which of this too cheap canon lenses is better

[munkees]

I have :

Canon EF 28-80mm ultrasonic II
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS

which of these too is the better lens?

 

[iBookG4user]

The 18-55mm is the better of the two.

 

[munkees]

what would be a better ultra wide/ wide angle lens on a low budget for my canon t1i, I want to shoot good landscape.

 

[iBookG4user]

what would be a better ultra wide/ wide angle lens on a low budget for my canon t1i, I want to shoot good landscape.

In that price range, the 18-55mm IS would be the best that you could get. But if you don't mind getting a used lens, I would highly recommend checking out the Sigma 17-70mm ƒ/2.8-4.5 (non-OS version, as the non-OS version is sharper). I've used that lens before and it is really sharp considering the price and focal length. That's one of the few lenses that I regret selling.

 

[davegoody]

what would be a better ultra wide/ wide angle lens on a low budget for my canon t1i, I want to shoot good landscape.

If you can stretch to it, you might want to try the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. It is around £500 new in the UK but you may find a cheaper version online / second user. I use it as my ultra-wide and it is STUNNING. IQ is amazing. The first example I had was a bit soft, but I sent it back and the second one is so very very VERY sharp. I use it on a 7d and the combination of low ISO at f2.8 is incredible.

 

[AxisOfBeagles]

what would be a better ultra wide/ wide angle lens on a low budget for my canon t1i

On an APSC sensor, neither is really an ultra-wide angle.

 

[jampat]

If you can stretch to it, you might want to try the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. It is around £500 new in the UK but you may find a cheaper version online / second user. I use it as my ultra-wide and it is STUNNING. IQ is amazing. The first example I had was a bit soft, but I sent it back and the second one is so very very VERY sharp. I use it on a 7d and the combination of low ISO at f2.8 is incredible.

If he's shooting primarily landscapes, 2.8 is not needed. You are talking about stretching the budget by about 600%, that's more than a stretch for most people. It is a great lens, but not what the OP needs.

OP the 18-55 IS is a fantastic lens for the money. When stopped down for landscape shots, the relative differences between lenses collapse dramatically. (Not to say they are not visible, just that they are much more visible when lenses are wide open).

 

[Policar]

OP the 18-55 IS is a fantastic lens for the money. When stopped down for landscape shots, the relative differences between lenses collapse dramatically. (Not to say they are not visible, just that they are much more visible when lenses are wide open).

Agreed, the 18-55 IS is remarkably good, far better than the original 18-55 and better yet than the 28-80mm (and much, much wider, too). The 28-80mm will probably be surprising bad by comparison, and with no IS that means you may need a tripod sometimes.

18mm is just on the borderline of ultra-wide and wide. 24mm is just between wide and normal. The 18-55 IS is quite sharp between 18 and 24mm and those are my favorite focal lengths on the wide end, so it is pretty good for your needs, chances are. But if you want that real sense of distorted perspective, it isn't quite enough. Personally I don't think I've seen a single ultra-wide photograph I've liked but it's a matter of taste.

My only complaint is it has an awful lot of color fringing and even in post you won't get rid of all of it. It's a pretty great lens, with good IS, good sharpness, and a tiny size, but lots of other lenses do other things better. Maybe you'll want to go wider, faster, have less distortion, or use tilt/shift. But until you know exactly what you need, stick with the 18-55mm; it will serve you great.

 

[gameface]

On an APSC sensor, neither is really an ultra-wide angle.

While that is true, the EF-S is a true 18-55 while the EF 28-80 is essentially a 45-128. If I was looking for something wide, 18 would cover most situations when you don't need a fisheye. I've dealt with a 17 for over a year and just now find the want for an 8mm.

 

[munkees]

Thanks for the responses, I guess I will save my money and use the 18-55 IS lens.

My goal for the future is to upgrade to a full frame.

 

[rusty2192]

While that is true, the EF-S is a true 18-55 while the EF 28-80 is essentially a 45-128. If I was looking for something wide, 18 would cover most situations when you don't need a fisheye. I've dealt with a 17 for over a year and just now find the want for an 8mm.

The focal length of any given lens is what it is, which is what is printed on it. Both the 18-55 and 28-80 are both their respective "true" focal lengths.

If you want to bring in the crop factor of an APS-C sensor like Canon uses on most of their crop bodies then these two lenses are the "equivalent" of 28.8-88 and 44.8-128, respectively on a full frame body. Notice how the 18-55 is about the same on a crop body as the 28-80 is on a full frame or 35mm body that it was originally designed for. That range covers your wide-normal-short telephoto range, which is great for an all around versatile lens.

To the OP: good choice sticking with the 18-55 IS for now. It really is a great lens for the price, and if you do step up to full frame down the road, you can just sell the lens and have no regrets.