Paranoid me is!

[jmbfestool]

JMB:
The 20mm is a beautiful lens but it's kinda wasted on the 650D which is a DX size chip. A fair amount of the "wide angle" that lens can give you is being cut off by the size of the chip. That lens is really designed for a full frame camera like the 5D.
Yes, you are getting close to human vision (35mm) at 32mm but the 18-55 ef-s lens that came with the camera can do that and more.
I think you are way better off with the lens that came with the camera. It's a good lens and it's designed to work with the smaller chip on that camera.
That's my crappy 2cents.
Tim

It ain't crappy!  Very helpfully! Thank you!   It's a lot more help full than them Plonkers getting off on teddy porn.

Cheers

 

[woodguy7]

Oy, you started it by posting mucky pictures  [poke]

 

[jmbfestool]

Our peripheral vision allows pretty much 180 degrees so Canon's statement is somewhat misleading. You would need a fisheye lens to equal our actual field of vision.

Chris

JMB - 35 is not close to human vision. Generally it is accepted that a 50 mm on a full frame or 35 mm on a DX will give approximately the same perspective as the human eye. This is not the same as field of vision.

Thank you!  Yes it was misleading as I thought I was getting a lens I could use for taking pictures of my joinery work!  I struggle to get everything in sometimes because I can't get far enough away and thought this lens would help me to achieve that from Reading what it was saying about it. Very annoying.

Cheers.

We'll looks like I gotta send the lens back?  [mad]

Jmb

 

[tiralie]

Yes it was misleading as I thought I was getting a lens I could use for taking pictures of my joinery work!  I struggle to get everything in sometimes because I can't get far enough away and thought this lens would help me to achieve that from Reading what it was saying about it. Very annoying.

Get the Canon 10-22 ef-s  and a tripod, or keep the 20mm and get the 5D.

 

[Alan m]

maybe you could use that feature that allows you to join pics together to get wider shots.

 

[JeromeM]

Our peripheral vision allows pretty much 180 degrees so Canon's statement is somewhat misleading. You would need a fisheye lens to equal our actual field of vision.

Chris

JMB - 35 is not close to human vision. Generally it is accepted that a 50 mm on a full frame or 35 mm on a DX will give approximately the same perspective as the human eye. This is not the same as field of vision.

Thank you!  Yes it was misleading as I thought I was getting a lens I could use for taking pictures of my joinery work!  I struggle to get everything in sometimes because I can't get far enough away and thought this lens would help me to achieve that from Reading what it was saying about it. Very annoying.

Cheers.

We'll looks like I gotta send the lens back?  [mad]

Jmb

If you check you will see that the 2nd lens is much better than the first in regards to barrel distortion.

In the first the hinge line on the door is clearly distorted the second has it as nearly straight as I can see. If you do a blowup of something with both virticel and horizontal lines near the edge of the pic and check I think you will decide the second is a much better lens.

 

[RC]

Or you can send the 20mm lens to me [tongue]

How does it handle and focus? Been thinking on getting one for my 5D.

Seriously though, your options for a APS-C (DX in Nikon speak, or 1,6x crop factor sensor in general speak, which means that all the millimetre figures on the lenses need to be multiplied by 1.6 (Canon) or 1.5 (Nikon) to get the equivalent 35mm film width of the lens) are limited to the 10-22mm EF-S lens which will give your camera the 35mm film equivalent field of view of 16-35mm.

Only fisheye lenses give you (a highly distorted) 180 degree FOV. You can 'undistort' some fisheye lenses with software like DxO, but I would try the EF-S wide zoom first.

I've got the 17-40mm zoom for my full frame camera and 99% of the time 17mm is plenty wide.

 

[woodie]

When I first moved into digital photography (Canon 20D back in ‘02), I mistakenly thought EF-S lenses included the zoom range multiplier. 20mm = 20mm instead of having to take 20mm x 1.6 = 32mm. It was a line of lenses dedicated to APS-C crop sensor cameras after all...  Over the years I’ve talked to lots of people looking to purchase D-SLRs, and this is still something quite a few of them find confusing. Then you start talking APS-H at 1.3 and Nikon’s APS-C at 1.5 and eyes just glaze over. Now with Four Thirds in the mix it's even more confusing.

The 20mm is a beautiful lens but it's kinda wasted on the 650D which is a DX size chip.

I wouldn’t worry about EF lenses being "wasted" on an APS-C camera. In fact, I would say there are several advantages to using EF lenses with APS-C cameras.  Heck, the first lens I bought for my 20D was an EF 24-105mm f/4 L.  I currently use a 7D (still APS-C) and I don't own a single EF-S lens.

Get the Canon 10-22 ef-s  and a tripod, or keep the 20mm and get the 5D.

