BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Asrar Alnajjar
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/22/2008

Lens for Cose-ups and Interiors?

Hi All,
I have a Canon 400D camera, and I'm looking for a lens that could work for both interior photography and zoom and macro photography. I did some research and I ended up with "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens". It seems to be a very expensive. Is it worth it? Or can someone suggest a better replacement without having to compromise image quality? Thanks.

To love this question, log in above
7/4/2009 9:13:17 AM

Jeffrey R. Whitmoyer   I'm not a Canon user, but the 16-35mm would be great for interior shots. However, it won't cut it for macro photography. A better solution from a cost standpoint would be to look at a wide-angle from an aftermarket company such as Sigma, Tamron or Tokina, and then purchase a true macro lens in a suitable size, say 85mm, 105mm or whatever will work for you. Again, an aftermarket lens will work at a considerable savings.

To love this comment, log in above
7/5/2009 6:07:31 PM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/18/2000
One reason that the 16-35 f/2.8L II USM is very expensive because it is designed for the larger 24mm x 36mm sensor of the 1D/5D cameras. The 400D has a smaller 14.8mm x 22.2mm "1.6x crop" sensor. 16mm focal length is only moderately wide angle on the 400D.

What lens do you already have for the 400D that is not wide angle enough for you? The EF-S 18-55? If so, you should be looking at something like the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM. Also good are the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 Di II, Sigma 10-22 f/3.5 EX DC HSM, and Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 Di II. These wide angle zooms focus very close, to about 9 or 10 inches. But they generally are not considered "macro" since such short focal lenghts give maximum magnification of only about .14x.

To love this comment, log in above
7/6/2009 6:01:15 PM

Koen Van den Beld
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/2/2005
  The 16-35 f2.8 is an L lens and is indeed quite expensive but from what I understand very good. However it is not really wide angle on a 400D. A better (and cheaper) choice would be the EF-S 10-22. I have this lens and it is very sharp.
As said above a wide angle lens doesn't qualify as a macro lens. It lacks the magnification. Better is a EF-S 60/F2.8 or EF 100/F2.8 or specialized third-party macro lenses.
There is no lens available that can combine all your requirements with a reasonable level of image quality. Some zooms try to do all but the low end is not really wide angle and the macro setting is not 1:1.

To love this comment, log in above
7/8/2009 4:03:22 AM

Asrar Alnajjar
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/22/2008
  Hey All,
Thanks so much for your very beneficial feedback.

Yes, Jon, I have the EF-S 18-55mm, but still sometimes I need to stick my back on a wall behind to be able to fit everything I see within my frame! I'm also always thriving to have deep depth of field. So I think the "Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 Di II" would be the most convenient for me. This would solve the interior photography lens issue.

As Jeff and all of you have suggested, I can see that I have to get 2 different lenses. So, as for the Macro lens, which I intend to use to practice on shooting mostly food, I was wondering if it would matter to get a Canon or Tokina brand!? Koen, I kind of like to zoom a lot, but would the zooming be of great importance when shooting with a Macro??

Again, I highly appreciate your feedback.


To love this comment, log in above
7/14/2009 2:24:53 AM

Log in to respond or ask your own question.