Canon 350d wide angle converter

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gordon Macpherson, Aug 22, 2005.

  1. 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, Aug 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gordon Macpherson

    Mark² Guest

    "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, Aug 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "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, Aug 22, 2005
    #3
  4. Gordon Macpherson

    Jim Townsend Guest

    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...
    Jim Townsend, Aug 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Gordon Macpherson

    wilt Guest

    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.
    wilt, Aug 22, 2005
    #5
  6. 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.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 22, 2005
    #6
  7. 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
    Gordon Macpherson, Aug 22, 2005
    #7
  8. Gordon Macpherson

    Prometheus Guest

    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, Aug 22, 2005
    #8
  9. Gordon Macpherson

    Frank ess Guest

    "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
    Frank ess, Aug 22, 2005
    #9
  10. Gordon Macpherson

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <>, 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
    Prometheus, Aug 22, 2005
    #10
  11. Gordon Macpherson

    Gormless Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:220820050842153370%...

    > Well...20mm x 1.6 = 44.8mm.


    As my old father used to say: 2 x 2 = 5 (for very large values of 2)

    Gorm
    Gormless, Aug 22, 2005
    #11
  12. Gormless wrote:

    >
    > "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    > news:220820050842153370%...
    >
    >> Well...20mm x 1.6 = 44.8mm.

    >
    > As my old father used to say: 2 x 2 = 5 (for very large values of 2)


    Pi = 3 for large values of 3 and small values of Pi.
    Thomas =?ISO-8859-15?Q?M=FCller?=, Aug 23, 2005
    #12
  13. writes:

    >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.


    But what does "the human eye" have as a field of view? The eye has a
    high-resolution field of view of only a few degrees - but we can see
    much more without moving our heads by scanning the eyes serially over
    whatever parts of the scene look interesting. The scannable field is
    wider than most wideangle lenses can capture.

    Plus there's the low-resolution but motion-sensing peripheral vision,
    which can see 180 degrees horizontally at one time. No way to match
    that without a fisheye.

    So what is normal?

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Aug 24, 2005
    #13
  14. Gordon Macpherson

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:08:06 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
    Martindale) wrote:

    > writes:
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >But what does "the human eye" have as a field of view? The eye has a
    >high-resolution field of view of only a few degrees - but we can see
    >much more without moving our heads by scanning the eyes serially over
    >whatever parts of the scene look interesting. The scannable field is
    >wider than most wideangle lenses can capture.
    >
    >Plus there's the low-resolution but motion-sensing peripheral vision,
    >which can see 180 degrees horizontally at one time. No way to match
    >that without a fisheye.
    >
    >So what is normal?
    >
    > Dave


    Google is your friend! :)
    One of many hits:
    http://www.digicamhelp.com/what-is-a-normal-lens/
    For 35mm, this site says 50mm.
    When I took up photography <mumble> years ago, I was told by many it
    was anywhere from 45mm - 55mm; the variance is because we don't all
    see the same. But I see the photography world has pretty much settled
    on 50mm. Maybe partly because 50mm is a very popular lens focal
    length, as well as being in the center of that range.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Aug 24, 2005
    #14
  15. Gordon Macpherson

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <>, Bill Funk
    <> writes
    >Maybe partly because 50mm is a very popular lens focal length,


    So, it is popular because it is popular?

    >as well as being in the center of that range.


    This seems a more logical explanation.
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    Prometheus, Aug 24, 2005
    #15
  16. Bill Funk <> writes:

    >Google is your friend! :)
    >One of many hits:
    >http://www.digicamhelp.com/what-is-a-normal-lens/
    >For 35mm, this site says 50mm.


    You're talking about the normal photographic meaning of "normal".
    There, a normal lens is one that gives an image with natural perspective,
    given some assumptions about the size of print and viewing distance.

    But this "normal" lens has a focal length somewhere near the diagonal
    of the image, and a horizontal field of view of something near 40-50
    degrees. That's nothing like the human eye, which is what the previous
    poster said defined normal for him. I was asking what *that* use of
    normal means in a lens.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Aug 24, 2005
    #16
  17. Gordon Macpherson

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <degkq6$gd$>, Dave Martindale
    <> writes
    > writes:
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >But what does "the human eye" have as a field of view? The eye has a
    >high-resolution field of view of only a few degrees - but we can see
    >much more without moving our heads by scanning the eyes serially over
    >whatever parts of the scene look interesting. The scannable field is
    >wider than most wideangle lenses can capture.
    >
    >Plus there's the low-resolution but motion-sensing peripheral vision,
    >which can see 180 degrees horizontally at one time. No way to match
    >that without a fisheye.
    >
    >So what is normal?


