Widest angle, prime affordable low-light lens? (did a search, couldn't find info)

[PaulRivers]

First - this seems like a question that much come up a lot, but I did a search and couldn't find a thread that really answered my question -

"wides angle prime lens canon site:dpreview.com"

http://www.google.com/search?q=widest+angle+lens+canon+site%3Adpreview.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=sYr&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=widest+angle+prime+lens+canon+site:dpreview.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=7828c4946c5db268

I'm trying to figure out what lens for a Canon t3i or 60d that's -
1. A prime good for low light
2. As wide angle as possible

3. Relatively affordable - let's say preferably $500 or less, but up to $1k if it would make a difference

Here's the lenses I know of -
28mm f1.8 from Canon, $489
24mm f1.4 from Canon, but it's $1,750 - yikes.
20mm f1.8 from Sigma, $520.

Is the Sigma 20mm (32mm-equivalent) f1.8 the absolute widest angle, f2.0 or better lens anyone knows of? Is there any better lens that I missed? Seems like it's still not quite wide enough. :-( As the 28mm-equivalent on my s95 is still often just-slightly-to-close...

 

[oscarvdvelde]

20mm is barely "wide" on APS-C. Your choice seems to be limited to Samyang 14mm f/2.8 or Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, or upgrade to a full-frame camera (a second hand EOS 5D shouldn't be too expensive now and is great value, I am still shooting with it).
--
Weather & Photography
http://www.lightningwizard.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightningwizard

 

[Lee Jay]

20mm is barely "wide" on APS-C. Your choice seems to be limited to Samyang 14mm f/2.8 or Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, or upgrade to a full-frame camera (a second hand EOS 5D shouldn't be too expensive now and is great value, I am still shooting with it).

Or do what I did and shoot with the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. That was my wide fast prime at the time, and I did own the Sigma 20/1.8 at the time as well.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lemming51]

It's a limitation of the retrofocus design needed to make effective focal lengths that are less than 1/2 the actual distance to the sensor. For shorter than 20mm you have to settle for f/2.8 or smaller max aperture.

If you need wider than 20mm, then Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 DX and Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 EX DC HSM are about as short and fast as there is.

Zeiss and others make cine lenses shorter and faster, but they can't be adapted to SLR because they need to be mounted much closer to the sensor. They also cost $$$$.

First - this seems like a question that much come up a lot, but I did a search and couldn't find a thread that really answered my question -

"wides angle prime lens canon site:dpreview.com"

http://www.google.com/search?q=widest+angle+lens+canon+site%3Adpreview.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=sYr&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=widest+angle+prime+lens+canon+site:dpreview.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=7828c4946c5db268

I'm trying to figure out what lens for a Canon t3i or 60d that's -
1. A prime good for low light
2. As wide angle as possible

3. Relatively affordable - let's say preferably $500 or less, but up to $1k if it would make a difference

Here's the lenses I know of -
28mm f1.8 from Canon, $489
24mm f1.4 from Canon, but it's $1,750 - yikes.
20mm f1.8 from Sigma, $520.

Is the Sigma 20mm (32mm-equivalent) f1.8 the absolute widest angle, f2.0 or better lens anyone knows of? Is there any better lens that I missed? Seems like it's still not quite wide enough. :-( As the 28mm-equivalent on my s95 is still often just-slightly-to-close...

--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist

 

[a-rod_dc]

The Sigma 20mm f1.8 is the fastest wide angle lens you can get. Since you are looking at the T3i and 60D, I wouldn't worry too much about how fast your lens is since you should be able to really crank up the ISO for low light situations...any of the f2.8 wide angle zooms/primes available should be just fine for your needs as long as you get the focal length that you desire. The 17-55 IS is probably a perfect candidate for your listed requirement unless you are looking for something ultra wide like the tokina 11-16.

 

[PaulRivers]

The Sigma 20mm f1.8 is the fastest wide angle lens you can get.

This is what I thought, but it's the main question for me in this thread - no one else knows of a lens that's wider at f2.0 or better right?

Since you are looking at the T3i and 60D, I wouldn't worry too much about how fast your lens is since you should be able to really crank up the ISO for low light situations...any of the f2.8 wide angle zooms/primes available should be just fine for your needs as long as you get the focal length that you desire.

