# Recommend me a lens



## Delboy_Trotter (Jun 7, 2007)

Right im currently looking around for my next lens purchase and am after a bit of advice.

I have a Canon 400D, currently with Canon 18-55 and Canon 75-300 lenses, now the 18-55 takes care of the normal point and shoot as well as allowing a bit of messing about with arty farty pics, and the 75-300 deals with the zoom work (mainly motor sport) i do, (would love a 100-400 IS but at 1500 quid i cant justify the cost), so im now after a lens to do the wide angle stuff now i have been looking at the following options:-

This One

or this one

opinions/ideas?


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

The sigma 10-20, the first one is a 28mm lens so on a DX body you ahve the 1.6 x crop factor so it will actually give you the equivalent focal length of 45mm which isn't wide in anyone's book!


----------



## Delboy_Trotter (Jun 7, 2007)

Ta - im a complete numpty when it comes to lenses - thats why i ask for advice so i don't make a mistake!


----------



## BRYHER (Aug 19, 2008)

Hi Delboy Trotter 
Have a look at this ,supposed to be very good and a fast lens too (aperture wider than most) http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_43&products_id=462
Hope this helps 
Michael


----------



## surgemaster (Jul 5, 2006)

Have a look here m8 just bought mine from him (£869 + £20 p/p)& will do a deal outside of ebay if asked (UK seller) :thumb:


----------



## Delboy_Trotter (Jun 7, 2007)

Don't tempt me!:lol: If i had the money i would!


----------



## Mike V (Apr 7, 2007)

I have the sigma 10-20 and its so much fun. Get close to cars and put an interesting spin on things or go out and shoot landscapes. Its a winner.

I got mine from amazon for £380 IIRC.


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

I've got a Canon EF 100-400L IS for sale.
I hardly ever use it as I've got my EF 500mm L IS permanently attached to my camera these days.
The lens is in immaculate condition. I am Looking for £800 OVNO 
I am also selling the following lens.
Canon EF 17 - 40mm f/4 L USM
Price £390 
Boxed and in excellent Condition throughout (again lack of usage as I bought the 16-35 L f/2.8 )

PM me for details if you are interested


----------



## ric type r (May 16, 2007)

I bought my 100-400 on ebay, Mint condition £600 delivered, If you are patient, Or retired like me, You can get a real bargain. And it is a brilliant lens.
Example of the shots you can get plus 1.4 extender.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

I had the Canon 10-22mm for my crop bodies and it was an awesome lens. Build and overall quality were superb, but it comes at a price...

TBH, make sure you know how to use it properly first. True wide angle is THE hardest focal length to compose effectively, as EVERYTHING ends up in the frame, and it means you need good eyes and skill to come up with a powerful composition. I love wide and ultra wide angle stuff but its taken me a long time to get good at using it, and still dont achieve anywhere near what i want to much of the time - with 4-5 years use. Getting in close and making everything look strange is a novelty that wears off very quickly and leaves you wondering why you paid £300+ for a lens 

Now with the full frame body I have a 17-40 f4L and that is also superb, albeit it a bit big compared to the DX lenses. 

Make sure you REALLY want to use it before you buy one. Try taking your 18-55mm and using it ONLY at 18mm for a while and see what you think. If you are constantly finding yourself zooming in then save your £ and dont buy the lens. If you are coming back with quality images and getting success, then go for it :thumb:


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

I'd replace your everyday lens with one with a f/2.8 one and better glass, kit lenses are never great quality

personally recommend canon 24-70 f/2.8 usm :thumb:



ric type r said:


>


far too much image resizing!


