«

Hi,
I have ordered a 350d/XT body with the Canon 28-105 lens as standard. I
am now getting worried that this lens will be too narrow-angle for
landscape pics.
1. Should I be worried?
2. If so, are there wide-angle converters available (I cannot afford a
wide-angle lens) that would not detract too much from the lens
performance. Would the WC-DC58 converter be a possiblity?

Thanks,

Gordon

"Gordon Macpherson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi,
> I have ordered a 350d/XT body with the Canon 28-105 lens as standard. I
> am now getting worried that this lens will be too narrow-angle for
> landscape pics.
> 1. Should I be worried?
> 2. If so, are there wide-angle converters available (I cannot afford a
> wide-angle lens) that would not detract too much from the lens
> performance. Would the WC-DC58 converter be a possiblity?
>
> Thanks,

No converters, but there are some lenses designed exclusively for 1.6 crop
DSLRs.
See Canon EF-S lenses.

If you think you'll someday migrate to a full-frame DSLR, then you'd do well
to skip the EF-S stuff and get yourself an ultra wide such as the 17-40L
(about $700). Or get really spendy and opt for the 16-35 2.8 L from Canon.


The 28-105 is a very decent all-around lens. Not great, but decent.

Or...How about this:
I just baught the $1200 24-70 2.8 L Canon, which makes my 28-135 IS (Image
Stabilized) lens rather redundant. I'm selling it, and you can have it for
$275. It has been a great lens for me. I just got spoiled after getting
used to expensive L glass at other focal lengths.

For most people who own this lens, it is the one most often on their Canon
DSLRs with 1.6 crop factors (like yours).

I don't mean to be a salesman, but I'll be putting it on e-bay shortly, and
would be willing to sell it for that lower price if I don't have to fiddle
with e-bay.

If you want new, and don't mind the EF-S future limitations, you could pay
the $$ for the EF-S 24-85 IS lens (Image stabilization, like mine).

For your question, though, I would suggest that you get hold of your lens
and give it a try. You'll quickly figure out if it's wide enough for you.
Even if you end up keeping it for a short term, it's not terribly expensive,
and would be easy to sell for very near new price (if not MORE--as e-bay
tends to go these days).

-Mark

"Mark²" wrote:

> "Gordon Macpherson" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Hi,
> > I have ordered a 350d/XT body with the Canon 28-105 lens as standard. I
> > am now getting worried that this lens will be too narrow-angle for
> > landscape pics.
> > 1. Should I be worried?
> > 2. If so, are there wide-angle converters available (I cannot afford a
> > wide-angle lens) that would not detract too much from the lens
> > performance. Would the WC-DC58 converter be a possiblity?
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> No converters, but there are some lenses designed exclusively for 1.6 crop
> DSLRs.
> See Canon EF-S lenses.
>
> If you think you'll someday migrate to a full-frame DSLR, then you'd do well
> to skip the EF-S stuff and get yourself an ultra wide such as the 17-40L
> (about $700). Or get really spendy and opt for the 16-35 2.8 L from Canon.
>
>
> The 28-105 is a very decent all-around lens. Not great, but decent.
>
> Or...How about this:
> I just baught the $1200 24-70 2.8 L Canon, which makes my 28-135 IS (Image
> Stabilized) lens rather redundant. I'm selling it, and you can have it for
> $275. It has been a great lens for me. I just got spoiled after getting
> used to expensive L glass at other focal lengths.
>
> For most people who own this lens, it is the one most often on their Canon
> DSLRs with 1.6 crop factors (like yours).
>
> I don't mean to be a salesman, but I'll be putting it on e-bay shortly, and
> would be willing to sell it for that lower price if I don't have to fiddle
> with e-bay.
>
> If you want new, and don't mind the EF-S future limitations, you could pay
> the $$ for the EF-S 24-85 IS lens (Image stabilization, like mine).
>
> For your question, though, I would suggest that you get hold of your lens
> and give it a try. You'll quickly figure out if it's wide enough for you.
> Even if you end up keeping it for a short term, it's not terribly expensive,
> and would be easy to sell for very near new price (if not MORE--as e-bay
> tends to go these days).
>
> -Mark

Thanks - IGuess I will wait and see

Gordon

Gordon Macpherson wrote:

> Hi,
> I have ordered a 350d/XT body with the Canon 28-105 lens as standard. I
> am now getting worried that this lens will be too narrow-angle for
> landscape pics.
> 1. Should I be worried?