I'm taking pictures of people dancing, so 1/60 in the bare, minimum requirement. I currently use a Canon s95. In typical indoor lighting, on average I'm getting 1/60 iso1600 f2.0. The comparisons I've seen suggest it's about a 2 stop difference between a t2i and an s95. Problem is -

1. iso1600 on the s95 is barely acceptable, after spending all this money I'd really prefer iso400-equivalent

2. So it seems like a t2i with the same exposure settings would get me what I want, but -

3. Lighting at dance stuff is even worse than average indoor lighting, so I lose a stop or two there

4. It would be really nice to be able to shoot at 1/125 or 1/250, as these people are actively moving. A little motion blur in the hands of the subject is mostly acceptable, but when their face is blurred out it's not. And frankly, 1/60 barely does the job.

So I cannot say for sure, I'll have to look into it more, but I don't think a 1 stop improvement would be enough...

The 17-55 IS is probably a perfect candidate for your listed requirement unless you are looking for something ultra wide like the tokina 11-16.

Yeah, it has a good reputation, maybe I could buy it from my local shop and try it (they personally actively encouraged me to do this as long as I kept it in pristine condition, so it's not the kind of thing where I'd be doing something unethical to buy it, try it, and return it). It would be nice to have some zoom...only way to know if f2.8 is good enough is to try it, I suppose...

 

[Lee Jay]

I'm taking pictures of people dancing, so 1/60 in the bare, minimum requirement.

Funny you should say that. That's why I bought the 20/1.8 for my 20D as well. Bottom line - I hated that combo for that application. It just wouldn't focus reliably at all. But I did find a solution. You aren't going to like it, but the 5D + 35/1.4L has solved this problem for me entirely.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[PaulRivers]

Hmm...do you ever actually use 1.4? I'm curious if you're doing similar shooting to me, I figure it has to shallow of a depth of field to be useful...

You have a 5D, not a 5D Mark II? Same low light performance between the 2?

 

[Lee Jay]

Hmm...do you ever actually use 1.4?

All the time.

I'm curious if you're doing similar shooting to me, I figure it has to shallow of a depth of field to be useful...

Not quite sure what you meant. I get shallow, but not too shallow with the 5D and 35/1.4L at f/1.4 when shooting full-body type shots.

You have a 5D, not a 5D Mark II? Same low light performance between the 2?

Yes, I have the original, and the new one is a bit better. I don't bat an eyelash about shooting at ISO 3200, and even pushing that a stop or two.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[tonyjr]

To me , your best set is the 10-22 -n your range and has good focusing - also wider than any you listed . I have the 28 2.8 and it sits on shelf - 99% of time the 10-22 or 17-55 [ costs a bit more ] are on camera .
--
1st - it's a hobby

XTI - gripped , Canon - efs 10-22 , efs 17-55 , efs 18-55 IS , 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS , 35-350L ,Quantaray lens 70-300 macro , life size converter , KSM filters for all , kenko auto tubes , EF 25 , 7D , 70-200 MK II IS , 2X III

 

[Sean Clark]

ISO 1600 on the new Rebel will in fact probably be somewhere between ISO 400 and 800 in terms of quality on your S90/95.

Try locking your focal length at 44mm equivalent and see if you can possibly manage with that. If you can, I'd go with the Canon 28mm f1.8 which is 44mm equiv. when used on a Rebel. That's what I use in dark clubs.

There isn't a dirt cheap way to get low light capability and wide angle. If you really need wide on a budget, a used 5D is your best bet. If that won't get you there, a 5D II gains about another stop of low light performance.

If that still hasn't gotten you far enough, I'd use some fill flash. Put a 1/2 CTO gel over the strobe so the color of light matches the tungsten lights in the club (unless they use LED lights - then color match those) and then dial in around -1 stop flash compensation so the flash lifts the light levels but doesn't overpower the ambient light. The flash will tend to stop motion, so if you use 2nd curtain sync you can get away with even lower shutter speeds.

 

[arty H]

One alternative that is not really wide is the 35f2. It works fine at f2 on my T2i.

The larger f stops (like f1.4) may be difficult for photos of pairs of people dancing. You do need better ISO performance.

 

[Croomrider]

The 10-22 would be my choice as well, but I would combine it with a couple of flashes and radio triggers bouncing off of the ceiling, if you have that choice.

