I'm starting in photography. 2 months ago I bought an EOS 50 and following some recommendations here a EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

Now I'd be interested in buying a wide angle lens for landscape like 20mm or 24 or 28 mm. I can't afford a L series as I'm just starting. I think I would prefer a little zoom (20-35 or sth) but I don't mind a prime. I prefer sharpness than faster lens, as I have tripod and I'm patient. Suggestions?

-- Javier Alaiz (javier.alaiz@gmx.net), September 06, 2001

Answers

If you really want to ease into your (eventual) lens accumulation, one I'd recommend looking at is the Tokina 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 as a wide zoom. A remarkably nice lens for the money...a little under $200 US. Sort of one of those lenses that shouldn't be as good as it is.

Also another thought Javier is to consider some of the zooms that have recently become available that start at 24mms. You get a fairly wide short end but are able to reach out a little more for added versatility.

-- Gary Russell (gr_russell@earthlink.net), September 06, 2001.

If you're concerned with sharpness (and I assume distortion) you probably don't want a consumer zoom?

You might look at Sigma's wide angle prime lenses (like the 24mm). Their newer ones look to be very good, blowing away Canon's consumer zooms for less money (larger aperature, more aperature blades, shorter focus distance, but larger filter sizes.

Even my older style Sigma 24mm is better than Canon's version and it was just over half the cost -- think it's discontinued now so you could probably find a used one. I see one just went for $111 on EBay though I can't find any currently for sale. Sigma still has an older-style 28mm for under $200 (at Adorama).

Of course you may run into compatibility problems on future Canon bodies, though Sigma upgraded my 24mm for *free* to work with my Elan 7.

-- Steven Fisher (srf@srf.com), September 06, 2001.

I would recommend the Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5 zoom. It's about $400, is very good quality, and is excellent for landscape photography.

Prime lenses are excellent, with many advantages but for landscape photography the advantages are diminished. Primes have fast apertures, but that isn't very useful for my landscape photography since I usually shoot at f/8 or smaller aperture for good depth-of- field. Primes have less distortion, but that's not very useful for landscape photography because you aren't dealing with straight lines like you would in architectural photography. Primes are usually very sharp, but stopping down a good zoom lens will still give you excellent results.

The Canon 20-35 is a very good performer. In fact, consumer wide- angle zooms generally perform quite well at the f/8 and smaller apertures used in landscape photography. The Canon 20-35 zoom is around $400, the price of a good fast prime.

Of course, if you have the money and space you could fill the wide angle range with primes. But for flexibility, value, and good performance the Canon zoom is a great choice. I am not familiar with the Tokina, but I'm sure it would also give good results. I have a Vivitar 19-35 (only ~$150) that is pretty sharp but suffers from awful flare if the front isn't adequately shaded. Someday I will replace it with the Canon zoom, but in the meantime it works quite well. On the other end of the price spectrum, I also have the wonderful (but expensive) Canon 24mm tilt-shift which I use quite a bit for landscape and architecture. Nevertheless, a good zoom is still convenient.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), September 06, 2001.

The british magazine Amateur Photographer just did a comparative review of these wide zooms. Their favourite three were the Nikon 18- 35 F3.5-4.5 ED (obviously not a possibility on EOS), the Tokina 19-35 F3.5-4.5 and they most liked the Tokina 20-35 F2.8 AT-X Pro. They also reviewed the Canon 20-35 USM favourably.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), September 10, 2001.

Around 4 weeks ago, I needed only one wide angle and looked at the following:EF 17-35/2.8L, EF 20-35/3.5-4.5, Tokina 20-35/2.8, EF 24/2.8 and EF 20/2.8. Finally I selected the 20/2.8. This short focal length is not easy to use in general landscape (give you boring picture if not too careful in composition) but is great in the metro cities and tight spots. However it has fairly good control in terms of flare and distortion and is pretty sharp for a wide angle. I wanted the 17-35L but I am afraid it is going to be replaced very soon. I may want to get the new L. 20-35/3.5-4.5 was said to be a excellent value/optics however I will be stuck with Provia 400F if I handhold camera in overcast. At half price of 17-35L Tokina is optically good and fast but I always want a Canon optics. 24/2.8 is the best focal length for wide angle however it does not have an USM. Again I expect a replacement of 24/2.8 USM very soon. If you look thru the front element of 24/2.8 and 20/2.8 you will find that the 20/2.8 seems to have darker coating (alike 17-35L) and slightly better built. So finally I selected the 20/2.8 USM.

-- Damond Lam (damond_lam@hotmail.com), September 12, 2001.

I have the Vivitar 19-35 for my manual bodies, and a Tokina 19-35 in EOS mount. They're both terrific value for money, although I think the little extra for the Tokina may be worth-while. There's a large difference between a 20 and a 24, and it's hard to know which is right for your use until you have some experience; I think composing with a 20 is much more of a challenge. The inexpensive zooms give you a chance to experiment and if you decide you really need a terrific 24 you'll still always find a use for one of those zooms. Short answer? Get an inexpensive wide zoom and after a year of use you'll have an idea of where and how you use wide angle.

-- Zave Shapiro (zave_shapiro@yahoo.ca), September 12, 2001.

I have a 50E, and recently bought a cosina 19-35, 3.5-4.5. It was very cheap, less than 250 euros, and I've had a lot of fun playing with it till now. I find the colours superb, and it it very crisp. I just had one photo enlarged to 60x50cm, and it is wonderfully crisp. Some distortion is noticeable if you use it close, but then wide angles are mostly for landscapes, and not for portraits. As you, I'm just an amateur, and wasn't willing to spend a lot. I was quite pleased by what I got for the price. I heard that this lens is also sold under other names, but am not sure. Btw, if you get the silver (I'd say champagne) version, it will match the 50 perfectly in aesthetic terms... You can check it at http://www.cosina.com/AF%2019-35.htm

-- Miguel Pais (fdespais@netcabo.pt), September 13, 2001.