need help re: cheap wide angled lens

[clengster_77]

hi! i just joined your forum today. i'm cleng, i live in the philippines but now i'm here in california to vist some of my relatives. i just got my camera 2 weeks ago. i have a canon DRXT w/c came with the EF 18-55, i have a sigma 70 - 300 with MACRO (the one with the red ring) and recently i got a Canon 50mm 1.8 (GOT ALL MY LENSES AT CANOGA CAMERA MY CAMERA AT STAPLES) so basically that's all what i have in my bag right now. i'm trying to look for a cheap but decent wide angled lense coz when i get back to my country i'm planning to shoot some weddings for extra income. thanks a lot and more power to the board

thanks
cleng

[cox]

I don't know what your definition of cheap is (though the 50mm 1.8 is cheap and a good lens), but I have the canon 20-35, which isn't too expensive, especially if you find one used. Perhaps someone can comment on an equivalent Sigma?

BTW, if you buy used, don't be shy about asking to test the lens first, and make sure it works okay for you. I have had compatibility problems with Sigma and Tamron on Canon cameras.

[MatsP]

I'm a little bit confused here... You have an 18-55 lens at the moment. That's pretty wide in my view. So how much wider do you want to go? Anything meaningfully wider than that will be quite expensive, whatever you get.

There's a Sigma 12-24 that would possibly fit your bill. Expect to pay $700+ for this one.

There's also a Sigma 10-20 for about $500.

Or the Canon EF-S 10-22. This lens will only fit certain Canon cameras: Digital Rebel[XT]/3x0D and 20D. Expect to pay just above $700 for this lens.

Tamron makes a 11-18mm, which retails around $570.

Tokina has a 12-24 at $500.

I own none of the above lenses, so I can't say anything about their performance. But I would like to know under what circumstances you'd like to use this lens in a wedding scenario, and you expect to use less than the 18 mm that your stock lens gives you. Landscapes or city-scapes I can sort of understand why you want something wider. But for "people" photos, you don't want to go too wide, as it tends to give a somewhat distorted look...

--
Mats

[Anders Östberg]

If you need a fast wide angle lens (indoors with low light for instance) you could also consider a fixed focal length lens like Canon 35/2 or one of Sigma's 20/1.8, 24/1.8 and 28/1.8. A little more money and you can buy the Sigma 30/1.4. None of them are very wide on your camera though, more like a normal lens.

[clengster_77]

thanks for all of your replies, so i think my kit lens is enough for group pics.

thanks
cleng

[MatsP]

Anything much wider than 18mm will make the people standing on the far sides look very different front the ones near the middle, which is "ugly".

You'll just have to "zoom with your feet" if you need to get more people in the picture... ;-)

--
Mats

[clengster_77]

Originally Posted by MatsP

Anything much wider than 18mm will make the people standing on the far sides look very different front the ones near the middle, which is "ugly".

You'll just have to "zoom with your feet" if you need to get more people in the picture... ;-)

--
Mats

thanks a lot mats! one more question, which is easier to use, the TV or the AV setting?

cleng

[MatsP]

Tv, Av, M and P all have their own situations when they are "best", and it's not quite as simple as just saying one is easier to use than the other. They allow you different amounts of control over how the camera.

M is "Manual", you decide what aperture and time to use, and the camera will give you advice on whether you're over, under or correctly exposing the shot. It's your own decision on what you choose to do. This works best for photos where "you know better than the camera". An example would be where you know that the lights change a lot, say a rock-music show or a fireworks display. If you rely on the camera to expose this correctly, it will probably get it more often wrong than right. Set it manually to something that you "know" works, and you'll get better exposures.

I have also used M-mode for "night/indoor flash exposure", where you use the manual setting to get the time/aperture as you want it, and use the flash to fill in the "remaining light". The camera is pretty "stupid" when it comes to deciding what time/aperture should be used for flash exposure, often choosing a short time (1/60 or 1/125), whilst I may want a longer time (for a wide-angle lens). This makes a more "natural" look of the picture, because more of the exposure comes from the natural light in the scene, and less from the flash.

