Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 on Canon 40 D as wide angle lens

[Robert]

I'm currently looking at some offer for Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 lens.
Currently I have my Canon EF28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM kit lens and Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II. Would this one add wider angle for landscapes and indoors?
Thanks in advance.

[zero rc]

while the difference in focal length is kind of nominal (28mm v 24mm), the 24 will be a faster lens when shot wide open. it will also focus faster in auto mode. wiht landscapes, the diff wont be so great because you could just set it on a tripod and shoot at whatever f-stop you wanted, indoors or in conditions where lighting may be an issue, the 24 would be a better lens.

[Naturalist]

Would this one add wider angle for landscapes and indoors?

Regardless of where or what you shoot it will, indeed, "add wider angle" compared to the other lenses.

Perhaps the other question should be "Would this 24mm be wide enough, or should I go 20, or 10-22?"

[richardpcrowe]

I used the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens for a long while. When I needed something a bit wider, I would switch to the 20mm f/2.8 Canon. This was a marginally wide lens but did give me an f/2.8 aperture to work with. Its 32mm equivalent focal length gave a wider angle and did not have the inherrent distortion of an ultra wide lens - it is nice for people. However, the 20mm was just not what I needed. I wanted something wider.

A lens that really compliments the 28-135mm IS is the 12-24mm Tokina f/4. This lens has a steady f/4 aperture throughout its focal range, gives great imagery and is built like a tank. The price at right around $500 is reasonable for the quality you get. Oh yes! It comes with a nice lens hood at no additional price. You have to purchase lens hoods as accessories for virtually all Canon non-L lenses.

By the way, I do not like the 17-40mm f/4L on a 1.6x camera. 17mm is not ulra-wide. It closely matches the 28mm on a f/f camera. That is wide but, not as wide as I like when I really want to go wide. The two problems with the 17-40L IMO are that it is not nearly long enough; 64mm is an awkward focal length for me and f/4 is really too slow for a general walk around lens. I would accept f/4 in purely an ultra wide lens as the 17-40L is on a f/f camera but, not in a general purpose walk-around glass.

Regarding focal length, the 17-55mm is a BIT better. It still isn't really wide as I like however, the extra 15mm pushes the long end up to 88mm equivalent which is a decent length even for head and shoulder portraits. Despite its rather limited focal range; I dearly love the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because of its relatively fast aperture, its great IS and its wonderful IQ.

If I were going to be restricted to just two lenses for the majority of my photography (which thankfully I am not) I would choose the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS - each on its own body. This combination provides a very workable focal range for most "normal" shooting opportunities and gives you some of the absolutely best image quality available in any lens combination along with effective IS capability. The 70-200mm f/4L IS is a great relatively lightweight and compact lens (for a zoom telephoto) which I can hand hold at all focal lengths down to 1/60 second with almost 100% keepers and down to 1/30 second with a lower but still a respectable percentage of keepers. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is a great all-around lens that, because of its fast aperture (for a zoom) and its great IS, can be used as a very effectiive low light glass. In fact, I have not used my 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I lens since I pruchased the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

With the exception of some specialized shooting such as ultra wide, macro and extreme telephoto, I would consider myself prepared for most photo opportunities when equipped with the 17-55 and the 70-200 lenses. These two lenses are certainly not inexpensive but, they are definitely among the best lenses produced by Canon and are a great value despite their high cost.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by richardpcrowe

You have to purchase lens hoods as accessories for all Canon non-L lenses.

...with the strange exception of the EF-S60mmF2.8 Macro, that one comes with a hood and a pouch... (Fozzie Bear says: funnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!! )



Kindest regards,

Max@Home

[Rumpole]

I tend to agree with Naturalist.

24mm is not exactly wide enough for most wide-angled usage. For 1.6x crop camera like 40D, I would strongly recommend EF-S 10-22.

Cheers
KH

[Robert]

Well, it looks, like from one hand I just saved about $ 200, but from other hand, I'm still gonna need wide angle lens, and that's $ 600.

[dougsmit]

Originally Posted by richardpcrowe

A lens that would really compliment the 28-135mm IS would be the 12-24mm Tokina f/4. This has a steady f/4 aperture throughout its focal range, gives great imagery and is built like a tank. The price at right around $500 is reasonable for the quality you get. Oh yes! It comes with a nice lens hood at no additional price. You have to purchase lens hoods as accessories for all Canon non-L lenses.

Originally Posted by Robert

Well, it looks, like from one hand I just saved about $ 200, but from other hand, I'm still gonna need wide angle lens, and that's $ 600.

