PDA

View Full Version : Which wide-angle lens should I get?



JMZ
15th September 2011, 10:40 AM
So, I'm keen on gettin a wideangle lens for my trip O/S next year so I can capture some of the amazing European landscape in all it's beauty.

which one would you get? Or, do you have any other suggestions? I have been told that Sigma's are the way to go when it comes to wide-angle lens' though.

http://www.camerasdirect.com.au/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product2_10001_10002_10518_-1_10048___

http://www.camerasdirect.com.au/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product2_10001_10002_19556_-1_10048___

Shay
15th September 2011, 01:37 PM
i cant really recommend any, tho im keen to see what others say.

have a look at this site too, always seem quite cheap.
http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/index.asp

nuggz
15th September 2011, 02:31 PM
I went with this

http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/

the F2.8 sold me

JMZ
15th September 2011, 03:45 PM
why's that nuggz? is it so you can get closer to objects or is it just the greater extents of the depth of field for more options?

as i understand it, a small F-stop produces a shallow depth of field and vice versa.

BTW, I have a Canon EOS 450D.

Shay
15th September 2011, 03:48 PM
Small f-stop also allows in a lot more light, so less shutter time and iso required in low light situations.

JMZ
15th September 2011, 03:55 PM
that too.....

Dahlia
15th September 2011, 04:26 PM
I have a couple of fish eye lenses...


http://opteka.com/images/products/display/new_3x_37.jpg
Opteka Platinum Series 37mm 0.3X HD Ultra Fisheye Lens
http://opteka.com/OPTSC37FE.aspx


http://opteka.com/images/products/display/72mm_4X_1000.jpg
Opteka 0.4X HD2 Large Element Fisheye Lens
http://opteka.com/OPT4XPF.aspx

nuggz
15th September 2011, 05:34 PM
why's that nuggz? is it so you can get closer to objects or is it just the greater extents of the depth of field for more options?

as i understand it, a small F-stop produces a shallow depth of field and vice versa.

BTW, I have a Canon EOS 450D.

2.8 because I use it in alot of lowlight situations, makes taking a good shot easier
and I also use a 450D

michael_sa
15th September 2011, 09:38 PM
If you're buying this as a landscape lens, then the extra one stop (and that's about all it is) of the Tokina shouldn't swing the deal in it's favour (in my opinion) so don't immediately exclude the others solely based on that - I've never taken a landscape photograph at such a wide aperture and I'm not sure why anyone (who understands the relationship between depth of field and aperture settings) would.
If you want the wide aperture for creative reasons, then that's an entirely different kettle of fish, go right ahead buy the 2.8 just so you can have the option available. Having said that though, the difference in depth of field at the wide end between the 2.8 of the Tokina and the 3.5 or 4.5 of the Sigma's won't be much anyway.
Don't expect to be able to fit filters if you get the 8-16, the front lens element protrudes too far.

If everything else was equal between the lenses, then I'd say yes get the Tokina because it's a bit faster. (f2.8 vs 3.5 for the Sigma) It's also a constant aperture lens, meaning if you set it to f2.8 and zoom, it'll stay at 2.8. It's reportedly the sharpest of the third party wides, but I've never used it to say if it is or isn't. Most ultra wides are not usually exceptionally sharp performers anyway.

I've had the Sigma 10-20 for a few years now, I've found it to be a good lens for what I use it for - which is predominantly landscaping with the very occasional 'creative' up close shot thrown in, but generally, the up close distorted look doesn't do it for me. Mine stays at 10mm all the time, that's why I bought it, as an ultra wide. The Sigma's also built like the proverbial brick sh!thouse, which it needs to be around me as I tend to not baby my gear.
Read all the reviews on the net that you can, get yourself onto Flickr or somewhere similar and look at photographs taken with the lenses you're considering -
Flickr Tokina 11 - 16 2.8 group pool (http://www.flickr.com/groups/tokina11-16mm/pool/)
Flickr Sigma 10-20 group pool (http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/pool/)
Flickr Sigma 8-16 group pool (http://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/pool/)

If you intend leaving the ultra wide on for the duration of your travels, I think you'll be left short (literally) - but put on selectively and used for big skies and landscapes, you'll not be disappointed.
Ultimately, you'll make the correct decision when you've absorbed all the info available to you and decided what best suits your individual needs - Good luck :-)

Michael

JMZ
16th September 2011, 09:55 AM
thanks michael! great advise.

The wide angle will become more of a 'sometimes' lens on my travels. I'll most likely take 3-4 lenses with me.

michael_sa
16th September 2011, 08:20 PM
thanks michael! great advise.

The wide angle will become more of a 'sometimes' lens on my travels. I'll most likely take 3-4 lenses with me.

Good move.

If you're into photography, the ultra wide will open up a new world to you. You'll love it.
Do you have any of your images online at all?

Michael.

JMZ
17th September 2011, 09:57 AM
no online folio except on Facebook

kabel
17th September 2011, 08:44 PM
I have a Sigma 10-20 wide angle.
Use it heaps both indoors and out.

Really happy with it.

JMZ
19th September 2011, 11:49 AM
yeah that's what I'm leaning towards.

Thanks for the input fellas!

PaulyJ
5th October 2011, 02:01 PM
Look they're all pretty good lenses.
I've got a Sigma 12-24 which is great, but tends to slightly warp the photos on the edges, but only slightly.
If it's just as a 'sometimes' lens as you say, the Sigma 10-20 would be ideal.