# Recommendations for a fast sub-28mm lens for ~$1k?



## locke42 (Jun 11, 2012)

Right now, I have a 50mm f/1.4 USM and a 15-85mm f/3.5-56 USM. Both are great, but I'm finding myself wanting to do a lot of indoor wide angle shots with relatively low light. The 50mm is too tight, and the 15-85mm is too slow.

Does anyone have any recommendations for a fast, relatively affordable wide-angle lens for a 60D that might fit the bill? It need not be a zoom lens, but I would like it to be very fast (faster than f/2 if possible; definitely faster than f/3). I know Canon has a 28mm f/1.8 USM, but I've read a couple of mixed reviews about its performance.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 11, 2012)

tokina 11-16 f2.8?

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Tokina-AT-X-Pro-11-16mm-f-2-8-IF-DX-Canon-0954-/300600011835?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item45fd282c3b


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 11, 2012)

Zeiss 28mm f/2? Expensive, but worth every penny.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> Wide angle low light shallow DoF is FF's specialty. You just have to suck it up if you really crave for that effect.
> 
> 5D2/3 + 24L suits it perfectly.



Oh yeah!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 12, 2012)

locke42 said:


> Right now, I have a 50mm f/1.4 USM and a 15-85mm f/3.5-56 USM. Both are great, but I'm finding myself wanting to do a lot of indoor wide angle shots with relatively low light. The 50mm is too tight, and the 15-85mm is too slow.
> 
> Does anyone have any recommendations for a fast, relatively affordable wide-angle lens for a 60D that might fit the bill? It need not be a zoom lens, but I would like it to be very fast (faster than f/2 if possible; definitely faster than f/3). I know Canon has a 28mm f/1.8 USM, but I've read a couple of mixed reviews about its performance.



Since you have a 60D, hmm. 24mm would be about what, 38-39mm on the crop. Is that wide enough for you? I just can't see 28mm being that wide. 28 x 1.6 is about 45mm. I don't have the answer here. You could save up the extra money over a longer period and get the 24mm f/1.4L (which is an awesome lens) or save a little more money and get a 16-35mm f/2.8L II. I guess $1k is a tough thing to hit when looking for a good lens down at these focal lengths. Since you have a 50mm and that is just a bit too tight, I'm guessing the 28 would work for you if that is wide enough for you and obviously much, much more affordable than the other two lenses I mentioned. Don't plan on great IQ at f/1.8 though on that 28mm.


----------



## robbymack (Jun 12, 2012)

That's a tough one for under a grand the tokina 11-16 is a good bet, but thats only 2.8. I find f2.8 generally just ok stopping indoor action, not the best but adequate in most situations. It seems you feel the same way hence the question. don't worry about the pixel peepers who complain about the 28 1.8. If it fits your needs and your budget you won't regret it, I never have. There really isnt a whole lot of choices in canon only. You could try the 35 f2 but no usm on that lens, not sure if that is a deal breaker or not. 

How about just adding a decent flash to your current kit?

Good luck keep us posted on what you decide and how your getting on with it.


----------



## jabbott (Jun 12, 2012)

If you don't like the Canon 28mm f/1.8, you may want to look at the Sigma 28mm f/1.8. I've shot some with it and was very impressed. It won't be extremely wide angle on a crop sensor but the image quality and bokeh are definitely good. Alternatively you could consider picking up a used 5D classic full frame DSLR and pairing it with your 50mm f/1.4 to get a much wider field of view while maintaining a fast aperture. I shoot with that combo quite a bit indoors and other than the lack of auto white balance and being limited to ISO 1600, it works really well. You should be able to pick one up for under $1K also. I know that 50mm on a full frame is equivalent to 31mm on a 1.6x crop sensor (which is greater than the 28mm you specified), but it's close enough that I figured you still may want to consider it.


----------



## axtstern (Jun 12, 2012)

Hi,

by chance I ranted a few days ago about the Sigma 24mm 1:8 in my blog

http://photo-otaku.de/Wordpress/?p=6

It is a cheap and a littllebit weird kind of a lens but it might do the trick for you.