Actually you need $500. The other $100 is from your desire to stay loyal to Canon brand. Its your choice and one that has no wrong answer. I note that both the Canon and Tokina owners seem to recommend their lens - I certainly like my Tokina. If the important factor is the $200, I'd go for the new 18-55 IS kit lens which is getting very good reviews. I don't have one but all reports suggest it is head and shoulders above the old kit lens and you get IS as a bonus.

Someone at Canon decided to market crop cameras with the 28-135 lens as a package. Some of us find that a strange choice since we value a wide angle option and there is nothing wide about 28mm on a crop body. There is nothing wrong with the lens if it fits your needs but I would expect many buyers of the kit to feel an immediate desire for something wider. 24mm is not enough of a difference. 20mm is better but questionably enough. 18mm is getting there and a bargain. 10-22 leaves a gap that might bother on occassion between 22 and 28mm but you can always crop. The best answer will depend on how each choice fits your shooting style more than one being better than the others.

[kevin_c]

Personally I would not consider 24mm to be a true 'wide-angle' on a 40D, this gives the equivalent focal length of a 38.4mm lens on a full-frame/35mm body.
Depending on how wide you want to go, IMO you want a minimum of a 20mm (equiv to a 32mm) and preferably a 17mm or wider. (10-22mm or 17-40L)

It all depends on how wide you need to go really.

[Kosherpaparazzi]

I use a 24-105 on a 30D and can tell you that it's definitely not wide enough for indoors. Get an UWA like the 10-22 and be awed.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by dougsmit

If the important factor is the $200, I'd go for the new 18-55 IS kit lens which is getting very good reviews. I don't have one but all reports suggest it is head and shoulders above the old kit lens and you get IS as a bonus.

...very good thinking

Someone at Canon decided to market crop cameras with the 28-135 lens as a package. Some of us find that a strange choice since we value a wide angle option and there is nothing wide about 28mm on a crop body. There is nothing wrong with the lens if it fits your needs but I would expect many buyers of the kit to feel an immediate desire for something wider. 24mm is not enough of a difference. 20mm is better but questionably enough. 18mm is getting there and a bargain. 10-22 leaves a gap that might bother on occassion between 22 and 28mm but you can always crop. The best answer will depend on how each choice fits your shooting style more than one being better than the others.

...and an excellent analysis of the 'problem' with some fair conclusions, that I wholeheartedly underwrite

...I used to have a 24-70F2.8L, but gladly exchanged it for the EF-S17-55F2.8IS when it became available. 24mm was never wide enough for *my* indoor applications on a 1.6x crop body, the then obsolete 17-40F4L (wide enough, but just too slow...) went for the EF-S10-22 when it became available...

...I recently re-purchased a 24-70F2.8L to be the same '28-90' FoV walkaroundlens on my 1.3x crop 1D MkIII, and have already dearly missed IS

...€0.02...

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

[kevgermany]

One thing to consider with a non-canon lens is that the zoom ring may work the other way to your other lens...

[dougsmit]

Originally Posted by kevgermany

One thing to consider with a non-canon lens is that the zoom ring may work the other way to your other lens...

True, this is a factor that worried me considerably before I bought the lens. Tokinas match Nikons while Sigmas match Canons in this regard. It would be expensive for third party manufacturers to match all with separate models. In practice I have not found it to be disturbing. Has anyone owning the 28-135 or other older design Canon lenses had trouble with the focus ring being closer to the body and the zoom farther out (the opposite of most lenses today)?

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by dougsmit

Has anyone owning the 28-135 or other older design Canon lenses had trouble with the focus ring being closer to the body and the zoom farther out (the opposite of most lenses today)?

Doug, just FYI: the EF-S lenses have the same (IMO stupid) 'reverse-design' : focus ring first, zoom ring on top like the 28-135.

And yes, this is something to get used to, switching from 40D w/17-55 to 1D3 w/24-70 to take comparison shots was a strange experience...

But after you get more used to the look (viewfinder) and feel of each body/lens combination, for *me* it is 'autopilot' again

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[kevgermany]

The differences between the controls on the systems drive me mad... I first became aware of it when I bought a Bronica MF system that was completely contrary to my Canon SLRs. Even the aperture ring works the wrong way... Then came the EOS - and ring instead of push/pull zoom. Then I saw the differences comparing canon, tokina zooms for a 400D (not mine). Now I'm looking at a Nikon DSLR & even the lens screws on the wrong way...

Same problems when I was riding motorbikes and some had a left foot, others a right foot gear change - and even on the same foot, some went up and some went down (and some went both ways)...

It took me a long while to get used to it on the Bronica, now I want to standardise so that I don't have to think when shooting fast. I think some people adapt quicker than others, for me it's still an irritation.

[billychair22]

i use a 10-22 on the 40d and rebel xt. it is my one and only baby. highly recomended. i got it used for a decent price.