# Canon 400D - Wide Angle Lens suggestions



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Right - another thread about camera gear :lol:

Xmas is soon approaching, and i'm contemplating the idea of a decent wide angle lens for my 400D. I won't be buying it, as it'll hopefully be a present from someone , but i need your help!

Can you recommend me a good quality lens, that isn't horrendous amounts of money, and i don't need an L series lens either, as i'm no pro, not even amateur! :lol:

Ideally, it's main purpose would be for photographing cars, but would be good if it could be used for normal use too, if that's possible?

As you can all tell, i've no idea what i'm on about! :lol:

Thanks in advance all :thumb:


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

How wide d'ya want to go?
I have a sigma 17-70 f2.8 which I really like. Much better than the standard kit 18-55. Lot's of good reports about the sigma 10-22 if you want really wide. Both under £300 I think.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

yeah the sigma is gonna be your best bet.


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

No idea how wide really. Not too wide, as i've heard you can get distortion in the centre of the image.

Is the 17-70 a good lens, that could be kept on the camera for everyday shooting too, or would i be better off using the 18-55 for that?


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

if you already have the 18-55 then the extra 1mm of the 17-70 will make feck all difference, if you're looking to go wide then the sigma is a no brainer.


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Swiftshine mentions 2 Sigma's - so you're saying to go for the 10-22?

EDIT: The 10-22 is £420 on the site i just found it on.


----------



## ade33 (Jun 4, 2008)

'nother vote for the Sigma 10-22. Super bit of kit and good value. :thumb:


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Where did you get yours Ade and what sort of price - are they around £420, or is that too expensive?

I've had a read of some reviews for it, and people are suggesting the Canon is better, but more expensive.


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

The Sigma 10-20 is a great lens, gives a 35mm equivalent of 16-32mm on a Canon. 
I haven't done a full search, just looked on Amazon and they have it for £301.48, and I daresay you'll be able to beat that with a bit of hunting around.
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM - Canon fit lens: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo

If you go on Talk Photography http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/ and do a search, there are a couple of threads of photos taken with the Sigma showing the sort of views and effects you can get. I daresay there are some other online reviews of it around that will include sample shots. 
'Tis a cracking lens though :thumb:


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Cheers Mick - will take a browse over there tomorrow, when i get a minute :thumb:


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

Found the thread I was on about http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=58367 :thumb:


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Thanks Mick - i just got to page 6 on there! :lol:

Some awesome photography on that thread!


----------



## mazda3_daveg (Jul 17, 2008)

Sigma 10-20mm is a cracking lens if it's the focal length you are after.

They did have a lot of manufacturing issues when I bought mine, hopefully that has been sorted now:

http://www.davidgowenlock.co.uk/content/view/9/14/





































P.S. With Jessops current promotion you get the lens for £303 delivered with peace of mind since you can take it to any Jessops branch should you have issues.


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

David - great pics there!

Think this is the lens to go for then.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

10-22 is a great focal legth - I had the Canon version - but it is a HARD lens to use...

Ultra wide angle gives a field of view of about 120 degrees (almost 3x what we see out of our eyes), so includes masses of stuff in the frame that you never saw in the scene in the first place. The shots above all share 1 thing in common - very little background. Most of it is sky or in fact the foreground rocks. Using these focal lengths in everyday images is MUCH tougher than people think and to take pics like those above requires a lot of skill.

I LOVE ultra wide angle images and now have a 17-40mm lens for my full frame Canon, but 90% of the images I take are still crap, despite using them for 10+ years... I'm NOT saying to avoid them, but rally just a warning - expect to have to put in a lot of practice to get quality images.

