Requesting advice of pro photographers ;)

[jonathanc]

Hi,

 

I know there are some pro photographers here so I am seeking your advice.

 

I currently have a Canon 28-200 lens. While its a great lens I find myself having to take close up wide shots hence I am looking for a wide angle lens.

 

Thing is, wide angle lenses are very expensive. So I went out and bought a 72mm wide angle lens adaptor from eBay (My current canon lens has 72mm filter thread) This is the said adaptor lens . While it does improve the wideness I find that everything blurs out when I try zooming.

 

So now I am stuck with two choices :

 

a) Buy a cheap secondary lens (18-55 or something like that) and use the wide angle adaptor lens on it. I figure a shorter focal range lens would work better with the adaptor so something like 18-55 or 12-24(?) but I am not so sure which should I choose.

 

b) Sell my primary lens + the newly bought wide angle adaptor and get myself a cheap-ish wide angle lens.

 

I would rather go the a) route but it's hard to find such a lens that happens to have 72mm filter width so I can still use my current wide angle adaptors. If I go b) I am not even sure which lens to choose in the first place.

 

So any advice would be warmly welcomed

 

Cheers and thanks for reading!

[Supradoopa]

What kind of Canon do you currently own? Thing is if you buy cheap you end up paying for it with shoddy photos. It's like buying an XS Single kit off Ebay, sooner or later it's going to give in or not give you the desired effect. If it was me I'd throw the wide angle adapter in the bin and buy a proper f2.8 18-55 but then again i'm a Pro so I would never buy cheap ebay lenses

 

12-24 could be a bit to much, it depends on what you are using the camera for, what kind of field of Photography that you are into? Stay with a 18-55 f2.8 that's my advice

[jonathanc]

What kind of Canon do you currently own? Thing is if you buy cheap you end up paying for it with shoddy photos. It's like buying an XS Single kit off Ebay, sooner or later it's going to give in or not give you the desired effect. If it was me I'd throw the wide angle adapter in the bin and buy a proper f2.8 18-55 but then again i'm a Pro so I would never buy cheap ebay lenses

 

12-24 could be a bit to much, it depends on what you are using the camera for, what kind of field of Photography that you are into? Stay with a 18-55 f2.8 that's my advice

 

Ah thanks for the advice mate. I own a Canon 400D. I would call myself an amateur photographer at best so pretty clueless about len choices.

 

If I am not mistaken, when I initially got the 400D it came with a f2.8 18-55 lens, which I promptly sold on eBay to get my current lens. Kinna regret that now....

 

However, I am now more into close-up family shots. I would be going to Disneyland soon so I am looking for a lens that will take close up wide shots. My current lens is good if you need to zoom but in Disneyland you don't get that much oppurtunity to do so. I find most shots are pretty close up shots requiring a wider angle.

 

I used my current lens last trip and I find myself having to step back a lot - ended up bumping into peeps

 

So your advice is to get a f.28 18-55 lens then? They are pretty cheap atm on fleabay...

[colsoop]

Unfortunately this is the case with SLR cameras - the lenses cost money.

 

I have a wide angle sigma lens which is very good.

 

You don't state what your budget is.

 

You could get hold of a 18 - 55mm EFS lens that would be reasonable for the wider side of things.

 

The efs lenses are designed for the cropped sensor so you wont lose the wide angle side of the lens.

[leelbuk]

All depends on what you are willing to spend really? Also I'd rather have a second hand decent lens than a brand new budget one.

 

How wide do you need the lens to go? 17/18mm is usually fine for fitting people in the frame from quite close.

 

I have a Sigma 10-20mm but it's really not required for people shots, although you can get some interesting effects with it. It's going to prove really useful when I try to take a picture of the Milky Way with it when I go to the USA!

[jonathanc]

Unfortunately this is the case with SLR cameras - the lenses cost money.

 

I have a wide angle sigma lens which is very good.

 

You don't state what your budget is.

 

You could get hold of a 18 - 55mm EFS lens that would be reasonable for the wider side of things.

 

The efs lenses are designed for the cropped sensor so you wont lose the wide angle side of the lens.

 

I'm currently looking at this lens.

 

As for the 18-55 EFS lens, it came with my Canon 400D camera but I sold it off. Wasn't too impressed with the quality of the lens (it feels a bit "cheap"), but hey I could just be too noobish and didn't realise its true value. The one I sold off was not the IS version though if I remembered correctly.

 

I'm thinking of spending around £200 and for that budget I think its best that I get a second hand lens? Or should I just buy this and maybe get a wide angle adaptor for it? It's rather short focal range shouldn't affect the vision as much as my current 28-200? At the moment I everything but the middle bit blurs out if I zoom on my 28-200.

 

Cheers for any input

[colsoop]

What is it specifically you are trying to take photos of.

 

If its just family photos with some scenery in the background then you would probably be ok with the kit lens. its not great but with care can produce ok results.

 

That lens you linked to would be ok. I would budget for a decent filter as wide angle lenses tend to really catch the light on bright days.

 

Remember though the 17 - 35 mm is really more like a 27 - 56mm lens.

 

This lens looks like a bargain. A good flexible alternative to the kit lense a bit of wide angle and the ability for portraiture:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Canon-lens/dp/B0007U0GYS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1269262669&sr=1-4

[jonathanc]

What is it specifically you are trying to take photos of.

 

If its just family photos with some scenery in the background then you would probably be ok with the kit lens. its not great but with care can produce ok results.

 

That lens you linked to would be ok. I would budget for a decent filter as wide angle lenses tend to really catch the light on bright days.

 

Remember though the 17 - 35 mm is really more like a 27 - 56mm lens.

