Wide Angle Lens
 

I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to different cameras, lens, etc. I was wondering what the benefits are of having a wide angle lens? Would this be good for taking scenic pictures of landscapes? I have a canon with the lens that came with the camera and a zoom lens.

Wide angle lens give you a wider angle of view. When you use your current lenses, do you ever wish you can include more stuff in your picture, even if you already have your zoom turned to the widest setting (most likely 18mm)? If yes, then a wider lens will let you do that.

The 18mm on your lens is already considered wide-angle, as on your camera it is equivalent to 28mm on film. Anything wider is considered super wide-angle. Super wide-angles can also give you some creative perspective, for example, this one at 8mm on a Canon dSLR (equivalent to 13mm on film):

http://rkkwan.zenfolio.com/img/v22/p210720867-4.jpg

Assuming you have the standard 18mm lens, I'd suggest that's wide enough for typical use. If you already have something like an 18-55 and a 55-250, covering wide to fairly long, then an ultra-wide would be a candidate for a 3rd lens (along with a >300mm tele or a fast (f/1.8) prime lens.), but it's really optional.

I think an ultra-wide was about the 5th lens I purchased (50/1.8 and 100 macro came first), and I probably use it about the fourth most frequently.

The characteristics of an ultra-wide actually make is less beneficial for everyday use, you need to want to use it in the specialized situations that it's suited for, typically landscape/architecture/cityscape/etc, rarely people, sports, events, etc. Below is a recent shot with a 10mm lens, typical of an ultra-wide shot, something very close as an anchor and a wide, sweeping background. (Death Valley, sliding rocks on the Racetrack Playa)

http://richs.smugmug.com/Landscapes/...7_dDcSK-XL.jpg

Well, just depends on the shooting style of the photographer. For me, an ultra-wide is the 2nd most used lens when I'm traveling.

I think I come down with CPRich on this one. For an inexperienced, beginning photographer, the standard 18-55 mm kit lens is probably as wide as he/she should go. After learning the camera and some more advanced technique, then I think a wider lens (mine is 12-24mm) will expand the range of possibilities.

It is not just a matter of switching to a 12mm ultra-wide and suddenly taking those magazine cover photos. You actually need to know how and when to use the u/w.

On my old Nikon D200 I had the venerable 18 - 200 lens on it. It's a great all-in-one lens but I really missed my old 24mm (and 50mm f1.4!). For my tastes, the 18mm (28mm equivalent) was decent but I really missed those extra 4 mm.

Fast forward to my spiffy new D700. For convenience I use a 28 - 300 lens (a truly fantastic all-in-one) but I also use a 24 - 85 that I had lying around from an old F100. I just find that having the extra 4mm at the bottom end allows me just that little bit extra in creativity, and it's nice to be able to capture a scene without having to back up so much.

The wide angle that I really want though is Nikon's 14 - 24. I was chatting with an official Boeing photographer (onboard the 787! :) ) and I asked him if I could take a peek through the viewfinder. Wow! What a lens!

Having said all that, wide angle is not for everyone. To get effective and interesting wide angle shots requires a different methodology for getting a good shot.

I love my 10-20. 10mm is very wide. It forces you to get close to your subject since the wide angle makes everything look like it's farther away than it really is.

I also agree with CPRich, since it makes everything look farther away, it's very easy to end up with an empty foreground.

Needless to say, it forces you to change your perspective. I used about 50% of the time on my last trip to St. Augustine. The other 50%, I had my 18-70.

And rkkwan, how close were to that fountain to take that 8mm shot?

Standing right next to the pedestal.

Anyways, my answer to "Do I need this xxx lens?" is "Why do you think you need that lens", or "What do you feel you can't do with your current one or ones".

When I feel I want to wider angle of view, I buy a wider lens. When I feel I want to get more reach, I buy a longer tele. When I feel my lens is not sharp enough or not built well enough, I buy one that is. When I need more speed, I buy one with a larger aperture.

The OP should figure out on his /her own is a wider angle-of-view often desired. I have no idea, and I disagree with some of you that a beginner by definition don't need one. Different people can have different artistic style. Most likely, the OP doesn't need it, but may he/she does. I am not going to judge.

I love my 17-40 Canon on the 7D. It gets as much use as the 24-105, both traveling and at home. Landscapes, tall structures from reasonable close-up, perspective shots. I used to love telephoto - now I love the wider angle instead.

But 17 on a Canon crop dSLR is just wide, not ultra-wide; and the OP already has that covered. The 24-105 is really not a good walk around lens for crop dSLRs as it's too long on the wide end.

My primary lens on my 7D is the 17-55. When I travel, next lens I bring is the Sigma 8-16. And if I know there's wild life or specific things to shoot, a 70-200/2.8.

I agree here. For my K-7, my primary walk-around lens is the 17-70/f 2.8-4. Moderately wide to short telephoto and very sharp throughout. The 12-24mm comes out for big vista landscapes and the 250mm only rarely. As previously stated, it is all about artistic vision. I "see" wide and not so much tight. YMMV.

Agree that the 17 is just wide. Assuming the OP has a lens down to 18, that's covered. I find that the 17-40 and 24-105 are sufficient for most work (and almost all travel) - I can borrow something wider for those rare occasions that I expect to need something wider. The 24 IS too long at the wide end on the 7D, and I wouldn't want to carry it as my only lens.

I've been disappointed with Sigma relative to the Canon L glass. Not sure I'd opt for another Sigma lens, and I don't use anything below 17 with enough regularity to require anything wider. I still shoot film with an EOS3, and the 17 is plenty wide enough there. (You carry a wider lens, I carry a film body....)

Currently using a Nikon D3100 (great camera, btw), and have been thinking about purchasing a wide-angle lens. Can anybody recommend something that would work well for landscape, city scenes, etc? I've seen a few lenses on B&H, but would like to see what my fellow FTers are using..

I'm happy using a Sigma 10-20. I would also suggest you try out Tokina's 11-16 or 12-24.

You can also consider Nikon's 12-24 f4 or 14-24 f2.8. It just depends on your budget...

If you or the OP wants to try out some of these lenses and can't find a local store that has one in stock or rents them out, keep in mind there are places that let's you rent from online.

Any chance you could post a photo that you took with the sigma 10-20? I believe I found the lens on Amazon, but will keep looking at my preferred shops.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-.../dp/B0007U00XK