Wide Angle Lens Recommendation

[Scott M]

My wife finally got herself an SLR, a Canon Rebel EOS TL1. We all chipped in and got her a nice zoom lens (even though I wanted to get her a nice guided excursion...hopefully we can do that some other time) for Christmas. Now I’m interested, for selfish reasons, in getting a wide angle lens. This, if I’m understanding correctly as a layman, is the lens made popular for fish pictures...they tend to exaggerate the size of the subject a little bit. If I have this correct, could someone suggest a good choice for a lens for said camera?

[MN Shutterbug]

For the money, the Canon 18-55 3rd generation lens with IS is a pretty good deal. I use this lens for the rare landscape and for portraits and have always been pleased with the results. If focuses fast enough and accurately. I recently used that lens for candid photos at a wedding reception and the recipients were very happy. I believe this lens would serve your purpose very well without breaking the bank. Just be sure you don't get the cheaper kit lens without IS.

[JayinMN]

I'll second the 15-55mm IS. I just bought one and am happy with it.

[Steve Foss]

Scott, if you want the kind of wide-angle distortion I think you're talking about, you'll want to look at the Canon 10-22 mm. It's specifically designed for the type of sensor on that camera. To put it as simply as possible, you have a 1.6 crop sensor (smaller than a full frame sensor), and to get a true representation of lens focal length you multiply by 1.6.

So on your camera, the 10-22 would really behave like a 16-35mm lens, and the 18-55 would be like a 29-90 mm or so.

To get the effect you're talking about, you zoom the lens out as wide as it will go (lowest mm number), have the subject hold the fish as far away from the body as possible, and position the camera as close to the fish as possible. You can make that work OK with the 18-55, but it creates a truly dramatic effect with the 10-22.

Of course, the 10-22, at around $700, is a pretty strong commitment.

[cliffy]

I will 2nd the Canon 10-22. I use it with a 7D.

[Scott M]

Interesting. Sounds like I can't justify the 10-22 quite yet. The lake trout photo on the front page at www.marcum.com must have used the wide angle lens. Might be a good idea to play around with the lenses we have now and see what we can produce, then decide what else is needed. Gotta take baby steps. My wife understands everything so much better than I do, but I want to get into it. I need to do some reading and understand what I'm doing first.

Right now I have to ask pretty please with sugar on top though, since it's her camera. Scary to say, but it could become our shared hobby. I can't get her to come with me hunting or fishing, but the prospect of time on the river or in the duck blind when the marsh wakes up is a little more intriguing to her with camera in hand. I might even recruit her to visit this forum a few times. She's more into art/deco photography, I'd like to see her/us get into nature and wildlife photography. Right now, she refers to everyone I talk to from HSO as "my internet friends." I think it sounds condescending, but I guess its true. Maybe she'd better understand if she was on here.

Thanks for the suggestions. Feel free to add more.

[Steve Foss]

Scott, Sigma makes a good 10-20 mm for Canon that's about $475, if that helps a bit. If your spouse is more into the artsy type photos, an ultrawide lens may become the favorite lens/tool in her bag. Until you photograph with one, it's hard to realize how many frontiers it'll open up. So you don't need to sell her on the idea based on fishing pictures. And nature photography is a wonderful avenue to create art. It ain't all about the fish and other critters. Flowers, landscapes and other still life opportunities are all around us when we're out there.

Hey, Internet friends can be good people!

Here are a few photos using true 16-17mm. The fishing pics are using a crop sensor camera like yours, the Canon 10-22, and the method I described above.

The following images were from a 5D and Canon 17-40mm at 17mm. Essentially the same look as you can acheive with a 10mm lens on your crop camera (16mm equivalent).

[Jim Almquist]

Steve

I think that he was looking for this type of shot

Just kidding but I think its pretty cool looking

[Steve Foss]

Jim, that's one of the ones I was looking for but couldn't put my hands on quickly. My, but that fish has a big head and a small tail.

[Jim Almquist]

Its one of those new fangled species called a fat headed laker

[Scott M]

To get the effect you're talking about, you zoom the lens out as wide as it will go (lowest mm number), have the subject hold the fish as far away from the body as possible, and position the camera as close to the fish as possible. You can make that work OK with the 18-55, but it creates a truly dramatic effect with the 10-22.

Well, 2 years later I'm going to give it a try...I got wifey the 10-22 and having been adding a major lens each year for her. I got the greenlight to borrow the camera and lens this weekend for trout opener. I hope they're biting!

Thanks guys and gals for the tips over the years.