----------



## studio1972 (Jun 12, 2012)

locke42 said:


> Right now, I have a 50mm f/1.4 USM and a 15-85mm f/3.5-56 USM. Both are great, but I'm finding myself wanting to do a lot of indoor wide angle shots with relatively low light. The 50mm is too tight, and the 15-85mm is too slow.
> 
> Does anyone have any recommendations for a fast, relatively affordable wide-angle lens for a 60D that might fit the bill? It need not be a zoom lens, but I would like it to be very fast (faster than f/2 if possible; definitely faster than f/3). I know Canon has a 28mm f/1.8 USM, but I've read a couple of mixed reviews about its performance.



Canon 17-55 IS f/2.8 is a great lens.

If you want something faster, how about the Sigma 30mm 1.4.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 12, 2012)

http://www.amazon.com/Bower-SLY358C-Ultra-Wide-Angle-Fisheye/dp/B00317H7Q4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339501575&sr=8-1

Something along those lines if it's fast enough? It's a manual lens that is said to be very very easy to focus manually since it's so wide, and you don't have to nail focus on any shot.... If it lets in enough light for you, it's cheap enough.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 12, 2012)

SIGMA 20MM 1:1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL LENS


----------



## emag (Jun 12, 2012)

Canon 17-55/2.8IS - at the high end of your price range, but an ideal fit with a crop
Tokina 11-16 - I use this one and am somewhat pleased
Rokinon 14mm - manual lens with fairly good reviews, reasonably priced
SIGMA 20/1.8 - FWIW, I am very happy with the Sigma lenses I've had. I have a 400/5.6 APO Macro that does not communicate with my 60D or 40D but is so nice wide open I keep it anyway.

The 17-55/2.8 is on my short list. I have the Rok8 fisheye and find the build quality and performance very good for the price point. The Rok14 is plenty wide enough for me and AF is just not an issue at that FL. I don't make a living at this and cannot justify the expense of L or Zeiss glass, my only L so far is a 300/4 non-IS for astro work.


----------



## c3hammer (Jun 12, 2012)

I have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, EF 24 L f/1.4 II, OM Zuiko 50 f/1.4 and an EF 70-200 L f/4 as my go to collection on a T3i. In the end of the day the 24L is mounted about 80% of the time. The 70-200 18% of the time and the others way down there.

I found that a fast 24mm is nearly the perfect focal length for an APS-C camera.

Cheers,
Pete
http://www.youtube.com/user/c3hammer
http://vimeo.com/petecarney


----------



## preppyak (Jun 12, 2012)

I'd say get a flash, and then that opens up your options for lenses. For example, the 430exII flash is like, $250, that gives you $750 to either get 2 primes or 1 good zoom that covers that range. Because any f/2.8 lens, indoors, won't get you the shutter speeds you need to shoot anything other than people standing still (unless you go ISO1600+). 

I just shot my friends wedding this past weekend, so there were multiple indoor rooms with only sunlight from outside helping lighting. Without flash, I'd have been shooting at 1/30th shutter speeds and ditching 90% of the photos. With the flash, I was shooting at 1/160th and 1/200th, which means I keep 90% of the photos. And this includes the 50mm f/1.4 I shot with, I was lucky if I got 1/80th shutter speeds at ISO800, and that was only when pointing at the windows. And if you're indoors, its really easy to bounce the flash to create nice lighting.

Otherwise, I'd say consider the Rokinon/Samyang lenses that do f/1.4 if you can accept MF, if not, then I'd say your options are the Sigma wide-angle primes (20mm, 24mm, both f/1.8) or the Canon 28mm f/1.8. I think the Tokina will be too wide for general use.


----------



## locke42 (Jun 14, 2012)

Gah, why wasn't the forum notifying me of replies? 

Okay, to clarify what I need this for, I want to do some wide field astrophotography, so the wider the better. I'm probably looking more for an _equivalent_ 28mm rather than an actual 28mm, which means around 17mm or so actual focal length.

I think I can do that pretty nicely with my 15-85mm when pulled to its widest, but it's still fairly slow, and without an equatorial mount I'm risking star trails (which, admittedly, isn't much of a concern at this short focal length, but still a concern). The 50mm is fast enough, but is probably a little tight on the FOV for what I need since I only have a crop sensor camera.

