Wide angle / macro lens

[DaveHKent]

I'm looking for a new lens to add to my kit, currently using a Canon 18mm f/4.0-55mm f/5.6. I want to be able to do wide field images of a Star Adventurer Pro mount. Funds are tight so I'm looking at second hand/ebay market. A 24mm f/2.8 seems fairly common, though many are described as a macro wide angle lens. Just to check, does this mean it is good for both macro and wide angle landscapes? A lens that can do great close up pictures of bugs around the garden would be great, but I want to make sure it is suitable for the prime purpose and get some lovely Milky Way shots.

With a Canon EOS 700D, does a 24mm f/2.8 sound about the right sort of lens for that?

[Adreneline]

Just to provide a comparison I set up a Canon 70D with a 50mm, 24mm and Samyang 14mm lens in Sky Safari to compare FoV.

There are plenty of online sites that allow you to do similar things.

HTH

 

[DaveHKent]

Wow, cheers. The 14mm looks like the better choice for what I want.

[wxsatuser]

Although some lenses say they are macro they are not and have a poor reproduction ratio.
A tube or tubes will be needed to get anywhere near 1:1.

[Nigeyboy]

Hi

A 24mm on a crop sensor is actually nearer to 38mm so not ‘wide’ angle really.

While primes are generally better from an image quality perspective, true wide angle primes are expensive.

Take a look at the Canon EF-S 10-18mm. It is cheap but hits above its weight when it comes to image quality.

As for Macro, I would think you will always want as much focal length as you can afford!

Edited July 22, 2020 by Nigeyboy

[chiltonstar]

An additional point: you mention "macro of bugs around the garden" - generally short-focus macro lenses are not good for this because you need to get so close to the insect that you frighten them off (most people tend you use macro lenses around 100mm fl for insects).

Chris

[DaveHKent]

2 hours ago, Nigeyboy said:

Hi

A 24mm on a crop sensor is actually nearer to 38mm so not ‘wide’ angle really.

While primes are generally better from an image quality perspective, true wide angle primes are expensive.

Take a look at the Canon EF-S 10-18mm. It is cheap but hits above its weight when it comes to image quality.

As for Macro, I would think you will always want as much focal length as you can afford!

Thanks, that does look like a pretty good lens. A bit out of my price range at the moment but I’ll keep an eye out for bargains.

That is f/4.0 at its widest and I was wondering if a lower f number would be better, or does that matter less when you are on a tracked mount?

[DaveHKent]

7 minutes ago, chiltonstar said:

An additional point: you mention "macro of bugs around the garden" - generally short-focus macro lenses are not good for this because you need to get so close to the insect that you frighten them off (most people tend you use macro lenses around 100mm fl for insects).

Chris

Cheers. Macro is not that important. I was mainly wondering why many of the lenses I was looking at were described as macro and does that make them unsuitable for astro.

[chiltonstar]

24 minutes ago, DaveHKent said:

Cheers. Macro is not that important. I was mainly wondering why many of the lenses I was looking at were described as macro and does that make them unsuitable for astro.

 

The macro description you quote is another way of saying close-focussing so they should work for astro, but it is worth looking at test reviews to see how far you need to stop it down to get best performance. I have a 28mm Nikon lens that is close focussing (not described as macro though) and does a good job for wide field imaging.

Chris

[Nigeyboy]

Quote

That is f/4.0 at its widest and I was wondering if a lower f number would be better

That's an issue with Zoom lenses - they are generally slower! I think its a trade off between speed and cost.  Even some of the Samyang prime lenses are over £400. If you look at whats available for Canon fit at the extreme wide end, options are limited if you don;t want to spend a barrow load of cash!!  

Have you considered looking at some of the older FD mount lenses? These can be attached to your Canon by way of an adaptor, and you can pick up some real bargains on Ebay!!

 

[happy-kat]

FD lens mount will not reach focus with a mirrored EOS camera, I'm not 100% sure if even a canon mirrorless will. Old M42 mount lens will reach infinity focus with an EOS I use some on my 1100d.

FD lens on an EOS gives great macro if the object is very close and not really moving.

[Nigeyboy]

Quote

FD lens mount will not reach focus with a mirrored EOS camera

I believe they will with one of THESE.  You do lose any auto functions the lens might have, and admittedly its another piece of glass in the imaging train . . .  

[happy-kat]

But the corrector lens makes for a poor photo, I've got one and FD lens

[Nigeyboy]

4 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

But the corrector lens makes for a poor photo, I've got one and FD lens

Fair comment! Only thought it a budget option for the OP above. Proper wide angles (ie wider than 18mm where most kit lenses start) for Canon APS-C cameras are either expensive. I did use a friends Canon EF-S 10-22mm once - great lens, but again, more expensive than the little 10-18mm.

[richard ashbee]

go for the Samyang 14mm XP lens F2.4, much better quality than the older F2.8

[Nigeyboy]

Just now, richard ashbee said:

Samyang 14mm XP lens F2.4

Think that Dave may be on a budget Richard! That lens is over £800 new isn't it?

[MarkAR]

Uk price is around £900, there's a pre-owned on Ebay at the moment.

I think I got lucky and picked up a refurb from the main UK dealer off Ebay for £525.

[DaveHKent]

My budget at the moment is probably £100 max. I can wait for a better lens but £900 is a long way off my spending for a lens at the moment.

[tooth_dr]

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-nikon-fit-lenses/sigma-10-20mm-f-4-5-6-ex-dc-hsm-nikon-fit/sku-1011545/?gclid=CjwKCAjwx9_4BRAHEiwApAt0zkGsKHp1yU5uLrEtM_tlYhZNrC98Y9kc4jkN_gY_IhK3vL9HRyF0ZRoCeU0QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

[tooth_dr]

^^^ For wide angle at a budget of £100 - it’s tight. I used to have one of those lenses above. Used it in Iceland for widefield shots. It’s slow enough but decent.  Is something like that of interest?

Edited July 22, 2020 by tooth_dr

[BlueStinger]

You could look at a Tamron SP AF 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 lens thats £120 good and £135 excellent conditions used on mpb.  Seems it's got a rubbish autofocus which won't matter much I guess for nightsky work at least. Obviously better lenses out there but could be a solution for the budget.

[happy-kat]

Before buying any lens I would use the kit lens at 18mm and then at 55mm and collect subs on your star adventurer and then process the two batches and see if you prefer on general the wide fov of the 18mm. You can use ICE to stitch panels together where you want really wide field of view. 

I've also got a canon pancake 24mm f2.8, it's ok but my one needs stopping down to f4 really on stars. I bought this new from Currys for £79 in one of their specials.

I use a set of macro rings (£15ish) for any macro on obliging targets.

[DaveHKent]

Cheers for the further advice. There are a good couple of lens options there from MPB. I get another pay day in a week, I probably need to set a bit more aside but it looks like I can get something reasonable for only a bit more than I planned.

[richard ashbee]

On 22/07/2020 at 10:19, Nigeyboy said:

Think that Dave may be on a budget Richard! That lens is over £800 new isn't it?

didn't realise that it had gone up that much, think I paid about £650 when it first came out. Its well worth the price  a lot sharper, better built & hardly any coma and twice the resolution