Check out some of the groups on Flickr that specialise in ultra wide photography for some tips. Its a LOT of money to spend on a lens that will probably annoy the hell out of you for a while


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Thanks for the advice Damon :thumb:

I'll get onto the groups a little later, when i get home then. As i've said, i'm a complete beginner really, but it's something i'd love to get into more and be good at - my 400D rarely get's taken off of Auto if i'm honest, but the pics still look superb, IMO anyway! :lol:


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

^^ Mark - I strongly suggest you avoid the trap that everyone falls into and buy more lenses then, at least for a little while. You will get far more from spending the time, and a fraction of the money, on learning the proper use of the camera. Probably THE best investment I ever made in my photography was joining one of the quality online photo courses like Betterphoto or PPSOP as these courses teach you everything you need to know and make you go out and take photos every week for critiqued assignments. Having a top pro help you learn is invaluable. THEN buy the kit...trust me that there were kids with cheap crap compacts taking better photos as a result of the learning process in 4 weeks than people I know who have been self taught over years and have £10k+ of gear


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

I'll take a look into those courses too - what sort of cost are they?

I have got a DVD on the 400D, how to use it on all the settings etc, but just haven't had a chance to look at it yet.


----------



## [email protected] (May 30, 2006)

thanks for that advice mate,

lookied into some of those courses, and betterphoto.com offer a couple of specific courses for my Canon 450D, so i may just enrol in the new year!

i was gonna buy a new lens, but may be much safer doing this instead!


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

I've done courses at both with several of the pro's on there. 

I like the structure of emailed lessons, weekly assignments and then specific feedback from the pro's and your coursemates. 

TBH, its the practice and feedback that is key, but unless pushed by something like these programmes, we rarely actually put the time in. I was taking probably 100 pics per week for these assignments and my photography went up leaps and bounds. One of the pics I took also won me a competition afterwards


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Sounds superb Damon - feedback is what you need, especially from Pro's. Will definately look into these then. 

Only thing i'd struggle with, is taking the pics, as i don't really have much free time, working 55 hours per week, gym 3 times per week and the good old detailing at weekends!


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

beardboy said:


> Sounds superb Damon - feedback is what you need, especially from Pro's. Will definately look into these then.
> 
> Only thing i'd struggle with, is taking the pics, as i don't really have much free time, working 55 hours per week, gym 3 times per week and the good old detailing at weekends!


if you dont do the assignments there's no real point. I was doing it on top of a crazy schedule, but you just need to get creative. Look for ideas on your journeys, carry the camera as much as possible, set stuff up indoors etc. You should be able to find time if you put your 'seeing eyes' on, or wait until spring when there's more light etc later in the evenings so yo can go out after work. IIRC they typically asked for 1-3 images uploaded per week.


----------



## ade33 (Jun 4, 2008)

I got mine from here.......

Digital Rev

.......on the Bay of E but if mazda3_daveg reckons you can get them for £303 from Jessops that's gotta be the way to go. I thought Digital Rev were cheap but they've got them Canon fit on their eBay shop for £339 inc the post from HK.


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

That's another of my problems - creativity. I see images that are amazing, and wish i could get pics like that, but my creative side is lacking somewhat.

I've got some great places around Bath, that'd make great pics - so i'll have to see what i can come up with, but as you say, spring might be the best time to wait, as the evenings will be lighter.


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Thanks for the Link Ade. Will take a look at that.


----------



## mazda3_daveg (Jul 17, 2008)

Bigpikle said:


> 10-22 is a great focal legth - I had the Canon version - but it is a HARD lens to use...


+1. When I bought the lens it didn't get used much as the photos I took with it were very weak. It 'pushes' everything into the distance and makes everything tiny. After some practice however I got used to it, and it taught me a lot about perspective and composition along the way. Make sure you pick up a decent polariser if you get one.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store...m f4-5.6 EX DC HSM (Canon AF)-20268/Show.html

As a side note, for anything Canon check out Kerso:

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/FLASH-CAMERA

I bought my 70-200mm F4L from him and got a great deal. He's well known amoung photography forums.


----------



## mazda3_daveg (Jul 17, 2008)

beardboy said:


> That's another of my problems - creativity.


This is what I struggle with, I am quite technically minded so understand the camera inside out. I would take lots of pictures that were all well exposed, sharp etc etc but weren't interesting to look at!