CR

 

[PaulRivers]

Hmm...do you ever actually use 1.4?

All the time.

I'm curious if you're doing similar shooting to me, I figure it has to shallow of a depth of field to be useful...

Not quite sure what you meant. I get shallow, but not too shallow with the 5D and 35/1.4L at f/1.4 when shooting full-body type shots.

huh, really? seems like 1.4 is at that "nose is sharp, face is out of focus" kind of range...I realize a lot of that is a function of how much you're zoomed / how physically close you are to your subject, but trying to get a picture of 2 people at 1.4 I figured would be pretty much impossible...

You wouldn't have any pics taken at 1.4 that you might be willing to share would you?

You have a 5D, not a 5D Mark II? Same low light performance between the 2?

Yes, I have the original, and the new one is a bit better. I don't bat an eyelash about shooting at ISO 3200, and even pushing that a stop or two.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Hmm, it's interesting. The 5d is around $1k used, which is about the same price as I'd be paying for the crop anyways. Though I would like video (both to take video, and to experiment with extracting frames for pics, as most of mine just go on facebook anyways). Hmm...

 

[PaulRivers]

To me , your best set is the 10-22 -n your range and has good focusing - also wider than any you listed . I have the 28 2.8 and it sits on shelf - 99% of time the 10-22 or 17-55 [ costs a bit more ] are on camera .
--
1st - it's a hobby

XTI - gripped , Canon - efs 10-22 , efs 17-55 , efs 18-55 IS , 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS , 35-350L ,Quantaray lens 70-300 macro , life size converter , KSM filters for all , kenko auto tubes , EF 25 , 7D , 70-200 MK II IS , 2X III

The 17-55mm f2.8 is on my radar, but the 10-22 f3.5-f4.5 really seems like it's just way to slow. f2.8 may or may not be to slow, but f3.5 on a crop body at least is probably only about 1/3rd of a stop better for low light than my s95 - kind of like "what's the point", you know?

 

[PaulRivers]

ISO 1600 on the new Rebel will in fact probably be somewhere between ISO 400 and 800 in terms of quality on your S90/95.

Yeah, that's what it's seemed like to me to.

"average" indoor lighting meters at 1/60 f2.0 iso1600 on my s95. Though unfortunately, the place I dance at moved and at the new place they dim the lights and the lighting is worse. So I probably lose a stop there. Losing another stop to the lens and stuff is...I'm not sure how well it would work, or if it would be worth it.

Try locking your focal length at 44mm equivalent and see if you can possibly manage with that. If you can, I'd go with the Canon 28mm f1.8 which is 44mm equiv. when used on a Rebel. That's what I use in dark clubs.

Yeah...like I said, just asking around to see if there's anything wider. I think I might need f1.8, f2.8 might not be enough.

There isn't a dirt cheap way to get low light capability and wide angle. If you really need wide on a budget, a used 5D is your best bet. If that won't get you there, a 5D II gains about another stop of low light performance.

Yeah...

If that still hasn't gotten you far enough, I'd use some fill flash. Put a 1/2 CTO gel over the strobe so the color of light matches the tungsten lights in the club (unless they use LED lights - then color match those) and then dial in around -1 stop flash compensation so the flash lifts the light levels but doesn't overpower the ambient light. The flash will tend to stop motion, so if you use 2nd curtain sync you can get away with even lower shutter speeds.

Like I said, flash is only occasionally an option for the shooting I'm doing. If I could use a flash, using the f3.5 10-22 lens wouldn't be a problem! lol

 

[Pultzar]

If you can deal with manual focus and some distortion, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is exceptional. Very sharp at f/2.8

 

[carlk]

Have you thought about zoom lenses like 17-55 if you're not shooting fast moving objects. An f2.8 3 stop IS lens can give you more light than a prime. Not to mention it also offers better DOF.

 

[Todd Haehn]

...and why limit it to a mere $1,000, when you can get a Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Lens for a mere $2,250?

--
Todd Haehn

 

[PaulRivers]

If you can deal with manual focus and some distortion, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is exceptional. Very sharp at f/2.8

I ran across a Rokinon 14mm on amazon - but it's manual control only. Is the Samyang also manual control only?