Inexpensive Wide-angle Lens for Canon 80D (Page 3): I love my Canon efs10-18. Very reasonable and great image quality. It's the lens I missed most when I went to a FF body.

ksmichaelsross Loc: Westwood, KS

I love my Canon efs10-18. Very reasonable and great image quality. It's the lens I missed most when I went to a FF body.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Sally D wrote:

Although I generally shoot wildlife, I’ve recently been wishing I had a wide-angle lens. The closest I have now is my EFS 15 - 85mm. I know nothing about wide-angle lens. For example, will my field of vision be greater with a lens of the same mm but that bills itself as a wide angle? About the only thing I know for sure is that I don’t want a fisheye.
I plan to use the lens primarily for landscapes.
Thank you in advance for your time and advice.

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is a low cost ($300) and compact solution. It's also one of the few ultra-wide zooms that has image stabilization and it offers excellent image quality. It's a bit plasticky, but that helps keep it lighter weight.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is a more expensive (on sale heavily discounted to $429 right now), but better built, slightly larger and heavier, but also up to a stop faster lens. An older lens, it's not an "L-series", but clearly better built than the above lens. It also has excellent image quality. This lens has been around for a number of years and should be easy to find used for some savings, if you wish. Also check if it's offered refurbished from the Canon website. (I might consider the more lightly built 10-18mm refurbished, too... but would be a little wary of buying it used, not knowing how previous owners have treated it and how much wear it has on it, particularly if there's no warranty.)

As to your question, either of those Canon lenses set to 15mm should give virtually identical angle of view as your 15-85mm when it's zoomed to 15mm. There may be slight variance just from the way focal lengths get rounded off, but not enough to make any real difference. Focal length is focal length, period. Among lenses for crop sensor cameras like yours, focal lengths in the 28mm to 16mm range are "slightly wide" to "moderately wide". Lenses that zoom to the 15mm to 8mm range are often called "very wide" or "ultra wide".

Years ago I did close comparison of a number of ultrawide zooms. There are some newer ones now that I've never tested, but after trying out a five or six I ended up buying a Tokina 12-24mm at that time. Back then there was only the one Canon available (10-22mm) and it was a whole lot more expensive than the Tokina, which I felt came close in performance. I eventually replaced the Tokina with a Canon 10-22mm, when I got a really good deal on one. Today, in my opinion, look no farther than the two Canon lenses above, which are both now very favorably priced. While there are several ultrawides to choose among from Sigma, Tokina and Tamron, in my opinion none of the third party wide angle zooms are particularly competitive with the two Canon lenses listed above. The third party lenses tend to be bigger, not have quite as good image quality (none have as good flare resistance as the Canon), most lack image stabilization (which one of the Canon has), tend to be bigger and heavier, and may even cost more! Yes, there are some third party exceptions. For example Sigma offers an 8-16mm that's the widest non-fisheye lens available from anyone. Tokina offers a couple f/2.8 and f/4 lenses without variable aperture. But for landscape photography in particular, those are rarely necessary. Most often landscape shooters are stopping down to a middle aperture anyway, such as f/8 or f/11, for sufficient depth of field and maximum fine detail. So a larger aperture lens... which will necessarily be bigger and heavier, possibly more expensive too... may be of limited use for landscape photography. Especially since many landscape photographers choose to use a tripod.

With either of the Canon lenses, I highly recommend getting their matched lens hoods. Those not only shade the lenses from oblique light, they also can physically protect them from bumps while you are out shooting with them. The EW-83E hood for the 10-22mm is rather large (like a small Frisbee!) and the Canon OEM version is rather pricey at around $35. I thought because the lens is one of the best at controlling and avoiding flare, I might get by without carrying it around to use my lens. But I did some comparisons (examples below) and found it definitely served to prevent flare in certain situations. So I made room for it in my camera bag, carry and use it all the time. The EW-73C that's matched for the 10-18mm is both more compact and less expensive ($25). In both cases, there are also less expensive third party "clone" hoods available from manufacturers like Vello. I don't have any experience with them so can't say how good they are... But, hey, a lens hood is a lens hood! (I would avoid the even cheaper "generic" tulip shaped hoods that screw in. Those can rotate too easily, causing vignetting in images.)

Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens without lens hood:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens with lens hood:

Have fun shopping!

rlscholl Loc: California

FYI, terms: For a full-frame sensor, any lens with focal length shorter than about 40mm is considered “wide angle”. More recently, the term “super wide angle is used for lenses from 18 to 25mm, and “ultra wide” is used for anything shorter. Fisheye lenses are typically wider than about 14mm and are “curvilinear”, describing a type of distortion. There are some “rectilinear” lenses in this focal length range without the fisheye distortion, but they tend to be pricy.

Gordon Sherman Loc: Renton, Wa.

Hello, I'm Gordon and I have a 10-18mm canon lens. Cost a little over $200 it's sharp and it is not a fisheye. Takes very good images on all of my canon cameras; thanks for reading.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I also use an 80D. For wider angles I use the Tokina Pro 11-20 mm f/2.8. I like it. It is f/2.8 across the entire range. It is for APS-C cameras and will mount but cause vignetting (on the lower f stops) on a full frame.

edit: I find it is no longer a current model

Mustanger Loc: Grants Pass, Oregon USA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

While a 5mm difference in focal length might not seem like much, going from 15mm to 10mm your horizontal angle of view goes from 73° to 96°, increasing it by almost 1/3. That’s a considerable difference.

Thank you! THIS is the answer I was looking for! I did not know how to compare the differences in a meaningful way! I appreciate your knowledge & willingness to share.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You can find many different comparisons of the same subject, different focal lengths. Here's Nikon's version of the discussion:

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/tips-and-techniques/understanding-focal-length.html

Including this example, that applies whether you're looking at FX or DX.

Sally D

BuckeyeBilly wrote:

With the holidays depleting the stock of camera co... (show quote)

Thanks for the suggestion! I don’t have a thing against used lenses! There’s not a lot of difference in price in this case but sometimes the difference can amount to hundreds like with my L lens.

Sally D

CHG_CANON wrote:

You can find many different comparisons of the same subject, different focal lengths. Here's Nikon's version of the discussion:

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/tips-and-techniques/understanding-focal-length.html

Including this example, that applies whether you're looking at FX or DX.

That’s a great illustration! Thanks!!

Sally D

amfoto1 wrote:

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is a low cost ($300) and compact solution. It's also one of the few ultra-wide zooms that has image stabilization and it offers excellent image quality. It's a bit plasticky, but that helps keep it lighter weight.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is a more expensive (on sale heavily discounted to $429 right now), but better built, slightly larger and heavier, but also up to a stop faster lens. An older lens, it's not an "L-series", but clearly better built than the above lens. It also has excellent image quality. This lens has been around for a number of years and should be easy to find used for some savings, if you wish. Also check if it's offered refurbished from the Canon website. (I might consider the more lightly built 10-18mm refurbished, too... but would be a little wary of buying it used, not knowing how previous owners have treated it and how much wear it has on it, particularly if there's no warranty.)

As to your question, either of those Canon lenses set to 15mm should give virtually identical angle of view as your 15-85mm when it's zoomed to 15mm. There may be slight variance just from the way focal lengths get rounded off, but not enough to make any real difference. Focal length is focal length, period. Among lenses for crop sensor cameras like yours, focal lengths in the 28mm to 16mm range are "slightly wide" to "moderately wide". Lenses that zoom to the 15mm to 8mm range are often called "very wide" or "ultra wide".

