play with a for a few months til I can afford/ get my wife to buy me a secondhand wideangle for my 32nd Bday pressie.

Basically I can feel this being the start of a slippery slope of learning about and wanting better equipment, I have just learnt about film recording on SLR's and microphones that clip on the hotshoe and of full sized sensors. God help me.

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Tampon said:
I have always just used what ever the camera came with, always spent time on learn shutter speed and appature rather than worry about lens. SO never really learnt anything about them.
Well you learned two of the important things which is more than many do smile

Tampon said:
I have always been happy with that and just worked around it, happy with the shots I was getting. That was until last month when I got to play with someone else very good kit. It was the first time I had used a wide angle and I can see the benefits of having one, so I want one
Very sensible, as it's a focal length you haven't got at present.

Tampon said:
As for the 50mm, all this research into lens and I kept hearing about this "niffty fifty", did some research and it seem to be the ultimate "work around" lens, ie you have to work to get the shot and it rewards you with blinding quality, great depth of field and low light handheld shots compared to basic lens you get with the camera. This seems pretty much what I do now, ie concentrate on the shot and focus rather than zoom.

Now looking at the prices seems I can get one of these basic bad boys for £60-£70. Since I don;t have the budget for the wideangle lens I want I think I will get one of these now so I have a new (cheap) toy to play with a for a few months til I can afford/ get my wife to buy me a secondhand wideangle for my 32nd Bday pressie.
Well I see the logic but remember the 50mm 'standard' lens was general purpose on 35mm cameras. With a smaller sensor you'll get a smaller field of view - so it's more of a portrait lens then really general purpose IMHO - and quite the opposite of wide angle. The main advantage as you say is the faster aperture (typically f1.8) which gives you the shallow DOF and therein lies its ability to work in lower light than the kit lens you currently have.

You started off wanting a zoom wide angle - which fair enough is over budget - then went for a prime lens (ie fixed not zoom) but on the other side of standard. Isn't a prime wide angle, eg 35mm, the answer?

Tampon said:
Basically I can feel this being the start of a slippery slope of learning about and wanting better equipment, I have just learnt about film recording on SLR's and microphones that clip on the hotshoe and of full sized sensors. God help me.
Mmm, flying through rock comes a bit later biggrin

Keep plugging away, you're doing OK so far.

Tampon

Original Poster:

4,637 posts

224 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
You started off wanting a zoom wide angle - which fair enough is over budget - then went for a prime lens (ie fixed not zoom) but on the other side of standard. Isn't a prime wide angle, eg 35mm, the answer?
Woe there Tonto. Back her up. Remember I am a "not speaka the engrish" when it come to these things.

I want a wideangle lens to take shots like this:




Now are you saying a 35mm Prime ( and by prime I think that means no gubbins, no zoom just simple quality glass like the 50mm ) would take shots like that ? I was on the ( very loose and new ) understanding that for something to be "wide angled" it would be some where in the 10-20mm range?

Cos the idea of a simple wide angle sounds brillant to me as I will either be in someone/things face taking the shot or miles away shooting the scene, either way zoom doesn't really matter that much I doubt.

Kermit power

28,634 posts

212 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Tampon said:
Woe there Tonto. Back her up. Remember I am a "not speaka the engrish" when it come to these things.
He's not suggesting you replace the 10-20 with a 35mm prime. He is instead explaining why you might want to consider a 35mm prime instead of a 50mm prime.

On film SLRs, 50mm is 50mm, and 50mm is roughly what you will see with your own eyes without moving your head around. On digital cameras, however, the sensor is typically smaller than in film cameras, which has the effect of magnifying the effective length of the lens. The magnification factor on your 1000D is 1.6, so a 50mm your camera will be the equivalent of fitting an 80mm lens to your old film camera. Fitting a 35mm prime to your 1000D would be the equivalent of putting a 56mm on your old camera, so about as close as you'll get to the traditional 50mm, given that nobody makes a 31.25mm lens as far as I know.

The 35mm lens won't give you the sort of shots you're after from a wide angle lens, no.

You can also get fairly normal shots at 10mm such as this one...


Church1 by Chris Walker Epsom, on Flickr

That was a fine example of one where I couldn't walk any further backwards, or I would've been outside the churchyard taking a picture of the churchyard wall!

But yes, it does also give you the distorted effect when you want it....


Charlie downwards by Chris Walker Epsom, on Flickr



Tampon

Original Poster:

4,637 posts

224 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Ok, I think I understand ( slighty ) looking at the availability of 35mm primes and the price, the 50mm seems alot easier and cheaper to start playing with a new type of lens ( completely separately to the wide angle ).

As I don;t know the difference between the 35mm and 50mm, surely get a new better quality lens will make the biggest difference rather than the actual difference between 35mm and 50mm.

Kermit power

28,634 posts

212 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Tampon said:
Ok, I think I understand ( slighty ) looking at the availability of 35mm primes and the price, the 50mm seems alot easier and cheaper to start playing with a new type of lens ( tcompletely separately to the wide angle ).

As I don;t know the difference between the 35mm and 50mm, surely get a new better quality lens will make the biggest difference rather than the actual difference between 35mm and 50mm.
Absolutely right.