There is no set focal length for landscapes.. I've taken
'landscape' shots at 400mm.. (Distant mountains)

I have the 28-105 and I have a 15-30 lens.. I rarely use
the 15-30. (Of course I consider anything under 100mm
to be wide angle, so take my opinion with a grain of salt

In a real pinch, you can shoot two separate frames and
stitch them together using software.

> 2. If so, are there wide-angle converters available (I cannot afford a
> wide-angle lens) that would not detract too much from the lens
> performance. Would the WC-DC58 converter be a possiblity?

It's a possibility.. The WC-DC58 will screw on the end of the
28-105.. I've never tried one so I can't comment...

The 28mm on 350XT will be like shooting with a 33mm lens on FF...you
need to ask yourself if YOU would be satisfied with that! For myself,
I found 28mm was not wide enough for my film camera, so I sold my 28mm
for a 24mm lens, but that was more about shooting interior shots during
my travels than about landscapes. In fact, too 'wide' is bad for
landscapes, too...too much sky and/or distracting foreground in the
shot unless you crop vertically to turn a photo into a 'panorama'
format.

In article <>, Gordon Macpherson
<> wrote:

> I have ordered a 350d/XT body with the Canon 28-105 lens as standard. I
> am now getting worried that this lens will be too narrow-angle for
> landscape pics.

Well...20mm x 1.6 = 44.8mm. Looks more like a normal field-of-view to
me.

Gordon Macpherson wrote:

> Hi,
> I have ordered a 350d/XT body with the Canon 28-105 lens as standard. I
> am now getting worried that this lens will be too narrow-angle for
> landscape pics.
> 1. Should I be worried?
> 2. If so, are there wide-angle converters available (I cannot afford a
> wide-angle lens) that would not detract too much from the lens
> performance. Would the WC-DC58 converter be a possiblity?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gordon
>
>

Thanks to all - I am sufficiently reassured to wait and see!

Gorodn

In article <220820050842153370%>, Randall
Ainsworth <> writes
>In article <>, Gordon Macpherson
><> wrote:
>
>> I have ordered a 350d/XT body with the Canon 28-105 lens as standard. I
>> am now getting worried that this lens will be too narrow-angle for
>> landscape pics.
>
>Well...20mm x 1.6 = 44.8mm. Looks more like a normal field-of-view to
>me.
I think you will find that 20mm x 1.6 = 32mm! But 28mm x 1.6 = 44mm
which is only slightly wider than normal.
--
Ian G8ILZ

"Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:...
> In article <220820050842153370%>, Randall
> Ainsworth <> writes
>>In article <>, Gordon Macpherson
>><> wrote:
>>
>>> I have ordered a 350d/XT body with the Canon 28-105 lens as
>>> standard. I
>>> am now getting worried that this lens will be too narrow-angle for
>>> landscape pics.
>>
>>Well...20mm x 1.6 = 44.8mm. Looks more like a normal field-of-view
>>to
>>me.
> I think you will find that 20mm x 1.6 = 32mm! But 28mm x 1.6 = 44mm
> which is only slightly wider than normal.

Way I remember it, "normal" has hovered around 35-38mm in your
off-the-shelf P&S cameras for quite a while, so if "normal" means
"What the ordinary person expects in a print", you may need to go to
22-24mm.

Here's a quick-and-dirty panorama from four F/L 24mm frames (20D,
24-70L, f/8; just a little cloning to eliminate a ghost person and an
errant tree-line; USM@ 300, 0,3,0 after stair-step reduction in 10%
deccrements; Save For Web at Photo Shop 30 quality).
http://www.fototime.com/F39AF07B03035C5/orig.jpg

--
Frank S

"Verbing wierds language."
-Calvin

In article <y9mdnbbo5ualiZfeRVn->, Frank ess
<> writes
>
>"Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:...
>> In article <220820050842153370%>, Randall
>>Ainsworth <> writes
>>>In article <>, Gordon Macpherson
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have ordered a 350d/XT body with the Canon 28-105 lens as
>>>>standard. I
>>>> am now getting worried that this lens will be too narrow-angle for
>>>> landscape pics.
>>>
>>>Well...20mm x 1.6 = 44.8mm. Looks more like a normal field-of-view to
>>>me.
>> I think you will find that 20mm x 1.6 = 32mm! But 28mm x 1.6 = 44mm
>>which is only slightly wider than normal.
>
>Way I remember it, "normal" has hovered around 35-38mm in your
>off-the-shelf P&S cameras for quite a while, so if "normal" means "What
>the ordinary person expects in a print", you may need to go to 22-24mm.

I had always taken 'normal' to be approximating to the human eye, not to
what is conventionally fitted as 'standard' on a particular kind of
camera.
--
Ian G8ILZ