The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 is one EF-S lens I wouldn’t mind having. At the adjusted 16mm there just isn’t anything else this wide, in Canon’s line at least.  The EF 8-15mm f/4 L Fisheye gets you a wider field of view, but as mentioned above you have to use software to remove the distortion.  Unfortunately you have to crop some of the image during the process, so you won’t gain much if any width. Now if you don't mind fisheye, the 8-15mm would be great pick. Here's a link to an interesting article on it.  Check out the graphic illustrating where the image lands on the various image sensors.

Canon Learning Center

 

[jmbfestool]

Reiska - Woodie

Cheers for the info!  But im getting a little confused lol!

All I wanted from the Camera was a wide as possible view so when I cant stand far enough back because of room size etc  I can still get everything I want in the picture but WITH minimal distortion.  As I found out this is not possible with this lens I have correct?!  Which lens should I buy to achieve what I want or is the camera just not up to the job?!

Is the lens I got with the camera the only option I have?!  unless I go out and spend thousands?!  I can get a lens which will do the job and its below 1k I might consider it above 1k I think it would have to be a no no

cheers JMB

 

[woodie]

I think the EF-S 10-22mm is the lens to get. Here's a link to a review on it. Check out the first picture in the review. He keeps the camera in the same position so you can see the difference between 10mm, 14mm, 17mm, and I think 22mm. Just mouse over the number under the image. The difference between 10mm and 17mm is pretty substantial.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[jmbfestool]

I think the EF-S 10-22mm is the lens to get. Here's a link to a review on it. Check out the first picture in the review. He keeps the camera in the same position so you can see the difference between 10mm, 14mm, 17mm, and I think 22mm. Just mouse over the number under the image. The difference between 10mm and 17mm is pretty substantial.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Umm yeah da looks like a sexy lens!  Might get that one then! 
What about this one though! That is also 10mm  does da still get multiplied  1.6x cus its not a Canon but fits on a Canon?!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-10-20mm-f4-5-6-EX-HSM/dp/B0007U00X0/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1342823994&sr=1-12

I prefere the cost of the Sigma lol 

Canon ?!?! Price £683.51

OR

Sigma ?!?! Price £368.50

 

[mastercabman]

I think the EF-S 10-22mm is the lens to get. Here's a link to a review on it. Check out the first picture in the review. He keeps the camera in the same position so you can see the difference between 10mm, 14mm, 17mm, and I think 22mm. Just mouse over the number under the image. The difference between 10mm and 17mm is pretty substantial.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Umm yeah da looks like a sexy lens!   Might get that one then! 
What about this one though! That is also 10mm  does da still get multiplied  1.6x cus its not a Canon but fits on a Canon?!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-10-20mm-f4-5-6-EX-HSM/dp/B0007U00X0/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1342823994&sr=1-12

I prefere the cost of the Sigma lol 

Canon ?!?! Price £683.51

OR

Sigma ?!?! Price £368.50

Yes you will get the same lens factor.
The canon is more because it goes to 22mm  and is a faster lense.

 

[hockey_magnet]

I think the EF-S 10-22mm is the lens to get. Here's a link to a review on it. Check out the first picture in the review. He keeps the camera in the same position so you can see the difference between 10mm, 14mm, 17mm, and I think 22mm. Just mouse over the number under the image. The difference between 10mm and 17mm is pretty substantial.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Umm yeah da looks like a sexy lens!   Might get that one then! 
What about this one though! That is also 10mm  does da still get multiplied  1.6x cus its not a Canon but fits on a Canon?!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-10-20mm-f4-5-6-EX-HSM/dp/B0007U00X0/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1342823994&sr=1-12

I prefere the cost of the Sigma lol 

Canon ?!?! Price £683.51

OR

Sigma ?!?! Price £368.50

Yes you will get the same lens factor.
The canon is more because it goes to 22mm  and is a faster lense.

It's also more because it's a Canon  [smile]

 

[mastercabman]

I think the EF-S 10-22mm is the lens to get. Here's a link to a review on it. Check out the first picture in the review. He keeps the camera in the same position so you can see the difference between 10mm, 14mm, 17mm, and I think 22mm. Just mouse over the number under the image. The difference between 10mm and 17mm is pretty substantial.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Umm yeah da looks like a sexy lens!   Might get that one then! 
What about this one though! That is also 10mm  does da still get multiplied  1.6x cus its not a Canon but fits on a Canon?!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-10-20mm-f4-5-6-EX-HSM/dp/B0007U00X0/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1342823994&sr=1-12

I prefere the cost of the Sigma lol 

Canon ?!?! Price £683.51

OR

Sigma ?!?! Price £368.50

Yes you will get the same lens factor.
The canon is more because it goes to 22mm  and is a faster lense.

