Wanted some input from the Canon users here. I want a wide angle lens and a macro to add to my collection. What's the best bang for the buck with regards to a Canon camera?
I've got the Tamron 10-24, and I'm very happy with it. Nice and sharp, and handles distortion well for an ultra wide.
I don't have a dedicated macro lens, though it's a possibility in the future. I either use extension tubes on my DSLR or the macro mode on my Powershot G11.
another good superwide is the tokina 11-16 f/2.8
a bit pricey but not quite as expensive as the canon.
i haven't tried the sigma superwides but their 12-24 is supposed to be really good also, although expensive.
i have the tokina and the canon and both are very good. i'd say the tokina is a bit sharper (compared to the 2 10-22s i have), but the extra extra 1mm on the wide end of the canon is noticeable.
just how wide were you looking at? one thing i had before was the sigma 17-70, it was wide enough when i was starting out and the lens also doubled as an extreme close up lens too. the image quality was pretty good for the price.
On the macro end, I'm finding it hard to make a recommendation. Are you thinking that macro is something you will do a lot of? Are you willing to experiment a lot, or do you need something that "just works?"
The reason I ask these questions is that you already have good primes at or near the focal lengths of the most common macro lenses; you have both 100mm and 50mm primes, and 100mm and 60mm are popular macro focal lengths. So you *don't* need another general purpose prime at either length and a macro lens addition will be a special-purpose lens. OTOH, you *could* use either of these primes with extension tubes, but it's a bit more futzy than a dedicated macro lens. You have to use the length of tube or tubes that gives about the right magnification, instead of just cranking the focus ring.
So in the end, the decision as to whether to add a macro lens depends on whether you will do enough macro work to justify the lens, since you can't also justify it based on needing a prime in that FL. If you do feel you need a true macro lens, then I have some more questions ;-)
It's expensive because it's full frame coverage. It's the widest rectilinear lens in full frame period. I have this lens, it's the first lens I bought for my 10D way back when. It's even better on full frame.
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
i haven't tried the sigma superwides but their 12-24 is supposed to be really good also, although expensive.
Oh, I didn't even realize that was a FF lens. If I ever go FF, that's the one I'm going for.
Originally posted by Spork99:
It's expensive because it's full frame coverage. It's the widest rectilinear lens in full frame period. I have this lens, it's the first lens I bought for my 10D way back when. It's even better on full frame.
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
i haven't tried the sigma superwides but their 12-24 is supposed to be really good also, although expensive.
I've got the Tamron 10-24, and I'm very happy with it. Nice and sharp, and handles distortion well for an ultra wide.
I agree with Spiff. I have this lens, and I love it. I would say it is the most used lens in my (somewhat limited) bag. I can't really say how it compares with the Canon or Sigma since I have not shot with either. But fit my budget better than the Canon.
I've got the Tamron 10-24, and I'm very happy with it. Nice and sharp, and handles distortion well for an ultra wide.
I agree with Spiff. I have this lens, and I love it. I would say it is the most used lens in my (somewhat limited) bag. I can't really say how it compares with the Canon or Sigma since I have not shot with either. But fit my budget better than the Canon.
I have it too and I love it. However I have noticed that it is very very soft wide open, but stopped down its wonderful. Wide angles are so much fun to play with. I just came inside from using it outside with the kids on the swing set.