Years ago I did close comparison of a number of ultrawide zooms. There are some newer ones now that I've never tested, but after trying out a five or six I ended up buying a Tokina 12-24mm at that time. Back then there was only the one Canon available (10-22mm) and it was a whole lot more expensive than the Tokina, which I felt came close in performance. I eventually replaced the Tokina with a Canon 10-22mm, when I got a really good deal on one. Today, in my opinion, look no farther than the two Canon lenses above, which are both now very favorably priced. While there are several ultrawides to choose among from Sigma, Tokina and Tamron, in my opinion none of the third party wide angle zooms are particularly competitive with the two Canon lenses listed above. The third party lenses tend to be bigger, not have quite as good image quality (none have as good flare resistance as the Canon), most lack image stabilization (which one of the Canon has), tend to be bigger and heavier, and may even cost more! Yes, there are some third party exceptions. For example Sigma offers an 8-16mm that's the widest non-fisheye lens available from anyone. Tokina offers a couple f/2.8 and f/4 lenses without variable aperture. But for landscape photography in particular, those are rarely necessary. Most often landscape shooters are stopping down to a middle aperture anyway, such as f/8 or f/11, for sufficient depth of field and maximum fine detail. So a larger aperture lens... which will necessarily be bigger and heavier, possibly more expensive too... may be of limited use for landscape photography. Especially since many landscape photographers choose to use a tripod.

With either of the Canon lenses, I highly recommend getting their matched lens hoods. Those not only shade the lenses from oblique light, they also can physically protect them from bumps while you are out shooting with them. The EW-83E hood for the 10-22mm is rather large (like a small Frisbee!) and the Canon OEM version is rather pricey at around $35. I thought because the lens is one of the best at controlling and avoiding flare, I might get by without carrying it around to use my lens. But I did some comparisons (examples below) and found it definitely served to prevent flare in certain situations. So I made room for it in my camera bag, carry and use it all the time. The EW-73C that's matched for the 10-18mm is both more compact and less expensive ($25). In both cases, there are also less expensive third party "clone" hoods available from manufacturers like Vello. I don't have any experience with them so can't say how good they are... But, hey, a lens hood is a lens hood! (I would avoid the even cheaper "generic" tulip shaped hoods that screw in. Those can rotate too easily, causing vignetting in images.)

Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens without lens hood:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens with lens hood:

Have fun shopping!

b Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM /b is a lo... (show quote)

HeyAlan thank you so much for the really comprehensive reply. I think I’ll go with the Canon 10-18. This will never be my main lens. I shoot mainly wildlife with a 100-400 L lens but have recently felt like I’d like to be more than a one trick pony so I’ve been trying to do some landscapes. Thanks again!!

Doc Mck Loc: Terrell,Texas

I use a Tokina AT-X PRO 11-16 F2.8 ASPERICA;AT-X116PRO DX II. WORKS WONDERS. AN EF lens that works perfectly on an aps-c sensor. Mine was $335 on eBay.

Sally D

Doc Mck wrote:

I use a Tokina AT-X PRO 11-16 F2.8 ASPERICA;AT-X116PRO DX II. WORKS WONDERS. AN EF lens that works perfectly on an aps-c sensor. Mine was $335 on eBay.

Thanks! I’ve always stuck with Canon but maybe it’s time to take a look.

Photocraig

jdub82 wrote:

I have been very pleased with the Canon EFS 10-18mm wide angle lens. It works well, and gives me that extra wide view when needed.

I have a 77D, same sensor and a newer DGIC, as the 80D. I like my 10-18 EFS lens. At 10mm, you have about the FF equivalent of 16mm, which is the wide point for the ever popular (and expensive) EF16-35 and EF17-40 "L" series lenses. It is largely distortion free--except at the vary edges, which is common on all wide lenses. Careful compositions, keeping vertical and Horizontal straight lines, like building edges and people's arms and faces well inside the frame is the compositional caution on all the wide zooms. Here's is where the extra wide 10-14mm range helps, not by "getting more in" the frame, but allowing "Loose" compositions, giving the subjects Edge Room, thus avoiding (and later cropping?) edge distortion. Lightroom lens corrections help a lot as do the auto and manual distortion and correction options.

It is a bargain at the price.
C