Ok wideangle lens wanted but not fully understood.

[Tampon]

I have had a SLR for a while, moved over from film to digital with a 1000d bought whilst traveling.

Now I have never really worried about lens and such, stuck with what was on the camera and just tried and get decent shots. That was until I went for a drive down to Africa last month and had a BBC journalist and a pro photographer with me for a while.

The guys let me use their kit willy nilly, one of them gave me a bag and said use it for a day and see what you like after I spoke to him about photography. Inside was 2 Canon 5d bodies and a spare 30d not to mention some lens ( I have no idea what they were apart from the sigma wideangle ) which apparently cost a few grand a piece !!!!! I gave them back smudged and dusty, lovely guy just wiped them clean and took me outside to teach me how to use them and about lighting etc.

I have now decided I want a wideangle lens as I got some really cool shots with it ( all be it smudged and dusty ! ), with buying our first house, just taking a month off to drive across africa and wanting to build a campervan a and a replica ww2 army motorbike I don;t think the wife will be massively keen on me splashing out on new kit for one of my "small" hobbies.

I would like ot spend £100-£150, this will probably mean secondhand and I am absolutely fine with that ( I like a bargain me ), I just don;t even know where to begin looking. I don't want the best as that would be wasted on me, just the basics to get me started and then I can justify the costs later. I saw some screw on types but was steered well clear of those.

I have looked and there is wide angle, ultra wide angle and fisheye. I know I don;t want fisheye, but how do I tell the difference between wide and ultra wide ? is it just the name or is the some numbers/data I should look for when buying.

So over to the experts, any type, model etc would be appreciated, links would be even better, actually experience of this bottom end of the market would be the greatest.

Cheers
Ben

[itsnotarace]

Tampon said:

how do I tell the difference between wide and ultra wide ?

Wide would be something like a 16mm on digital SLR

Ultra wide would be something like a 10mm on digital SLR.

Fisheye would be something like 8mm on a digital SLR

Note that as you go wider, you will start getting more distortion with the fisheye giving the greatest amount.

A good second hand wide buy would be a Sigma 10-20mm, probably just over your budget but worth saving for.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/

[Tampon]

itsnotarace said:

Wide would be something like a 16mm on digital SLR

Ultra wide would be something like a 10mm on digital SLR.

Fisheye would be something like 8mm on a digital SLR

Note that as you go wider, you will start getting more distortion with the fisheye giving the greatest amount.

A good second hand wide buy would be a Sigma 10-20mm, probably just over your budget but worth saving for.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/

Brillant info, thankyou. Simple and easy to understand, topjob.

I had a look at some secondhand sigma lens and they are going for about £250-£275. Nearly double the budget and I can't do that to my lovely lady, she more than understanding about my spending habits anyway and it wouldn't be fair to her. I am a newly wed and that is apparently something I now have to consider when buying things ?

Anyways, apart form exactly what I would love to get is there a cheaper brand doing something similar ( I know the quality won't be as great ).

[itsnotarace]

Tamron do an 11-18mm that is a bit cheaper second hand and Tokina do an 11-16mm, but I don't know of anything cheaper in that sort of zoom range.

[Tampon]

Thankyou very much, I will have a peak, if they aren't cheap enough then I guess I will have to wait.

[Tampon]

Nope, seems they are the same sort of price. I don;t know why, I had it in my head as the lens was smaller than a 50-200m it would be cheaper ( some of those can be had for £100ish).

Guess I will have to save and wait unless someone knows of a cheaper alternative to get me going til the pennies are in?

The screw on types crap?

[Magic919]

itsnotarace said:

Fisheye would be something like 8mm on a digital SLR

Fisheye is rather a matter of the lack of correction (to produce straight lines). They can begin at 16mm.

[itsnotarace]

To be fair, unless you are shooting skateboarders and such like, ultrawide is a novelty that will wear off quite quickly. I sold my Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 12-24 through lack of use.

17mm is as wide as I need for my use, 9 times out of 10 you can always zoom with your feet by moving closer or further away from your subject

[itsnotarace]

Magic919 said:

Fisheye is rather a matter of the lack of correction (to produce straight lines). They can begin at 16mm.

You are talking about barrel distortion and there is no set mm it will start at, it is a matter of lens design

Cheers

[Magic919]

Well I'm actually talking about rectilinear correction and the lack of it in a fisheye lens.

[Kermit power]

Tampon said:

Nope, seems they are the same sort of price. I don;t know why, I had it in my head as the lens was smaller than a 50-200m it would be cheaper ( some of those can be had for £100ish).

Guess I will have to save and wait unless someone knows of a cheaper alternative to get me going til the pennies are in?

The problem you have is that almost all people with a camera will want a zoom in the 50-200mm sort of range, so there are lots of alternatives to suit all wallets.

At the wide angle end, however, it tends to be rather more of a specialist market. The lenses therefore don't start as cheap, although they also don't go anything like as expensive as a rule either.