It's also more because it's a Canon  [smile]

Yes! I forgot to mention that.

 

[woodie]

I haven't had any hands on with Sigma lenses. I've ofter heard about focus related issues with their lenses; failure to focus properly or the lens continues to hunt for focus. If your not used to the focusing speed and accuracy Canon lenses provide this might not seem as annoying. 

Tamron has a 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 lens that might be another alternative. It looks like it's around £360.

Here's a link to the conclusion page of a review dpreview did on it.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_10-24_3p5-5p6_n15/4

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[RC]

JMB, any and all lenses that you can attach to your camera will be 'multiplied by 1.6x' regardless of the manufacturer. It is an industry standard to always publish lens width in 35mm film frame equivalent measure since there are a multitude of different sensor sizes on the market and every sensor need it correction multiplier that is supposedly know to the user of a camera i.e. 1.6x for you, 2x for micro four-thirds users, 1x for us full frame shooters, etc.

For a (mostly) distortionless wide angle images your best bet is to go with the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens. It's focusing speed and accuracy is superb and it's guaranteed to work on all Canon APS-C cameras in the future as well. The little distortions you will have with wide angle lenses can trivially be corrected in Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Photoshop and DxO Optics Pro with their integrated lens distortion correction databases. The distortions will be mostly invisible unless you're looking for them or you have shot geometric straight lines like a piece of furniture or a building with straight walls.

Stay away from fisheye lenses since they will always distort images heavily and even with correction in software you will either have some distortion left or you will need to crop so heavily that you will lose the angle of view benefit from the fisheye lens and could get better results with a normal ultra-wide lens that keeps lines straight from the start. If 16mm isn't enough then you will need to look at full frame cameras with ~14mm ultra-ultrawide lenses or do Panorama Stiching from multiple overlapping shots after the fact.

I got bitten with some old Sigma lenses I have for my film Canon EOS1000F/N that refuse to work on any of my Canon digital bodies (10D, 5D mark II) because Sigma & the lot have reverse engineered the Canon lens control firmware and not licensed it from Canon so aperture control does not work on my current cameras at all on those old lenses.

Sigma makes optically good quality lenses for sure and their price is lower than Canon branded ones, but I would go to a camera shop with your camera body and try the lens out physically i.e.
- go through the different shooting modes (Auto, Av, Tv, M) to make sure that their lens software version supports your camera model and does not result in lock-ups with Err99 like my 10D does
- try focusing close and far alternating between them to get a grasp of the focusing speed and find out does the focus 'search' back and forth or does it work like the Canon ultrasonic (USM) does i.e. it just whirs for a half second and stops spot on. To my understanding both Sigma and Tamron at least have developed their equivalent to USM focusing for some models of their lenses.
- if possible try focusing on dark areas to see how well the lens is able to operate in normal lighting conditions (lot less light than in a shop with fluorescent lighting) though this also measures how sensitive the cameras focusing points are. Usually the centre focusing point is a so called cross-type one and more sensitive than the rest so you will get best results with the centre point focus activated.

My neighbor bought a camera from Simply Electronics for a great price - haven't used them myself and have considered their website a bit dodgy looking, but he got his Nikon underwater point-n-shoot in a couple of weeks without hassles so I guess they are good. Anyone alse got experiences with them?

 

[jmbfestool]

Thank you all for the advice much appreciated

I did think off just getting the cheaper brands mentioned but I know me!  I got the Green blood and going second best is not my thing! 

So Reiska I think you convinced me ill get the EF-S 10-22 I think!  Good Idea to find a shop I can try the lenses!  Now where is a local store which would stock these kinda lenses!

GOOGLE!! lol

JMB

 

[RC]

Oh, and while you're at it have a good look at one of the Canon external hotshoe flashes and a good diffuser for it.

A proper flash that you can bounce off the ceiling/walls and soften with a diffuser will make a world of difference in inside shots and is a must as a fill light when shooting outside in bright daylight to light up the shadows.

For your camera size I would probably look at the new Canon EX320 flash and skip the EX580II that I have - it's large and heavy even on a 5Dm2 much more on a 650D which is half the size. You might get a good deal on the older EX430 if you don't value the video light that is in the 320 unit (though I probably would want to have the continously illuminating video led available in the 320 since your camera is at least 50% ment for video as well as traditional stills.)

 

[Nigel]

   I got the Green blood and going second best is not my thing! 

JMB

In that case why didn't you  get Nikon? [smile]

 

[mastercabman]

   I got the Green blood and going second best is not my thing! 

JMB

In that case why didn't you  get Nikon? [smile]

Don't go there!,  Don't even think about it! [laughing]