On that note, any idea how focal length translates into FOV in the photo? The Andromeda galaxy, for example is about 2 degrees wide, and I think 85mm's FOV is about 15 degrees on a full frame, so I can probably capture Andromeda nicely on my lens and crop it, provided I have an equatorial mount.


----------



## risc32 (Jun 14, 2012)

Yeah, that's going to change things quite a bit. It just so happens astrophotography is something i'm starting to get into and this post is very timely. Have you thought about getting a tracking mount? What do they cost anyway? Would you be better off with that money going towards that instead of a lens?


----------



## elflord (Jun 14, 2012)

locke42 said:


> Gah, why wasn't the forum notifying me of replies?
> 
> Okay, to clarify what I need this for, I want to do some wide field astrophotography, so the wider the better. I'm probably looking more for an _equivalent_ 28mm rather than an actual 28mm, which means around 17mm or so actual focal length.
> 
> ...



For fast, wide and relatively cheap, the two contenders are Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Other options are either above 17mm, slower than f/2.8 or much more expensive


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 14, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> Wide angle low light shallow DoF is FF's specialty. You just have to suck it up if you really crave for that effect.
> 
> 5D2/3 + 24L suits it perfectly.



+ two 600RTs and the ST-E3-RT.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 14, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> SIGMA 20MM 1:1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL LENS



Where is the ef 20mm f1.8L?


----------



## preppyak (Jun 14, 2012)

elflord said:


> For fast, wide and relatively cheap, the two contenders are Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Other options are either above 17mm, slower than f/2.8 or much more expensive


Yep, and both would work well for your purposes. The Tokina would give you more options, the Samyang would be cheaper. If those aren't fast enough, your only real Canon option is the 28mm f/1.8. Also, if the Tokina is too wide for your tastes, there is the older Canon 20-35mm f/2.8L that you can get for $4-500ish on Ebay, if not cheaper. But I think the 28mm f/1.8 would probably give you stronger image than that.


----------



## fester (Jun 15, 2012)

I discovered this little gadget in my internet wanderings; you might find it interesting. It is an equatorial motorized camera mount. I have no experience with this, only saved the link for future reference. May allow you to buy a cheaper lens and keep the star trails at bay.

http://www.vixenoptics.com/mounts/polarie.html


----------



## risc32 (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm going to look into that also, thanks. That was sort of the point of my post. With a tracking system you can use slower less expensive lenses. Besides i've yet to come across a lens that was best for astro work wide open. including the ef200mm1.8


----------



## emag (Jun 16, 2012)

For that price you could get a computerized CG5 mount. I use a Tokina 11-16 for widefield astro and find it suitable for timelapse but unfit for single images unless stopped to f4 or slower. With a tracking mount lens speed is not so critical but resolution always matters. A 300/4 or 400/5.6 works well for many astro objects at 1600ISO for 30-90 seconds. 3200 on the 18MP sensors with less shutter time.


----------



## DJL329 (Jun 16, 2012)

preppyak said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > For fast, wide and relatively cheap, the two contenders are Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Other options are either above 17mm, slower than f/2.8 or much more expensive
> ...



+1 for the EF 28mm f/1.8. It's great for landscapes, but it's fast enough for indoor use. It's also small and light (but the build is solid, like the 85mm f/1.8 ), so it's easy to take along when shooting mainly with another lens.






http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6381214971/#





http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7168092714/#


----------



## elflord (Jun 16, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> +1 for the EF 28mm f/1.8. It's great for landscapes, but it's fast enough for indoor use. It's also small and light (but the build is solid, like the 85mm f/1.8 ), so it's easy to take along when shooting mainly with another lens.



The OP is shooting with APS-C and wants a wide angle lens. 28mm on APS-C is not wide angle.


----------



## JerryKnight (Jun 16, 2012)

Astrophotography (like anything else, especially photography-related) can be as expensive as you want.