I think it all just takes practice, the more you take the more you understand what you like and how to take it. I learn best from trying something rather than reading it in a book so try and get out there with the camera as much as possible.

As another side note do you have a photo printer? If not you should definitley consider one. Before I bought mine the pictures just sat on my hard drive. When I started printing them to put on the wall and make cards out of etc I really started to develop my eye. I suppose it was because I was paying more attention to the photos rather than just taking 'snap shots'.


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Thanks for the links Dave :thumb:

I do have a photo printer, albeit a few years old now. It's an Epson R300, but also have an R360 too - both are good quality. I might start printing some out then, once i've taken some good ones with the 18-55 to start with.

I think i might go for the 10-20 anyway, and then learn more about it all, so at least then i have a lens for most occasions. :lol:

All depends on the £ of it and how generous the old man is feeling for Xmas!


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

beardboy said:


> No idea how wide really. Not too wide, as i've heard you can get distortion in the centre of the image.
> 
> Is the 17-70 a good lens, that could be kept on the camera for everyday shooting too, or would i be better off using the 18-55 for that?


Yes, the 17-70 is a cracker for the cash and would be an excellent replacement for the kit 18-55.
Wider aperture gives you more options for exposures and DoF and the longer focal length is quite handy. As some folk have said the 10-20 is quite a specialized lens, and you may find it is not of much use to you, while the 17-70 definitely would be. Sharper all round too:thumb:
You pays your money..........

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1012228

Can be found cheaper but these guys are good and reliable.


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

I think i need to buy the 17-70 and the 10-20 then :lol:


----------



## mazda3_daveg (Jul 17, 2008)

Haha, lenses are like wax, you can never have too many of them!


----------



## Pauly_G (Jul 8, 2006)

beardboy said:


> I think i need to buy the 17-70 and the 10-20 then :lol:


That's what I did!

Bought an 40D body with the Sigma 17-70mm, then a month later I felt I needed something a bit wider and plumped for the Sigma 10-20mm. Since then the 10-20mm has actually been on the body much more than the 17-70mm.

Generally the Ultra-wide lenses can take a bit of getting used to - very big DOF and can struggle to auto-focus, plus there's just sooo much in the frame. Saying this I find it a really fun lens to use creating lots of different possibilities. Here's a couple of recent shots I took with this lens...



















Whilst the 17-70 is a good lens at a great price, I find the sharpness and colours of the 10-20 a step up and overall build quality generally better (well it is an EX lens).

So to conclude.....pick up both and then all you'll need is a decent telephoto - something like a 70-200mm!

Be warned, photography can be a bit of a money pit...

Cheers

Paul


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Thanks Paul :thumb:

I've got a 70-300 telephoto lens already, that was the first i bought. 

My old man is in to photography and used to do loads, but now he just buys really expensive camera's and lenses and puts me to shame. :lol:

Where in Bristol are you from Paul?


----------



## Philgr (Apr 9, 2006)

I Have the Sigma 10-20mm 

Excellent lens :thumb:


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

^^ like that 2nd one 

Mark - see what I mean about foreground and background? 2 great shots and what do they have in common again 

I dug out a few from my old Canon 10-22mm on my 20D...


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Great shots Damon :thumb:

I see what you mean about the foreground/background now


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

beardboy said:


> Great shots Damon :thumb:
> 
> I see what you mean about the foreground/background now


try this....

turn you head about 45 degrees to the left without moving your body, then slowly move it until you are looking about 45 degrees to the right. EVERTHING you just saw as you moved your head (and a little bit more in fact) will be in your photograph with a lens like the 10-20mm 

I LOVE ultra wide angle but you have to work out how to see things to take into account the field of view i gives...and of course the main subject often looks very small.....


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Gave that a go :thumb:

Felt like an idiot doing it, but it gives you a good idea of what you'll get 

If i get a chance tomorrow, i think i'll nip into my local camera store and see if i can have a fiddle with one of their lenses on the 400D, to see what it's actually like in real life, and if it does what i want it to do! :lol:

Thanks


----------

