wide angle lenses

[ukcatfan]

if the 1/focal length still applies would you ever really need IS for something like 17-55mm lens?

I find it very useful at wide angle in low light. The 1/focal is often not enough for a proper exposure in those situations. I have often gone as low as 1/4 sec. completely handheld without any blurring. It has to be a static subject though.

Kevin

 

[handicap18]

I'd agree with Kevin, that it would be very useful in low light/slow shutter instances. Especially in those times where/when a tripod can't be used. With my VR lens I've gotten very usable images at a 1/6th shutter handheld. Without the VR I never would have gotten a clean image.

That being said, the IS/VR lenses that are in that range are VERY expensive so I think I would only really get one if cost wasn't a factor. But then again all the lenses with IS/VR are very expensive, though some are more useful than others, especially on the longer ends where camera shake becomes more of an issue.

 

[ukcatfan]

That being said, the IS/VR lenses that are in that range are VERY expensive so I think I would only really get one if cost wasn't a factor. But then again all the lenses with IS/VR are very expensive, though some are more useful than others, especially on the longer ends where camera shake becomes more of an issue.

On more than one place, I have read about the in body IS systems being more effective at the wide end where the lens based ones are more effective at tele. I wonder if part of their reasoning was due to the high costs of the lens based system at the wide end?

I actually bought my old S1 IS for the IS more than for the 10x zoom. We have the S2 IS now, but I do not use it much. Analysis of my images from the S1 showed me that I rarely even use the tele end, but I have really appreciated the IS all of the time. That led me to only buying the kit lens when I bought my K100D. I have since picked up a cheapo Tamron tele for when I do want some more reach. It is certainly not a great lens, but it seems to be at least on par with what I got from the S1, so I am happy for now.

Kevin

 

[jann1033]

On more than one place, I have read about the in body IS systems being more effective at the wide end where the lens based ones are more effective at tele. I wonder if part of their reasoning was due to the high costs of the lens based system at the wide end?

I actually bought my old S1 IS for the IS more than for the 10x zoom. We have the S2 IS now, but I do not use it much. Analysis of my images from the S1 showed me that I rarely even use the tele end, but I have really appreciated the IS all of the time. That led me to only buying the kit lens when I bought my K100D. I have since picked up a cheapo Tamron tele for when I do want some more reach. It is certainly not a great lens, but it seems to be at least on par with what I got from the S1, so I am happy for now.

Kevin

funny i am just the opposite, i hardly ever really wanted to use the wide till i saw some great landscape shots and article on a link bobq posted...i think due to my stinko eyesight the details of the zoom shots are surprising to me( as in...hey! i didn't know there was a giant mountain there )

 

[jann1033]

no doubt this is not news to any one but me but i thought it was interesting esp. the compositiona aspect
http://www.pcphotomag.com/content/2006/sept/lenses.shtml

 

[mabas9395]

A very useful article seeing as I just got my Canon 10-22mm yesterday in the mail. I can't wait to get out this weekend and try it out.

 

[DueyDooDah]

Can't get to link. Memebership/subscription required?

 

[jann1033]

maybe try again, it just opened for me and i don't subscribe to it

 

[Gdad]

Thanks for the link...

 

[BeautyLLM]

OK, between this article and boBQuincy's pictures, now I'm thinking seriously about buying the Canon 10-22.

 

[ColleenS]

Eeek! Not sure what I'm doing here. I've decided to get a wide angle lens.

I've narrowed it down to
Canon 17-40 f/4L USM
OR
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Do you have either of these?
I have the 24-70L and really like it, but want something wider especially for evening shots ie fireworks, spectro, illunimations, & maybe for fantasmic (would the 24-70 work better there?)


Could someone explain exactly what the f/4 and f/2,8 means and how it effects the photos I take? Does it have something to do with speed?


I like that the 17-55 has a wider range but it really overlaps a lot with what I already use. I'm also not sure if it's worth it to pay more for the 17-55 is not L glass.

Any advice would be so appreciated!

 

[DueyDooDah]

First, just to make sure you know, the 17-55mm is an EF-S lens and only works on a select few Canon bodies.

With that out of the way, it is also a very highly regarded lens. See reviews of both lenses here

 

[boBQuincy]

I was in a very similar situation with a 24-105 and wanted something wider. Since a 17-40 would only give me the extra range from 17-24 I decided it wasn't worthwhile and went for a 10-22 (a EF-S lens).

If this lens fits your camera it is a good choice for going wide.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

17-55mm is an EF-S lens and only works on a select few Canon bodies.

I don't think "select few" is the description that I'd use. I'd say all but the 5D and 1D series bodies, which are quite expensive and uncommon.

The 17-40mm, while probably optically better than the 17-55mm, isn't exactly a great wide angle lens. I'm not sure that I've ever seen a truly great wide zoom.

For me, the decision would probably hinge on whether I planned to stick with the low-to-mid range Canon's (Rebel and x0D series) or whether I saw a 1.3x or full frame camera in my future.

 

[allyn]

ef-s lenses won't work on d30, d60, or 10d, either.

since i don't plan on buying a full-frame camera any time soon (if ever), i'd personally buy the 17-55, since it has better range, wider aperture, and image stabilization.

 

[jann1033]

according to the canon website, 30d works with ef-s lenses( plus i think that's what bobq has and i know he has at least one efs)

it's a tough decision but since i dont think i'll be getting anything but maybe a 30d or what the upgrade for that soon is , i dont know it is really all that limiting... same with i think some of the third party "di " type lenses, i think they are only for 1.6 crop bodies as well. i have read a copule of places they don't want to put the"l" brand on efs so the lens could be great but not officially L .
i don't see the ops camera body but i agree with bob as well, go for the wider rather 10 than the 17


the f2.8 means how large the aperture will get so determines how low of light you can shoot in( aperture also influences depth of focus, how much of the photo front to back will be sharp and how much will be blurred) so the smaller number ( 2.8) means you can use a faster shutter speed since the hole is bigger and takes in more light in the same time...however fireworks i think you usually use a longer shutter speed and around f8 ( correct me if i'm wrong since it's been yrs since i took them)

 

[Steve's Girl]

I don't shoot Canon - so take what I say with a grain of salt. But the other consideration is that the 2.8 lens will be better for low light/no flash shots.

 

[MassJester]

This may not help, but as I've been looking at this issue lately I thought I'd add that that 12mm-24mm f/4 Tokina has caught my eye (US$490). It's gotten some good reviews and looks like it will take care of the wide angle needs pretty well.

 

[pisco]

If you are planning on sticking with a crop factor camera, I would also add the Tamron 17-50 2.8 to the list. Optically I would put it between the 17-40 and the 17-55 but it is smaller and lighter than both of them (which I always prefer personally).

 

[jann1033]

This may not help, but as I've been looking at this issue lately I thought I'd add that that 12mm-24mm f/4 Tokina has caught my eye (US$490). It's gotten some good reviews and looks like it will take care of the wide angle needs pretty well.

i've been looking at that one as well..although some of the ca looks pretty bad from some photos samples i have seen, i read you can fix that if you shoot raw, guessing in contrast or someplace?