tiggers

As a Nikon man I'm not sure how to answer this so I'm throwing it open to the floor.

My friend has a 300D with the kit 18-55 (I think) lens. He has been struggling to make the wide angle images look reasonable as there is some distortion/vignetting happening.

It's not that bad, but it is noticeable. So my question is what replacement zoom lens can he buy (preferably even a slightly wider angle if possible) that will improve matters and roughly how much will it cost?

Obviously I am aware the 300D is a good entry level DSLR and not a top of the range professional camera so I guess going silly on glass might not be sensible, but is there something out there that is better than the kit lens?

Bear in mnind that my friend would also one day like to upgrade the body and will definitely stick with Canon so if a lens is 'too good' for the camera this would not necessarily be a bad thing in the long term.

I know I can have a dig on DP Review, but getting it personally from the 300D/Canon users on here would be better.

Thanks in advance,

tiggers.

Iain Young

Have a look here. I've recently had this discussion about my 10D...

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393701

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

What aperture are you using? Vignetting and softness are classic defects in a lens that's used wide open. Try stopping down to f/8 or thereabouts, you may see enough of an improvement that you don't feel the need for a new lens at all.

Failing that, any lens designed for a full 35mm frame should work without vignetting, but you do want the sharpest you can get for a high res camera like the 300D. I use a Sigma 15-30, which is good but bulky - otherwise you're in 'L' series territory.

(ps. this is the first and last time I'll ever try to post using the touchscreen on my PDA!)

Neils wrx

Had a 300D since last summer, and I've not noticed the problems you describe.

It might be worth taking the camera into a shop and put one of their lens's on the front and see if he gets the same problems.

I've been very pleased with the results from mine, although taking in RAW does tend to fill hard-drives up ....

r32

EF S lenses designed for digital, 10 to 22 for 519 pounds and 17 to 85 for 419 pounds both from 7 day shop. Excellent prices (JUST REDUCED) and excellent service...
dont forget to multiply by 1.6 to get 35mm equivalent.

Diablo

Hi Tiggers.

Was out on Sunday afternoon with my 20d and took just the 28-105 usm II.

Got some cracking results in poor light at 28mm at max aperture (so 35mm on the 20d) with no vignetting or softness issues at all.

I've got the 18 to 55 it came with (same lens as your friend) and to be honest I can't really see where I'd have been devestated not being able to go wider than an effective 35mm compared to an effective 28mm.

At the moment, I'm wondering where I'd really need to go wider than an effective 28 mm of the 18 to 55.

D

tiggers

Thanks for the replies so far everyone.

Hi Diablo,

How's things?

Yeah my pal is fine most of the time, but he is shooting in couple of very small makeshift studios where he wants to be able to go really wide, sometimes for space reasons and sometimes for effect - hence why we are looking at a seriously wide angle lens.

Cheers,

tiggers.

Daryl

Then I guess you need a Sigma 15mm fisheye or a Canon EF-S 10-22

IWatkins

Or Sigma 12-24.

Or Sigma 8mm and de-fish it.

Or buy a 1Ds

Or multi shot and stitch