 

This lens looks like a bargain. A good flexible alternative to the kit lense a bit of wide angle and the ability for portraiture:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Canon-lens/dp/B0007U0GYS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1269262669&sr=1-4

 

Aye, I'm looking to take close up of family photos with a bit of background. A "close up landscape" if you will. Problem with my current lens is that it doesn't really fit a lot in (although its great at zooming) at close range. My current lens is great for shots where there's a lot of space to compose the picture but I am heading to Disneyland this summer and as you know its pretty crowded and normally you would have to take the pictures at a rather short range.

 

I know probably compact cameras would excel at this but I was hoping that I could do something with my current setup as well.

 

This is the lens I am using currently on my 400D. I will have a look at the Sigma lens you linked mate but to my understanding that is still a long distance lens thus is having almost the same function as my current one? I won't be doing a lot of zooming since I will generally just be standing just a few feet away from my subject(s).

 

Geesh, sorry if I don't really express myself clearly here... trying my best to explain my requirements I hope you understand

[Thorin]

I'm currently looking at this lens.

 

Doesn't appear to get too good a review. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=95&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

 

I'd consider this one... http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-18-50mm-f2-8-4-5-dc-os-hsm-canon-fit/p1031749

 

Edit: Seems FM don't have a review for this lens, the one I posted before editing was for the constant f2.8 version lens... rather more expensive.

[colsoop]

The above lens looks like it would fit the bill, as it is designed for the crop sensor you will get all of that wide angle too.

18 mm will get you very close.

[jonathanc]

Doesn't appear to get too good a review. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=95&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

 

I'd consider this one... http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-18-50mm-f2-8-4-5-dc-os-hsm-canon-fit/p1031749

 

Edit: Seems FM don't have a review for this lens, the one I posted before editing was for the constant f2.8 version lens... rather more expensive.

 

oooh...thanks for the recommendation! It seems that the lens is more expensive on eBay compared to the site you have linked!

 

The price is in my budget range too. This definitely would work well with my Canon 400D aye?

 

edit: Should I go for the filter as well? Just seems tad expensive at 30 odd quid. I can get a Hoya one from eBay for around 15 quid.

[Thorin]

oooh...thanks for the recommendation! It seems that the lens is more expensive on eBay compared to the site you have linked!

 

The price is in my budget range too. This definitely would work well with my Canon 400D aye?

 

edit: Should I go for the filter as well? Just seems tad expensive at 30 odd quid. I can get a Hoya one from eBay for around 15 quid.

 

It would work with your 400D yes (APS-C sensor).

 

That does seem rather expensive for a filter, I use Hoya Pro1 Digital filters and they're still less than £30.

[jonathanc]

It would work with your 400D yes (APS-C sensor).

 

That does seem rather expensive for a filter, I use Hoya Pro1 Digital filters and they're still less than £30.

 

hmm found another one here for £149 Bristol Cameras...anyone had any experience with them?

 

edit: Hmmm not so good reviews http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews104882.html

[Lbm]

However, I am now more into close-up family shots. I would be going to Disneyland soon so I am looking for a lens that will take close up wide shots. My current lens is good if you need to zoom but in Disneyland you don't get that much oppurtunity to do so. I find most shots are pretty close up shots requiring a wider angle.

 

 

 

 

Just to thow a spanner in the works, but when taking certain portrait shots, you may not want to be in their face with a wide angle as their features can become a bit distorted.

 

Standing back a bit and zooming in is a bit more flattering and of course you can throw the background out of focus more easily. Apologies if I've misunderstood you. And for not being a pro

[jonathanc]

Just to thow a spanner in the works, but when taking certain portrait shots, you may not want to be in their face with a wide angle as their features can become a bit distorted.

 

Standing back a bit and zooming in is a bit more flattering and of course you can throw the background out of focus more easily. Apologies if I've misunderstood you. And for not being a pro

 

Aye, thats true too. But sometimes I want to take a shot where there's a lot of people in it plus some of the background. Zooming doesn't really help there With my current lens to do that normally I would have to stand pretty far back. In busy places like Disneyland people will just walk into your shot most of the time and that could end up pretty frustrating

 

Basically what I want is a lens that could squeeze as many things/people in a shot at close-ish range. The lens doesn't have to be superb in zooming or macro just a wide lens. Kinna like a fish-eye lens I guess.

 

Edit: Not a very good pic but I guess it will do The comparison of a wider angle lens and a "normal" lens. Assuming both pictures are taken from exactly the same spot.

 

Picture on the left shows what my current lens will produce and the right is what I am looking for.

 

http://ferenc.biz/pictures/Tokina-12-24mm-Nikon-Nikkor-18-200mm-lens-comparison.jpg

[keener]

I had a Sigma 17-35 and it was very soft/out of focus around the edges of the frame. I bought it 'cos I wanted a (relatively) cheap wide angle to go with my 28-200. False economy it turned out to be and I bit the bullet and got the Canon 17-40L instead which is brilliant. Probably out of your budget though.

The 18-55 lens that came with your camera is actually a pretty good allrounder. I'd get another one of those or a similar range wide angle.

No way would I put any kind of 'wide angle' filter on a lens. It's just the worst kind of compromise and you probably wont be happy with the results. Also what's the point of putting a cheap UV filter on an expensive lens? You just reduce the light quality entering it and negate the expense of the lens in the process. Get a decent UV filter and it'd help the image quality as well as protect the lens element.

I'd also advise away from doing wide angle portraits apart from your reason of getting some background in as well. Remember though that the 'head size' will be relatively small in such a group photo so you wont be able to enlarge it much later and close portraits with a wide angle distort facial features horribly.