The only reason you get much cheaper 50mm primes, as far as I am aware, is because they were traditionally the kit lens of choice on film cameras, so were produced in huge volumes. The Canon 50mm f1.8 is a fraction of the build quality of the 35mm primes, which is why it's a fraction of the cost. Still a lens worth having though.


ETA - Just read that back and decided my "absolutely right" is misleading! Getting either of the primes will let you do stuff you just can't do with your kit lens, so don't get hung up on whether one is better than the other. If you're going to get a prime, get the 50 and enjoy it. You can always get more expensive lenses later.

Edited by Kermit power on Thursday 26th April 09:13

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Tampon said:
Ok, I think I understand ( slighty ) looking at the availability of 35mm primes and the price, the 50mm seems alot easier and cheaper to start playing with a new type of lens ( completely separately to the wide angle ).

As I don;t know the difference between the 35mm and 50mm, surely get a new better quality lens will make the biggest difference rather than the actual difference between 35mm and 50mm.
The focal length of a lens (the millimetres bit) determines the field/angle of view - ie what you get in the rectangle at any given distance. If you want the 'wide angle look' as per the examples above, then you will need a wide angle lens. A longer lens even of the finest quality will not do it.

Seems me you have two choices. Go for affordable quality at 50mm and skip the wide angle look, or get a cheap wide-angle. One reason that wide angle lenses generally cost more is because the glass elements are larger.

If you find that a wide angle lens of any kind, zoom or prime, is too expensive, consider a wide angle adaptor that screws into the filter thread on the front of your kit lens. It will not be great quality, but you will get the wide angle look you want.

Kermit power

28,634 posts

212 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Just to add, I've got a Sigma 10-20mm if you want a play with one some time.

tenohfive

6,276 posts

181 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
If you can dismiss your previous film experiences then sensor crop factors don't really make much difference. If you're used to using a camera with a 1.6x crop factor (which you are, as you've had your 1000D for a couple of years) then just use your 18-55 as a point of reference for focal range. If you want more in shot than your 18-55 allows, you want something less than 18mm (so a 10-20mm would work.) If you want more zoom than 55mm then you're looking at a 55-250mm or 70-300mm lens.

The Canon 50mm prime will help you take very different photo's to the Sigma 10-20mm - they aren't directly comparable. Whilst I've seen people use the 50mm for all sorts of applications, the main appeal to me is the low aperture - it means you can take low light shots of people (particularly indoors) and the shallow depth of field means that you can take shots in which the subject is in focus but everything else has that lovely blur.

The Sigma...well, the photo's above show you some of the potential. Add to those big panoramic vistas and the potential for use in architecture shots etc and you start to get an idea of the different uses.

Get both. The Sigma seems to be what you're aiming for but using the Canon will give you a good grounding in using aperture in the shots you're taking...and the image quality is brilliant. It'll certainly keep you entertained whilst you're saving for the Sigma.

Tampon

Original Poster:

4,637 posts

224 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Guys thankyou so much. Yo have explained in minutes what i have tried to get my head around for days.

Kermit you are a star, I have played with some expensive wideangle kit and loved it, thats whats made me want one. I fear if I play with more it will just mean I spend more ! at the moment i am going to wait til my Bday in june for the wife to buy me one. Plus I think I have used up my Kermit credits til I can reply your kindness so far.

In the mean time and totally separately, I am going to buy a 50mm and trying something different.

Now what is this little wide angle adapter tenohfive talks about? I take it is these things that screw on the front. The reviews and pics I have seen don;t look great.



I crossed that off straight away unless there is a way of making it look half reasonable ? ( those photos aren't close ) ie good quality ones ? Otherwise I think I would rather wait for the real thing.

Kermit power

28,634 posts

212 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Tampon said:
Plus I think I have used up my Kermit credits til I can reply your kindness so far.
Don't worry about that! Gives me an excuse to go out for a trundle around somewhere with my camera and other lenses. smile

Just not in this weather. frown

Tampon

Original Poster:

4,637 posts

224 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Well I am trying ( read 2 months in and no light at the end of the tunnel) to move to Egham, so will be closer, maybe a beers in exchange for photo tips this summer ?

Kermit power

28,634 posts

212 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Tampon said:
Well I am trying ( read 2 months in and no light at the end of the tunnel) to move to Egham, so will be closer, maybe a beers in exchange for photo tips this summer ?
Sure, although I'm not sure I'm the best person to take tips from! hehe

Gad-Westy

14,521 posts

212 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
I've tried one of the wide angle adaptors and really wasn't a fan. I think mine was a made Hewer or someone like that. Everything just looked a bit of a mess through it.

I can't really think of any cheap routes into ultra wide angle. With most lenses, there are cheap options by dipping into the archives of old 35mm film lenses. With ultra wide angles, you don't have that option as an ultra wide lens on 35mm film might be 18mm which really isn't very wide on a crop sensor.

The only lens cheaper than the Sigma 10-20 that I can think of is the Tamron 10-24 but it is neither particularly cheap nor particularly well regarded. Personally I would stay clear until you have more like £300 spare. At that point a few options become possible.

There is always the option of hire as well...

Enjoy the 50mm. Everybody should have one for the price they are. Have fun