A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > Best starter wide angle lens...

Featured Equipment Deals

Not Just for Extreme Sports: 5 Reasons to Own a GoPro Read More

Not Just for Extreme Sports: 5 Reasons to Own a GoPro

The GoPro is the new, must-have toy for the extreme sports crowd. But don't let your imagination stop there! The GoPro lets you place the viewer "in" the moment with high quality video and still...

Latest Equipment Articles

Sony a6300-First Impressions Read More

Sony a6300-First Impressions

When Sony's invitation to spend a couple of days shooting with the new a6300 in Miami arrived via email, I didn't have to think twice before sending my RSVP. Announced in February and shipping this...

Best starter wide angle lens for a Canon 60D

Doreliz Gonzalez , Mar 20, 2012; 07:15 p.m.

Hello Photo.net family! I have been looking for a wide angle lens for my Canon 60D DSLR camera but I cannot decided which one to get. I can't afford anything very expensive so I have narrowed it down to one of the following 3: 24 mm - F/2.8 28 mm - F/2.8 35 mm - F/2.0 Which one do you guys recommend and why? I've read good and bad reviews for all of these. I have a friend who owns the 35mm and loves it but I don't want to only look at that one. Your valueable opinion counts! Please chime in! =)


Geoff Sobering , Mar 20, 2012; 07:49 p.m.

Neither one of those lenses is very wide on an APS camera like the 60D. They are pretty close to "normal" (i.e. the FOV of a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera).

Erik Jacobson , Mar 20, 2012; 09:36 p.m.

The 24 is about the same as a 35mm, on a 35mm piece of film, not what I would call very wide.

Really your only option if you want to get "really wide" is the 10-22 zoom lens that canon makes. (or you can look at other companies offerings from sigma or tamron etc.)

James (Jim) Johnson , Mar 20, 2012; 10:33 p.m.

As Geoff & Erik indicate, . . . none of your indicated choices will be much of a wide angle on your 60D.
IMHO for the money, image quality and versatility, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with or without VC is hard to beat!
The non-VC (VC is Tamron's designation for Image Stabilization) is reported to produce sharper images than the VC version. I personally have owned my 17-50 for a couple of years now and have been very happy with it. Mine is the non-VC version.
Worth checking into and doing some research before making your decision. I'm certain other's will chime in with appropriate recommendations as well.

Most will want to know what lenses you already have, and what they are not doing for you, as well as what kind of budget you have to work with.
The Tamron can be had for around $400.00 US
Best wishes,
Jim j.

Marcus Ian , Mar 20, 2012; 10:44 p.m.

How 'wide' do you want to go? As the other have said, none of the lenses you've suggested are particularly wide on the crop.

In lieu of any of those for general purpose work, I'd go w/ a Tamron 17-50/2.8 which, while not an UWA by any means, is wide enough to be usable for 'wide angle' work. Frankly, the lenses out in last few years have come a long way, often exceeding the IQ of older primes WO. @f2.8 for example, the 17-50 is pretty darn good, while the 24/2.8 @f2.8 is pretty miserable. Plus - it zooms. Making it vastly more usable than any of the primes you've listed.

If you want to go 'ultra-wide' OTOH, and are on a budget, the tamron 10-24 is a pretty good deal. It's IQ is broadly similar to the Canon 10-22, but it's half the price.

Wouter Willemse , Mar 21, 2012; 05:20 a.m.

Which lenses do you already own? (I'm no Canon expert by any stretch of imagination, but to me it seems very useful info to know before advicing another lens)

Ed Avis , Mar 21, 2012; 07:34 a.m.

Your best wide-angle lens may be one of the zooms that covers a wide-angle range. Typically they go to 17mm on the wide end, which is a reasonably wide (though not extreme) field of view on the 60D's sensor. Canon's 17-55 is good but expensive, the 17-85 is cheaper, and there are many third party alternatives which have been discussed elsewhere on this site. Slightly less wide but still perhaps good enough, an 18-55 lens can be picked up cheaply from someone who got it bundled as part of a kit and then upgraded. (There are many different versions of the 18-55 and some are much better than others, so do some research.)

Unless you have tried 17mm or 18mm on a zoom lens and found it inadequate, I wouldn't buy anything more specialized. As others point out, a 24mm lens might be a wide angle for traditional 35mm film or full-frame digital, but it will not give you that on your 60D.

Franklin White , Mar 21, 2012; 08:50 a.m.

As mentioned, there aren't a lot of options for wide angle for a 1.6x format Canon DSLR. You get your "basic" wide-angle (by that I mean the 28mm and 35mm equivalents) by using one of the 18-XX lenses from Canon or a third party manufacturer. If you need wider, you get one of the 10/11/12-XX lenses from Canon or a third party manufacturer. Some folks may prefer to get the 15-85mm to serve the purpose of both standard zoom and wide angle, but they will have to live with 15mm (24mm equivalent) as the widest setting.
I don't think that you should even be considering a prime lens for this purpose on a 1.6x format camera.

Doreliz Gonzalez , Mar 22, 2012; 11:25 a.m.

Thank you all for your feedback! It definitely helps to see what other options I need to be looking at. Here is a list of the lenses that I currently own: Canon EF-S / 18-55mm / f 3.5 - 5.6 - Canon EF / 75-300mm / f 4 - 5.6 - Canon EF-S / IS / 18-135mm / f 3.5 - 5.6 - Canon 50mm / f 1.4 - I want to be able to get the widest possible view when I am indoors in tight spaces. That is my goal with whatever lens I purchase. I was looking at the reviews for the "Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5 Di II". Have any of you used this lens? Would this be a viable option for me?

Wouter Willemse , Mar 23, 2012; 10:59 a.m.

the lenses you mentioned originally (24mm up to 35mm) are not wider than the lenses you already own - as those go down to 18mm. So clearly, you want something wider than 18mm.
The Tamron does not have the best reputation of the available options really. I'd look at the Tokina 12-24 f/4 or Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 first; if budget allows the Canon 10-22 (note: the latter I have no experience with at all as a Nikon shooter, but all reviews show it to be worth its money).

Back to top

Notify me of Responses