    A normal lens is one which has a focal length equivalent to the diagonal
    of the film (not withstanding the possible use with smaller sensors).
    The angle of view (53 deg.) with such a lens is approximately equal to
    the angle over which an inattentive eye can roam, without moving the
    head.

    For correct perspective an enlargement should be viewed at a distance
    equal to the focal length multiplied by the degree of enlargement.

    If we were to reproduce what the eye/brain perceives (N.B. not what the
    eye sees) then we would indeed have to use a 180 deg fish eye and make
    an infinitely large print. If we wished to replicate the human eye we
    would need a video camera with a narrow angle of view which could be
    swept around the scene and software to assemble a larger picture, and
    this is only a first approximation

    Here endith the first lesson. I have been taking photographs for (quite)
    a few years now, if you need a few pointers try a library; if anything
    is still unclear ask here.
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    Prometheus, Aug 24, 2005
    #17
  18. Gordon Macpherson

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:57:13 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Bill Funk
    ><> writes
    >>Maybe partly because 50mm is a very popular lens focal length,

    >
    >So, it is popular because it is popular?


    That's not what I meant.
    It (50mm rather than, say, 48mm) is chosen as "the" normal focal
    length because that length is a popular length, and there aren't very
    many 48mm lenses.

    >
    >>as well as being in the center of that range.

    >
    >This seems a more logical explanation.


    I agree. Maybe I should have reversed the order. :)

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Aug 25, 2005
    #18
  19. Gordon Macpherson

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:22:04 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
    Martindale) wrote:

    >Bill Funk <> writes:
    >
    >>Google is your friend! :)
    >>One of many hits:
    >>http://www.digicamhelp.com/what-is-a-normal-lens/
    >>For 35mm, this site says 50mm.

    >
    >You're talking about the normal photographic meaning of "normal".
    >There, a normal lens is one that gives an image with natural perspective,
    >given some assumptions about the size of print and viewing distance.
    >
    >But this "normal" lens has a focal length somewhere near the diagonal
    >of the image, and a horizontal field of view of something near 40-50
    >degrees. That's nothing like the human eye, which is what the previous
    >poster said defined normal for him. I was asking what *that* use of
    >normal means in a lens.
    >
    > Dave


    I dunno.
    Here's your post I responded to:

    "But what does "the human eye" have as a field of view? The eye has a
    high-resolution field of view of only a few degrees - but we can see
    much more without moving our heads by scanning the eyes serially over
    whatever parts of the scene look interesting. The scannable field is
    wider than most wideangle lenses can capture.

    Plus there's the low-resolution but motion-sensing peripheral vision,
    which can see 180 degrees horizontally at one time. No way to match
    that without a fisheye.

    So what is normal?"

    What lens are you referring to when you ask what's normal?
    If you are trying to ask about a lens that includes the periferal
    vision, which I think you are now, I have to say, again, 50mm, because
    that lens fits the media (35mm) and provides the same approximate
    perspective (within that media) that the human eye does. If you want
    the same *coverage*, you need to either change the media, or accept
    cropping along the top and bottom of the media ("Letterbox" photos?
    :) ).
    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Aug 25, 2005
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    says...
    > What lens are you referring to when you ask what's normal?
    > If you are trying to ask about a lens that includes the periferal
    > vision, which I think you are now, I have to say, again, 50mm, because
    > that lens fits the media (35mm) and provides the same approximate
    > perspective (within that media) that the human eye does. If you want
    > the same *coverage*, you need to either change the media, or accept
    > cropping along the top and bottom of the media ("Letterbox" photos?
    > :) ).
    >

    The perspective has nothing to do with whether you are using different
    lenses or the human eye. Perspective is determined by your distance
    from the subject, and nothing else.
    Graeme Cogger, Aug 25, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. someone
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    282
    Roland Karlsson
    Sep 23, 2003
  2. el gran tobaritx

    the best wide angle converter for fuji s602?

    el gran tobaritx, Sep 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    324
    el gran tobaritx
    Sep 27, 2003
  3. Stéphane Havard

    Wide angle converter Coolpix 5000

    Stéphane Havard, Jan 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    545
    Stéphane Havard
    Jan 10, 2004
  4. Photo Moron

    a80 wide angle converter

    Photo Moron, Feb 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    308
    Dominic Richens
    Feb 22, 2004
  5. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    699
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page