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

buckas said:


> I'd replace your everyday lens with one with a f/2.8 one and better glass, kit lenses are never great quality
> 
> personally recommend canon 24-70 f/2.8 usm :thumb:
> 
> far too much image resizing!


dont agree on lens choice - wrong focal lengths for the DX cameras and that is a HUGE heavy lens...

get the 17-55 f2.8 (IIRC) from Canon - much better AND much cheaper for your camera.....if you have to have a f2.8 lens of course 

agree on the resizing - holy pixelated batman :lol:


----------



## Mutts (Apr 5, 2008)

I was looking more at the halo around the whole bike - look at the rear number plate & around the wheels - too much unsharp mask 

You want a smaller radius figure & a higher percentage instead :thumb:

*lens*

As others have said, you have a 1.6x conversion factor to think of.. if you want something the equivalent of 28mm Full Frame - what you would have gotten on ye olde film camera.. *phhtooooeey*  , you'll need to bear that in mind & work backwards from there..

a 28mm lens will give the equivalent of 44.8mm FF

To get 28mm FF you need to go 1.6x wider than that.. 28 :- (divide) 1.6 = 17.5mm

So to go wide you'll need something 17mm or wider.

If you got an EFs 18-55 lens with the body, I think.. but could be wrong.. I think the EF's lens where made specially for the Digi SLR range & had some sort of compensation built in?? - but thats only Canon lenses AFAIK.

A Prime (fixed zoom) lens would no doubt have better optical quality & therefore less image degredation before hitting the sensor.. but dont rule out a decent super wide zoom.. which will more than likely be cheaper & would deffinately be more versatile..

F stop - dont worry too much unless you shoot a lot at night.. f2.8 or less is of corse the holy grail & what you wanna aim for, but the larger optical surface increases the cost - A LOT! 

Been having a quick surf on tinternet.. as having left Jessops 3 years ago now - I've somewhat lost touch of what is around  - but have found this..

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

Would be the equivalent of 16-32mm full frame :thumb:

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10-20mmEX.htm

example shot taken on a 20D










They seem to go on ebay for around £250 + about £40 postage from hong kong..

But there is one at the moment at a lower price & in the UK

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sigma-10-20mm...=39:1|66:2|65:2|240:1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

I don't know the seller or anything & dont accept any responsibilty for any failures etc having posted this link.. was just a suggestion 

HTH

Mutts.

*edit* - that ebay link has it listed as a nikon fit? - might be worth double checking with the seller but he did say he had it on a 400D


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

Bigpikle said:


> dont agree on lens choice - wrong focal lengths for the DX cameras and that is a HUGE heavy lens...
> 
> get the 17-55 f2.8 (IIRC) from Canon - much better AND much cheaper for your camera.....if you have to have a f2.8 lens of course
> 
> agree on the resizing - holy pixelated batman :lol:


LOL, huge and heavy? what are you, a midget?

huge + heavy is my 70-200 f/2.8 is usm, try holding that for over 2000 shots at a rally all day


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

I agree with bigpikle, for an amatuer hobbyist ens the 24-70 is BIG, i have the nikon 24-70 for my D700 and it is also a bit beast.

On a DX lens the 24 will be more like 40mm so not wide at all!

the 17-55 is a far more suitable suggestion for a DX body!


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

...esp on a 400D - that thing is a tiny body and totally unbalanced with a big lump of fast glass.

I have a full suite of L lenses so know how heavy they are - not just on the camera but carrying a bag of them around


----------



## Delboy_Trotter (Jun 7, 2007)

Ta for the advice so far guys.

Re the 100 - 400 IS, its a lens i would like, but the budget won't run to it atm, going to save for one, i have used one before as my mates dad has one and know how heavy it is, but i love the range of it.

I know for some the 400D is a bit on the small side but i like the feel of it, a battery grip is on the cards to balance the bigger lenses.

Yeah i'll try and have a play before i buy - see what my friends dad has!:lol:


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

Canon 10-22 @ 17mm - its actually a straight row of shops


----------



## Mutts (Apr 5, 2008)

Whats wrong with that..

..its a really nice curve that! 

I see what you mean - for 28mm equivalent, thats pretty bad distortion.

Wide angle prime all the way


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

it's not distortion technically...it always happens when the camera is tilted from horizontal. Distortion would be the corners or edges being out of proportion with rest. This lens is one of the best quality ultra wide zooms available, without paying massive premiums for f2.8 lenses!