There are several options for tracking equatorial mounts. First, there are the full computerized German eq. mounts made for telescopes. These are probably the best option, because they are intended for exactly this purpose, although they're probably more intended for use with an actual telescope and astronomy CCD camera. I've never seen one that's a good out-of-the-box DSLR astrophotography mount. The other option is a simple motorized eq. mount. They don't have the computer thing ("GoTo", etc.) that automatically points the mount at specific objects, but they do have the motors that allow the mount to track with the stars (sidereal) or sun or moon.

*EDIT:* Looking closer at Vixen's site, I found they have what seems to be a decent mount for astrophotography. GP2 Photo Guider ~$1100, should work out-of-the-box.

The third option, which I have started out with, is the Astrotrac system. My kit is mostly made from standard photography tripod components, rather than the Astrotrac pier/wedge system. I have the Manfrotto 055XPROB tripod, along with the 410 geared head (serves as the equatorial mount for precise polar alignment), the Astrotrac itself, and a ball head on top of that. The Astrotrac, once properly aligned, uses a worm gear to rotate its top half at the same rate as the stars, so the ball head, no matter where it's pointed, will track with the stars. It's fairly precise, especially for wide angle sky shots, and it's even possible to take longer focal length shots for up to a few minutes exposure. Take a look at my setup on Flickr.

I went with the Astrotrac because it's mostly manual, very educational, and when I'm not doing astrophotography, I still have a very good tripod and photographic tripod heads to use. That geared head is fantastic for landscapes. All of the components considered, I probably spent about as much as I would have with a special motorized eq mount, but the versatility is an added benefit.

The other thing you should consider is a light pollution suppression filter. This is the next component on my list. These filters are specifically designed to cut down on the most common city lights (sodium vapor, etc) without restricting the light you want from the stars. Astronomik probably makes the best filters, and they even have filters that clip into the lens mount on your camera (assuming you have a Canon crop sensor camera). Look at either their CLS or UHC filters. OPT is a good place to find them in the USA.

*Getting back to your original question...* Lens wise, if you get a good tracking system, your choice of lens doesn't matter as much, especially the aperture. For sharpness, you're probably going to want to stop the lens down a bit anyways. It's very hard to focus precisely (even at infinity) on a dark sky, so it's best to go with something around f/8-f/11 and take longer exposures. If you want something really wide, and it sounds like you're on a crop camera, I recommend the EF-S 10-22. It's a great lens, solid construction, and very wide - 16-35mm equivalent. It costs $800 at B&H. Apart from that, your 15-85mm should do a fine job for you. (Very important, though - remember to turn off your stabilizer when it's on a tripod.)

The technique the professionals use is to take lots of medium-length exposures (2-5 minutes) and stack them using software like Deep Sky Stacker (free program). I haven't used this program yet, but I'm going to. It aligns and combines several light frames (normal star photos) and dark frames (shutter or lens closed off) to cut down on sensor noise.


----------



## jabbott (Jun 16, 2012)

JerryKnight said:


> If you want something really wide, and it sounds like you're on a crop camera, I recommend the EF-S 10-22. It's a great lens, solid construction, and very wide - 16-35mm equivalent.


I thought about recommending this lens as well, as I've used it some for astrophotography. The one thing I would also recommend is that all of your RAW photos taken with this lens should be processed with Canon's Digital Photo Professional or by Lightroom 4 to reduce chromatic aberration in the corners. DPP seems to handle chromatic aberration reduction really well on the 10-22, followed by LR4. IMO, Apple Aperture has terrible chromatic aberration correction for this lens. Other than that, it's a fine lens for capturing wide swaths of sky.


----------



## DJL329 (Jun 17, 2012)

elflord said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > +1 for the EF 28mm f/1.8. It's great for landscapes, but it's fast enough for indoor use. It's also small and light (but the build is solid, like the 85mm f/1.8 ), so it's easy to take along when shooting mainly with another lens.
> ...



Actually, the OP states he wants something wider than 50mm ("the 50mm is too tight"), preferably "faster than f/2," and _specifically_ mentions the Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM, but was unsure about it. Therefore, recommending the 28mm f/1.8 was completely reasonable.


