Canon 350d wide angle converter

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
...
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
...
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

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 , 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" wrote in message
...
In article , 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 , Frank ess
writes

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article , 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

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...

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