Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

There have already been a number of excellent replies. I'm starting from the basis that you actually want a very wide lens (equivalent to your old 24mm lens) and are aware of some of the distortion effects that wide lenses create. In my old film days I had 28mm and 20mm primes. I loved the effects of the 20mm. However, good wide angle lenses are seldom inexpensive.

For a Canon APS-C camera like yours the equivalent focal length would be 15mm, and the best option is likely to be the new Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS zoom which gets great reviews. It is a little over your budget, but would deliver the results you are looking for, and distortion should be minimum in the middle of the zoom range. I have the EF-S 10-22mm zoom which is more expensive but fits my desire for ultra wide capability.

I think your main options are to spend the additional money and get the 10-18mm or to follow others advice and take a few steps backwards. The latter is cheaper and should work well if your goal is simply to get lots of people in the frame. If you are looking for the creative capabilities that your 24mm prime delivered then buying the ultra wide zoom would probably be the better way to go.

Good luck.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

You don't mention what, or where you want to shoot. Having a ultra wide angle lens, in certain situations is a life saver. I was in Venice, Italy, shooting the sights with a 24-70mm lens. I had to back up to get in the building I was shooting. To my dismay, several times I almost fell into a canal. When I returned to Venice, I had a new Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens. I did get all the shots I wanted, and didn't go for a swim.

B

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

The little lens that rocks!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Samyang makes a good 16mm f2 manual focus lens. You might be able to find a used one for $300 + or -.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

And if you want to go really wide while being affordable, Samyang's 8mm fisheye is a pretty nice piece of glass.

MarkD Loc: NYC

Your Rebel has a crop factor of 1.6x so you would need a 15mm focal length to get the equivalent field of view of 24mm on a 35mm camera (15x1.6=24). The Canon 10-18 is the closest to your price range. You should also consider the Canon 18-55 IS new, used, or refurbished if you can't afford the 10-18. 18mm gives an equivalence of 28.8mm (18x1.6).

budclem Loc: orcutt, ca

I have a Canon Rebel XT, I have little knowledge as to the replies you have received but, I bought a Wide angle lens thru Amazon for my Rebel, Here's what it says on the lens, "Professional HD DSLR MC AF 0.43X Super wide angle lens Japan Optics" it also has a Super Macro lens if you screw apart the lens.
Based on the comments this will receive from those more knowledgeable it may fit your needs.
It was inexpensive and also came with some other lenses.

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

I been shutting wedding for years and most of the time i use a XR Di 28-75MM F 2.8 tamron on a nikon D300. If you go to wide your flash will not cover the sides. I shot over 2000 weddings yes 2000 and never needed anything wider.

GregWCIL Loc: Illinois

Your question raises another question in my mind: Will a 10mm lens on the crop sensor have the distortion of a 10mm lens or that of a 16mm lens? Either way, I would think it might be an issue for taking photos of people. Those on the edges may look a little wider.

Another factor to consider is that the Canon 10-18 is a fairly slow lens. You will likely need to use flash in dimly lit rooms. I wonder if it takes an adapter on the flash to reach that wide and not cause vignetting?

I'd probably just try the wide end of the zoom you have and see how it performs. If you like everything but it's speed, you will get the fastest lens for the money with a prime 24, 28 or 35mm lens. Then the flash becomes less of an issue.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

All of this, and other comments are valid points, but we have a problem with budget vs. capability vs. lighting and so forth, which is why pro's tend to have a lot of expensive equipment.

With $200 for a lens, I doubt there is budget for a Speedlite 600EX-RT that could possibly begin to address some of the lighting issues.

I've got some pretty decent results in a moderately sized domestic room with a 580 EX II bounced off the ceiling with a diffuser and an 8mm fisheye lens, but the flash alone costs a lot more than the OP's budget. And I have more than one if needed!

I think we need to get back to a solution in the OP's budget range, which seems to be no more than $300 with a stretch.

This stuff is not easy and why you see the pros with tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear at their disposal when they are doing a gig.

GregWCIL Loc: Illinois

Thats why I brought up the issue of the flash coverage width. It would be a shame to spend a bunch on a wide but slow zoom and then not be able to use flash.

I guess if it was me, I'd go for the little Canon 24mm EF-S f2.8 lens for $150 from B & H and know I'd have something that worked.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Yeah, but... The OP expressed interest in the equivalent of a 24mm lens on a 35mm film / FF camera. That's a 15mm on a Rebel.

So what we are talking about is a change of approach or a higher budget. The EF-S pancake you suggest is a 38.4 mm equivalent in 35mm camera terms, so does not meet the OP's stated requirements.

It meets the budget, but doesn't deliver the goods.

How do we reconcile that?

blackest Loc: Ireland

This is an add on lens mainly used for video that screws on your existing lens using the lens filter thread.
28mm x 0.43 = 12.04 x1.6 = 19.26mm

It might work or vignette badly at that focal length image quality is liable to be fairly poor.

I have something similar just tried on 14-42 lens on micro 4/3 vignette at anything shorter than 28mm
28mm x 0.6 = 16.8 x 2(crop factor) = 33.6mm equivalent. With 14mm being the shortest focal length on that lens. I just degraded my image quality for no good reason... I think a dx kit lens 18-55 would be a better option if cost matters.

GregWCIL Loc: Illinois

I'm not trying to reconcile that. I'm suggesting like several other posters have suggested that the OP might reconsider what he is looking for.

Chuckwal Loc: Boynton Beach Florida

Try the 10 18 mm. By canon not expensive
Chuck :-)