----------



## elflord (Jun 17, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> Actually, the OP states he wants something wider than 50mm ("the 50mm is too tight"), preferably "faster than f/2," and _specifically_ mentions the Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM, but was unsure about it. Therefore, recommending the 28mm f/1.8 was completely reasonable.



OP writes: 

"Okay, to clarify what I need this for, I want to do some wide field astrophotography, so the wider the better. I'm probably looking more for an equivalent 28mm rather than an actual 28mm, which means around 17mm or so actual focal length."


----------



## locke42 (Jun 20, 2012)

elflord said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the OP states he wants something wider than 50mm ("the 50mm is too tight"), preferably "faster than f/2," and _specifically_ mentions the Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM, but was unsure about it. Therefore, recommending the 28mm f/1.8 was completely reasonable.
> ...


Grrr, still not notifying me.

Okay, I see my followup post has introduced a little bit of confusion.

First, I do want a fast wide-angle lens for astrophotography. I got my camera with the intention of eventually using it for astrophotography. (In fact, I was on the verge of getting the 60Da, but the price difference was just too much.) My 15-85mm covers the focal length, but not the speed. Of course, I wouldn't mind one that goes even wider than 15mm, as long as it's still fast. For this I'd prefer a zoom.

Second, I also want a possible replacement/complement to my current 50mm f/1.4 lens. The 50mm, as I said, can sometimes be a bit too narrow for the indoors shots that I like to take. For THIS purpose, I'd like something with an actual focal length between 20mm and 40mm, either a prime or a zoom.

Anyway, I've been doing some research and Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 seems to be the best compromise. It's not as fast as I'd like (I'd really love sub-f/2 like my 50mm prime), but I don't know if that's even possible with my other criteria.


----------



## locke42 (Jun 20, 2012)

JerryKnight said:


> The third option, which I have started out with, is the Astrotrac system. My kit is mostly made from standard photography tripod components, rather than the Astrotrac pier/wedge system. I have the Manfrotto 055XPROB tripod, along with the 410 geared head (serves as the equatorial mount for precise polar alignment), the Astrotrac itself, and a ball head on top of that. The Astrotrac, once properly aligned, uses a worm gear to rotate its top half at the same rate as the stars, so the ball head, no matter where it's pointed, will track with the stars. It's fairly precise, especially for wide angle sky shots, and it's even possible to take longer focal length shots for up to a few minutes exposure. Take a look at my setup on Flickr.


Yeah, the Astrotrac is actually the next thing on my shopping list. I've been wanting one ever since it was announced a few years ago. But until I've saved up the money for it, I'm going for stationary tripod photos.



JerryKnight said:


> *Getting back to your original question...* Lens wise, if you get a good tracking system, your choice of lens doesn't matter as much, especially the aperture. For sharpness, you're probably going to want to stop the lens down a bit anyways. It's very hard to focus precisely (even at infinity) on a dark sky, so it's best to go with something around f/8-f/11 and take longer exposures. If you want something really wide, and it sounds like you're on a crop camera, I recommend the EF-S 10-22. It's a great lens, solid construction, and very wide - 16-35mm equivalent. It costs $800 at B&H. Apart from that, your 15-85mm should do a fine job for you. (Very important, though - remember to turn off your stabilizer when it's on a tripod.)


Really? f/8 or f/11? That's only if I get a tracking system, though, right? What about for just plain, unguided, stationary tripod exposures @15-20mm focal lengths? I thought that 30-sec exposures would be the longest exposure time I could expect from a tripod, and with that in mind I thought that I should keep the aperture wide open since the exposure times would be so short.


----------



## risc32 (Jun 21, 2012)

There is a formula out there for how long of an exposure you can get away with for a given focal length without star trails being an issue. The shorter the focal length the longer you can go, but I can't seem to put a finger on the equation right now. I'm usually taking photos of the space station and I go 30seconds at f2.8 iso 800 16mm with no sign of star trails. Sometimes 60seconds, but that's just if i remember to bring my kitchen timer(it'll go to 60seconds or pretty much anything else while my camera only offers 30seconds) But that's not really getting it done with stars. Sure I have stars, but nothing like i'm going to be aiming for soon.


----------