Also, the sort of commodity lens being sold at the 50-200mm bargain basement end of the market will also depreciate quickly as it will be replaced quickly. The wide angles, however (like all more expensive lenses higher up the focal length range) will keep their value much better, as they change less often and are better quality to start with. This is not good if you're trying to buy one, but is nice if you decide to sell one!

Lastly, some people will say you don't really need it as you can zoom in and out with your feet. This is true to an extent, but what do you do if you want a shot of that amazing medieval house and you've already got your back up against the not quite so amazing house on the other side of the road? Or if you're looking at a mountain range and you're already on the other side of the valley?

Ask yourself if there are things you'd like to photograph where you can't easily zoom with your feet, and that should help you decide if you'll really use one or not.

[Tampon]

Kermit power said:

The problem you have is that almost all people with a camera will want a zoom in the 50-200mm sort of range, so there are lots of alternatives to suit all wallets.

At the wide angle end, however, it tends to be rather more of a specialist market. The lenses therefore don't start as cheap, although they also don't go anything like as expensive as a rule either.

Also, the sort of commodity lens being sold at the 50-200mm bargain basement end of the market will also depreciate quickly as it will be replaced quickly. The wide angles, however (like all more expensive lenses higher up the focal length range) will keep their value much better, as they change less often and are better quality to start with. This is not good if you're trying to buy one, but is nice if you decide to sell one!

Lastly, some people will say you don't really need it as you can zoom in and out with your feet. This is true to an extent, but what do you do if you want a shot of that amazing medieval house and you've already got your back up against the not quite so amazing house on the other side of the road? Or if you're looking at a mountain range and you're already on the other side of the valley?

Ask yourself if there are things you'd like to photograph where you can't easily zoom with your feet, and that should help you decide if you'll really use one or not.

Hello Kermit ( thanks for that phone a few years back), the reason I want it is the different perspective it takes compared to the the "normal" lens I have used before. I don;t want it to cram more into the picture ( well not the sole reason ) but the "type" of shot I got when using it was brilliant.

I think I could really get something out of closeups and of landscape that I haven't been able to before. i have known the type of shot I would like and when I take them they aren't that, with a wideangle I was taking shots I have seen before and wanted to copy.

Also now I have been looking into extra lens I am coming up with this nagging idea that I might want a cheap ( compared to the wideangle )canon 50mm 1.8. Arghhhhhhhh will it never end...................


p.s I have decided to get the sigma.......and the 50mm, guess I will be sleeping on the sofa ( alright though cos I bought a 64gb tablet the day before I left for africa on the basis of it "being needed for the trip", that will keep me company on those lonely nights).

[Tampon]

Been looking, is this considered a wide angle lens ? I have a 18mm-55mm now, would this really be any different ?

These seem to go cheaper than the 10-20mm, but if they aren;t a decent wide angle then it is of no real use.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/sigma-17-35mm-lens-/1607...

[Fezant Pluckah]

What about this one? It seems a bargain!

[Tampon]

Cheap at twice the price, but I don;t want a fisheye ;-)

As far as 50mm, does this look like a reasonable one to learn the trade on ( considering I was never going to get one til this afternoon ! )

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Fast-50-mm-F1-8-portrait...

[tenohfive]

The Sigma 10-20mm get's mixed reviews. The general consensus seems to be that it's good but not in the same league as the Canon 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16mm (both of which are selling on ebay used for about £400-420.) Those are the two I'm trying to pick up (one or other.)

For a fast budget 50mm just go with the Canon nifty fifty - they go for around £80 new and are a cracking little portrait lens:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B0...

[Tampon]

tenohfive said:

The Sigma 10-20mm get's mixed reviews. The general consensus seems to be that it's good but not in the same league as the Canon 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16mm (both of which are selling on ebay used for about £400-420.) Those are the two I'm trying to pick up (one or other.)

For a fast budget 50mm just go with the Canon nifty fifty - they go for around £80 new and are a cracking little portrait lens:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B0...

Cheers tenohfive, The sigma will be double my budget secondhand so I won;t be going further to start with. The 50mm, the link above, http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=1044X509854&si... is a canon 50mm but the first generation so might give that a go if there is no real difference for a entry level.

[tenohfive]

Tampon said:

Cheers tenohfive, The sigma will be double my budget secondhand so I won;t be going further to start with. The 50mm, the link above, http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=1044X509854&si... is a canon 50mm but the first generation so might give that a go if there is no real difference for a entry level.

Unless I'm being particularly dense today, it's not - it's a Pentacon. A quick google suggests manual focus only etc...so not the Mk1 nifty fifty?

[Tampon]

tenohfive said:

Unless I'm being particularly dense today, it's not - it's a Pentacon. A quick google suggests manual focus only etc...so not the Mk1 nifty fifty?

You are quite right, I am a spaz. I will get the Canon one as that has the decent write ups.

Cheers
Ben

[Simpo Two]

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)