Low cost wide angle lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jalagl, Mar 4, 2008.

  1. jalagl macrumors 6502a


    Jun 5, 2003
    Costa Rica
    Hi All,

    Do you guys have any recommendations on a low cost wide angle lens for a Canon 350D? I have an upcoming trip where I think this type of lens will be useful (one of the stops will be in Petra, Jordan, along with other stops in Europe), but I have a limited budget at this point in time. I am looking to spend around $300 on the lens. I have the kit lens (18-55mm) and a 50mm f/1.8.

    I looked at the Tokina 12-24mm f/4, Sigma 10-20mm, and Canon 10-22mm, but all of them are $450+ and I'd rather stick to my budget. Is there any other decent wide angle lens out there?
  2. CrackedButter macrumors 68040


    Jan 15, 2003
    51st State of America
    Not for the price you're asking, and it depends on what you mean by 'decent'.
  3. NeXTCube macrumors member

    May 14, 2002
    Upstate NY
    Those are pretty much it if you're looking at new lenses. You may be able to find an older Sigma 12-24 lens floating around somewhere. But it's a full-frame lens, and therefore a MONSTER. Plus, it's an old design; the newer 10-20 DC lens is a much better performer. The Canon 10-22 is the best of the bunch, but you pay for it.

    The short answer is, there's no such thing as a cheap ultrawide (under $400), decent or otherwise.
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020


    Nov 14, 2003
    Washington, DC
    There's also the questionably manufactured, manual-only Russian/Belorussian lenses:

    Zenitar 16mm fisheye and Peleng 8mm fisheye.

    That or used. I think those are your options.
  5. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Jan 5, 2006
    Redondo Beach, California
    Looks like you should be shopping for a used lens. The best place is on-line forums like this one but for Canon users and at local camera shops. The trouble is that with a crop-body like the 350 you can't use a very old lens because if it was made for film it will not be wide enough so you will be looking for a current model lens. You should be able to find one for about 2/3 the price of a new one
  6. jalagl thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jun 5, 2003
    Costa Rica
    I thought that was the case, but well, it was worth asking anyway.

    Thanks for the tip, I'll hit the net to see if I can find a good deal.
  7. tjespo22 macrumors 6502a


    Jun 27, 2007
    Staten Island NY

    these are the old cheap wide angles or fisheyes taht i know about also. they are MF only though. well i know the zenitar is.

  8. canoeman macrumors newbie

    Feb 17, 2008

    All good advice. I'm sure some will take exception to my thoughts, but it may depend on how much you really think you need the extra wide angle.

    I am a nikon owner and did a tourist trip to NZ and Australia with a 24-120 mm VR lens. It was a wonderful lens but I found myself wanting to back up a little to get the whole cathedral in, or get a little closer to get the whole kangaroo in the picture. The 18-200 nikon VR came out by the time I got back so I decided to get on the list and bought one of the early ones. I find that it does everything I wanted as a touring lens, I can't remember not having wide enough angle. (I have a 20mm on a full-frame film camera that has a wider view, but I don't find that I need that unless I want to take a picture of the whole ship from the gangplank.) That 18-200 range isn't available as a canon lens, and the alternatives, I think, are still out of the budget.

    The point of the post is that the 18 mm you already have may do everything you need for touring, you may want to consider going the longer direction. I use polarizing filters a lot, and graduated neutral density filters at times, and I find that I have vignetting problems below 20-24 mm zoom anyway. That may be peculiar to that particular lens because it is physically long. Would like to hear other thoughts on these things.
  9. zdobson macrumors 6502

    Nov 9, 2007
    Get a prime. You should be able to get a 20 or 24mm f/2.8 in your budged. The quailty with a prime is much better than a cheap zoom. I shot a 24 f2.8 for years before buying my pro equipment. I think I paid $230 used. That was with a film body, though, so I that's why I mentioned maybe getting a 20mm.
  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location
    Stick with your 18-55 mm. 18~mm is actually sort of wide. It's even wider on a Nikon, but not by much.

    Your 20 mm only has a wider view on a film camera, or on the D3. It's not wider on any other Nikon DSLR.

    I say buy a used wide-angle, or just stick with your 18-55 mm. You could also buy a lens with a longer focal length, just in case.
  11. juanster macrumors 68020


    Mar 2, 2007
    i was thinking of the same thing, buta fter reading this thread i think im going to stick to my 18-55 kit that it came with and my next purchse will either be the 50 mm 1/8 II (like 100 bucks) or the battery grip (140 i think)
  12. canoeman macrumors newbie

    Feb 17, 2008

    Right. On my digital, the 18 is somewhere around what a 27-28 on a film camera would be, and that seems plenty for all the touring I have done. A 12 mm digital wide angle would be close to the 20 mm film lens and I found that I didn't use it all that much. I would rather have more length along.

Share This Page