P is the "Program", which is "fully automatic", the camera chooses as best as it can as to what aperture and what time you need to use. In this mode, the length of the lens is one of the parameters the camera tries to accommodate, using the principle of 1/focal_length s of exposure, so if you use a lens that is 50mm, the camera will try to use a time of 1/50 or faster. If you use a 100mm lens, the camera will try to achieve 1/100 or faster. You _can_ shift this with the wheel by the shutter, so if you want to use 1/50 on a 100mm lens, you twiddle the wheel so that the camera selects 1/50 instead of whatever it choose for you. The aperture will, in this example, also shift to a smaller aperture, so that the exposure is constant.

I'd use P-mode when shooting snapshots and general shots where you "don't really care" what the camera does to the time or aperture. Of course, for a professional photographer, this is probably never true. But I'm an amateur... ;-)

Tv mode, "Time Variable" is where you pick the time, and the camera will pick an aperture to correctly expose the picture. This is particularly useful for instance in sports/action photography, where you don't want the camera to choose a "too fast" or "too slow" time. If you know that pictures come out about right at 1/500, you can select 1/500, and the camera will choose an aperture that is appropriate for the light conditions. Another example where this would be useful is if you're trying to "freeze flowing water", where you'd select a relatively long time and small aperture. You'd probably vary the time around from a slightly longer to slightly shorter time, to make sure that the water is frozen to the "right amount".

Av, "Aperture Variable" is the "opposite" to Tv, you pick and aperture, and the camera will pick the suitable time to expose the image correctly. Cases where you'd use this is where you want to control depth of field. For example, in city-/land-scape, you may want a great depth of field, so you choose a small aperture (such as f/16). Again, you can easily change the aperture to "try" different settings.

In conclusion, there are times when one setting is better than another, but they are all as easy or hard as you make them... If you use the "wrong" mode, the camera will probably take a decently exposed picture (aside from if you use M-mode with the wrong time/aperture combination), but you're ending up having to think more, and/or twiddle the shutter-wheel more.

--
Mats

[clengster_77]

thanks a lot mats! you made me understand where you use those settings for now

one more thing... have you tried using a Sigma AF 24-70mm f3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF Zoom Lens?

[MatsP]

I did write a long reply, but that seems to have got lost. Essentially, what are you trying to cover with the 24-70 that you haven't already got? If you're after covering the 55-70 range, I'd say "Don't bother".

There are three reasons to buy another lens:
1. It gives a range that you haven't covered yet. You have 18 - 300 mm essenitally all covered. Extending the range would allow you to take photos (of the same subject) from a different distance than the current setup.
2. It has a bigger (lower number) aperture, such as a 24-70/2.8. This would allow you to take photos at lower light conditions.
3. It adds some valuable feature, such as a "real" macro lens (60/2.8 Macro or 100/2.8 Macro lenses from Canon for example), or Tilt-shift lenses.

I don't think the range of 55-70 mm is "needed". You should be able to get the same shot by "zooming with your feet" in 99% of the cases, and cropping in the remaining 1% of the cases (such cases would be where there is a wall or other obstacle preventing you from gettting further away or closer to the subject).

--
Mats

[clengster_77]

Originally Posted by MatsP

I did write a long reply, but that seems to have got lost. Essentially, what are you trying to cover with the 24-70 that you haven't already got? If you're after covering the 55-70 range, I'd say "Don't bother".

There are three reasons to buy another lens:
1. It gives a range that you haven't covered yet. You have 18 - 300 mm essenitally all covered. Extending the range would allow you to take photos (of the same subject) from a different distance than the current setup.
2. It has a bigger (lower number) aperture, such as a 24-70/2.8. This would allow you to take photos at lower light conditions.
3. It adds some valuable feature, such as a "real" macro lens (60/2.8 Macro or 100/2.8 Macro lenses from Canon for example), or Tilt-shift lenses.

I don't think the range of 55-70 mm is "needed". You should be able to get the same shot by "zooming with your feet" in 99% of the cases, and cropping in the remaining 1% of the cases (such cases would be where there is a wall or other obstacle preventing you from gettting further away or closer to the subject).

--
Mats

thanks, so i think i have enough lenses to play with, i think i'll just learn how to use it to have a nice shot.

cleng