A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > What is the best Canon wide...

Featured Equipment Deals

Reintroducing the Monthly Project: Advancing Photography Read More

Reintroducing the Monthly Project: Advancing Photography

We've all missed the monthly project! We're bringing it back with Tom Persinger first up. He shares insight and background on using the edge of the frame. Please add your photo to the thread and...

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

Getting Started in Video Read More

Getting Started in Video

Photographer Ted Kawalerski made the transition from still to motion and has never looked back. Ted takes you through the steps to get started in a medium that will open your photography business to...


What is the best Canon wide angle zoom lens?

peter ho , Aug 08, 2004; 01:50 a.m.

I need to source a good prime wide angle (between 16 - 24mm) for my Canon 300D body. Can anyone help with good suggestions? Will Sigma lens have good alternatives?

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

peter ho , Aug 08, 2004; 01:51 a.m.

Sorry guys, subject line is wrong, I am looking for fixed focal length wide angle lens, not zoom.

Rodolfo Negrete , Aug 08, 2004; 02:30 a.m.

I heard that the 24mm 2.8 and the 35mm 2 f stop were really good.And since yo have a 300D and ask for sigma tells me that you are in a budget.Otherways I would suggest the 24mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.4 ,all ths lens in the Canon brand in another brand I have no experinece whatosver.

I also highly recomend yuou the 17-40 Although is a Zoom.

good luke

Richard Thompson , Aug 08, 2004; 03:41 a.m.

Rodolfo, I think, has mentioned the best 2 - the 24/2.8 and the 35/2.

The 28/2.8 is pretty sharp, but the old style non-usm.

I had the 20/2.8 which was pretty good.

I've heard the 28/1.8 is soft, but cannot comment first hand.

Cannot comment on the 14mm or the two L primes (24 and 35 f1.4) But I emagine they will be excellent.

Yakim will know when it comes to primes.... Yakim ?

Michael Peters , Aug 08, 2004; 04:13 a.m.

"The 28/2.8 is pretty sharp, but the old style non-usm."

How much does that matter for wide? The 24/2.8 and 35/2 also are not usm

David Lau , Aug 08, 2004; 05:37 a.m.

I have and agree that both the 24/f2.8 and 35/f2 are among the best Canon wide angle prime for full frame cameras. However, they are not wide angles at all on 300D. If you want prime then either you buy the very expensive 14/f2.8 or non-Canon such as Tokina 17mm. Anything less wide than 17mm (28mm equivalent on 300D) is not really a wide angle on 300D

Personally I think the 17-40/f4 zoom is the best solution for you.

Paulo Bizarro , Aug 08, 2004; 07:36 a.m.

With the crop factor considered, there are not many primes from Canon available: 14mm, 15mm (fisheye), and 20mm. If 24x1.6 is acceptable to you, the 24 2.8 or 1.4 are excellent options.

Other than that, there is the Tokina 17mm, and a few fast primes from Sigma (no experience there).

As for zooms, Canon has nice choices, both "fast" (16-35), and really slow (17-40, 20-35). A good option might be to get a 17-35 2.8 (similar to 16-35), or the older but excellent 20-35 L.

Or get a film camera for wide angle shots with a 24 or 35 mm lens.

peter ho , Aug 08, 2004; 10:07 a.m.

Guys, thanks for your contribution. I think I can afford to buy a good lens and if not, save more money to get one that is really good. I don't want to regret after buying a cheap one with no quality. Thanks....Peter

Yakim Peled , Aug 08, 2004; 10:41 a.m.

I heard that the 24mm 2.8 and the 35mm 2 f stop were really good.

Indeed they are. I'd even dare say and call them excellent. Sharp even wide open, very good flare resistance, no noticeable distortion. Could anyone possibly ask for more? Well, actually yes. See below....

"The 28/2.8 is pretty sharp, but the old style non-usm." ,
How much does that matter for wide? The 24/2.8 and 35/2 also are not usm

For me, a lot. It's the only thing I really miss. When I use AF, which is most of the time, I want it to be fast and quiet. In in dim light the 35/2 is particularly annoying. Although both have the same lens motor - AFD - the 35/2 focuses slower. Perhaps it's because the 24/2.8 is an IF design while the 35/2 is not.

The 24/1.4 L USM and 35/1.4 L USM are probably even better but I couldn't justify almost 2000$ more. Thus they will remain in my dreams. Tough is the life of the poor photographer...... :-(

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Richard Thompson , Aug 08, 2004; 01:31 p.m.

How much does that matter for wide? The 24/2.8 and 35/2 also are not usm

It matters a hell of a lot for me. One of many examples... Emagine a quiet church. The bride and groom are looking into each others eye, about to kiss. The audience is in silence, waiting for the moment...

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BZZZZZZZZZ !!!

Everyone looks at the photographer. Moment ruined. Candid shot ruined.

This hasn't happened to me, but then I only use ring usm lenses for wedding candids.

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses