i got a canon csc for christmas, and it came with an 18-55 lens. im wondering whether to get a 22mm wide angle lens for it or would it be overkill to get it as ive obviously got a wider angle if i use the 18-55 at 18...
can anyone who knows, tell me what extra benefits i would get by having this lens, apart from the nice small size of it on my nice small camera would make it all nice and small :-)
thanks in advance
jayn
(sorry, just posted as chris as i forgot to log him out and log in again!)
Is physical size (of lens) important? What type of photographs do you want to take? If all you've tried so far is the kit lens, I'd say go with a prime lens, as it makes you a better photographer overall. It makes you move your feet for starters, you can't zoom, you have to get out of your comfort zone a bit. But it really does all come down to what type of pics you're interested in taking.
@jaynspain Well the EOS M has an APS-C sensor so the multiplication factor is going to be about 1.6x, so a 22 mm lens is going to work out as about 35mm equivalent - not that wide angle!
thanks @steampowered@carolclements@aprilmilani . carol, no physical size isn't important, although it will be handy. I wanted to do landscapes, seascapes, bridges, viaducts. I wanted to try something new, push myself etc. I have got/ used prime lenses with my 600d. paul - so what youre saying is its not going to make much of a difference?
Jayn, as others have said, it all depends on what you want to photograph. 18-55 is a pretty nice range for your kit lens. My personal opinion is that I'd consider fleshing out the full lens range you want before starting to add prime lenses that are inside the range you already have. So you *may* want to consider a wide angle zoom (or a wide angle lens) in the 10mm to 16 mm range if it's truly wide angle that you want. (Remember what the APS-C crop factor does to the overall field of view of your lens. So the 10mm is similar in view size to a full-frame 16mm.)
The 22mm has a wide f/2 aperture, which means that it will be better for hand-held work in low light, and also can create a slightly shallow depth of field effect compared to the kit lens (although because it's a relatively wide lens, the effect won't be strong).
For landscape and seascape work, there's little benefit to the 22mm lens -- it's probably very slightly sharper in the corners, but otherwise it's the same focal length as is covered by your kit lens, and just something else to carry.
Many photographers, myself included, love to use an ultra-wide angle lens for landscape and seascape work -- although it is a learning experience as you need to have a good composition with foreground objects, and get up close, the results can be spectacular. Here's a couple of shots I took that show the perspective you can get with an ultra-wide lens:
In both cases, I'm almost on top of the objects in the foreground, and results in quite dramatic photos.
The EOS-M camera has a very limited range of lenses available natively, but the good news is that a Canon ultra-wide angle lens is available in the EF-M mount in the UK (for some reason, they haven't released it in North America, so people over here have to order it from foreign suppliers if they want it). This is the Canon EF-M 11-22mm lens, which you can pick up from Amazon (as linked) or other UK suppliers.
@kannafoot good points. thanks. @abirkill thanks for your in-depth and really helpful comment. I think the one you suggest is far better than the one ive been looking at, a fab idea although pricier than I was planning on, and for that reason i am going to buy it in a couple of months time. @supermikey no, wasn't planning to :-)
@jaynspain Hi Jane, I don't know if my lens would apply, but I have a Bower fixed 14mm lens (2.8 I think) and it's actually designed for a full-framed camera, so I haven't seen all it really can do yet (as I have a Rebel T2i). It's not as expensive as others but it is an all-manual lens. @abirkill Alexis, would that work for her camera? I'm starting to really fall in love with the wide-angle. I don't have great landscapes to work with yet, but I do plan on doing city shots soon if I can get into Atlanta more (I live in the burbs). Hope this helps.
@darylo Both the Bower 14mm and the Tokina @aprilmilani mentioned are great lenses (although the Bower is manual-focus only, which can be an issue for beginners), but unfortunately they are designed for the EF and EF-S mounts, whereas Jayn's camera is an EOS-M, which uses the EF-M mount.
You can fit EF and EF-S lenses on the EF-M mount, but it requires you to buy an adapter that fits between the lens and the camera. This adapter allows you to use any current Canon lens, but it's more money and more bulk.
For example, here's the native EF-M 11-22mm ultra-wide lens I mentioned, compared to the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens (designed for Canon SLRs, and similar in size to the Bower and Tokina) mounted via the adapter. The two lenses do virtually the same thing, but the size difference is very significant (generally not ideal if you've bought a mirrorless camera)
Additionally, while full electronic control is preserved so the lenses will adjust aperture, autofocus, and use image stabilisation where available, the autofocus performance is generally considerably worse with adapted lenses compared to native lenses.
Personally, when there is a suitable EF-M lens available like the 11-22mm that isn't crazily expensive (all ultra-wides are reasonably expensive, and while I absolutely understand that the 11-22mm is not an impulse purchase, it's in the same ballpark as other lenses that cover the same focal lengths), I'd recommend using that rather than buying an EF or EF-S lens and converting it using the adapter. The latter makes sense if you already have the lens, but less sense if you are buying a lens either way.
Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions!
@darylo and @abirkill, thanks. daryl, I could use the one you are mentioning or the one @aprilmilani linked to on my 600d.useful to see the size difference of the 2 of them on the eos-m. thanks alex. lots to think about, and lots of money to spend :-)
as a by the by, alex, how did you get those images into your write up? I get how to if theyre already images in your project.
thanks again :-)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
For landscape and seascape work, there's little benefit to the 22mm lens -- it's probably very slightly sharper in the corners, but otherwise it's the same focal length as is covered by your kit lens, and just something else to carry.
Many photographers, myself included, love to use an ultra-wide angle lens for landscape and seascape work -- although it is a learning experience as you need to have a good composition with foreground objects, and get up close, the results can be spectacular. Here's a couple of shots I took that show the perspective you can get with an ultra-wide lens:
In both cases, I'm almost on top of the objects in the foreground, and results in quite dramatic photos.
The EOS-M camera has a very limited range of lenses available natively, but the good news is that a Canon ultra-wide angle lens is available in the EF-M mount in the UK (for some reason, they haven't released it in North America, so people over here have to order it from foreign suppliers if they want it). This is the Canon EF-M 11-22mm lens, which you can pick up from Amazon (as linked) or other UK suppliers.
You can fit EF and EF-S lenses on the EF-M mount, but it requires you to buy an adapter that fits between the lens and the camera. This adapter allows you to use any current Canon lens, but it's more money and more bulk.
For example, here's the native EF-M 11-22mm ultra-wide lens I mentioned, compared to the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens (designed for Canon SLRs, and similar in size to the Bower and Tokina) mounted via the adapter. The two lenses do virtually the same thing, but the size difference is very significant (generally not ideal if you've bought a mirrorless camera)
Additionally, while full electronic control is preserved so the lenses will adjust aperture, autofocus, and use image stabilisation where available, the autofocus performance is generally considerably worse with adapted lenses compared to native lenses.
Personally, when there is a suitable EF-M lens available like the 11-22mm that isn't crazily expensive (all ultra-wides are reasonably expensive, and while I absolutely understand that the 11-22mm is not an impulse purchase, it's in the same ballpark as other lenses that cover the same focal lengths), I'd recommend using that rather than buying an EF or EF-S lens and converting it using the adapter. The latter makes sense if you already have the lens, but less sense if you are buying a lens either way.
Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions!
as a by the by, alex, how did you get those images into your write up? I get how to if theyre already images in your project.
thanks again :-)