I like the effect in this shot but composing with ultra wides is tough and many people soon get tired of just this look. I have full frame now with a 17-40L and it's a gorgeous lens


----------



## m500dpp (Feb 17, 2006)

what about wide angle convertors, pretty cheap on the bay and for occassional use worth a try? yes I know you loose some image quality, but as a means of trying the wide angle look surely worth getting before taking the plunge on an expensive lens?


----------



## Ebbe J (Jun 18, 2008)

As Bigpikle says, the Canon 10 - 22 is a winner for 1.6x bodies.. If the 17 - 55 wasn't such a dust-sucker, it would be a nice lens. I had one, and after 3 weeks there were nice little spots on my photos.. Not a winner. 


Kind regards,

Ebbe Jörgensen


----------



## C6REW (Mar 13, 2007)

I you have not sorted yourself out try the Tokina 12 - 24 pro lens. Great price and superb results. Much recommended on a few big photography forums.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## SixDegrees (Oct 13, 2008)

Slight at a tangent but it might help. The 'crop' factor that people go on about doesn't really exist.... its simply because you have a smaller chip, so you get less of the shot in frame, ie its looks 'cropped' compared to 25mm SLR picture.

Now, this is an issue if you've been using a SLR and can see the difference; stand in the same spot and use a DSLR and and SLR, same focal length lens, and you'll have an effective maginifcation (or crop) of 1.6x on the DSLR.

Now, if you've never used an SLR and all you photography experience has been with PaS and DSLR then you can ignore the crop factor and the issue of a 10-22mm in fact being a 16-35.2mm.... it simply doesn't exist for you so 10-22mm wide angle is 10-22mm. where you place yourself to take the pic is the only factor you need to worry about.

So, with that in mind it may open up some other lenses which you might have discounted because you thought the crop factor would render the wide angle less that its stated value.

Anyway, probably get some counter arguement on this but hey, thats what forums are for.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

SixDegrees said:


> Slight at a tangent but it might help. The 'crop' factor that people go on about doesn't really exist.... its simply because you have a smaller chip, so you get less of the shot in frame, ie its looks 'cropped' compared to 25mm SLR picture.
> 
> Now, this is an issue if you've been using a SLR and can see the difference; stand in the same spot and use a DSLR and and SLR, same focal length lens, and you'll have an effective maginifcation (or crop) of 1.6x on the DSLR.
> 
> ...


you are correct in the fact that the focal length of the lens does't change. However getting down to brass tacks it is an issue because at the end of the day it does have an effect on how wide a photo you can take.

So for beginners i think your explination just further confuses the matter since a 10-20 sigma wouldn't work properly on a full frame DSLR.


----------



## SixDegrees (Oct 13, 2008)

rmorgan84 said:


> you are correct in the fact that the focal length of the lens does't change. However getting down to brass tacks it is an issue because at the end of the day it does have an effect on how wide a photo you can take.
> 
> So for beginners i think your explination just further confuses the matter since a 10-20 sigma wouldn't work properly on a full frame DSLR.


Very ture, but not many beginners start out with full-frame DSLRs.

The point I was trying to make is that you there really isn't a need to worry about the crop factor or the bit that says '"equivalent to a XXX in 35mm format" if you've never shot 35mm format as you you don't have a point of reference.

10-22mm, especially if its a DX format lens is simply that, its 10-22mm in the world of starter digital photography.

I was like this when I started out, trying to figure out what it all meant and how my shots would be affected until an experienced photographer pointed out its a big red-herring unless you're coming from 35mm or have full-frame.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

SixDegrees said:


> Very ture, but not many beginners start out with full-frame DSLRs.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is that you there really isn't a need to worry about the crop factor or the bit that says '"equivalent to a XXX in 35mm format" if you've never shot 35mm format as you you don't have a point of reference.
> 
> ...


yeah it is a case of it has less of a impact for people who have never been exposed to 35mm SLR.

But one thing to be careful of with you point about forgetting the focal lengths is that for instance a 200mm DX lens has a "focal length" of 300mm so when working out minimum shutter speeds to avoid camera shake/motion blur you have to treat it as a 300mm lens not 200mm.


----------

