Wide-Angle Advice Please [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

amexav

23-06-2010, 12:19pm

So I have had my camera and nifty 50 for a few month now. I just got my cashback from Nikon, so that's the deposit on my next lens. I was convinced up until about a month ago that I was going to buy an 18-200mm because it was such an 'all-rounder'.

Fast forward to now and I am thinking that I might go the wide-angle zoom option. One thing I have noticed with the nifty 50 is that when taking photos of my kids around the house is that it's too long. I of course usually step backwards and we're all good, but sometimes I feel like I miss the shot, especially when I prefer candid photos. I would like to take more street/architecture photos and feel that a wide-angle lens would fit the bill.

So of course, the more I read, the more confused I am about which lens to buy.

There is a local shop that has a second hand Nikon 10-24mm for $650, what should I be asking and looking for when buying second hand? Some of the other lenses and bodies they have on their site seem a bit exxy for what they are.

I also saw on some threads here on AP that the Sigma 10-20mm is a good lens, however, I have seen that there are two different lenses one f3.5 and one f4-5.6 - which is better?

Realistically I have about $700 to spend.

Thanks in advance!

Watchamacallit

23-06-2010, 1:22pm

I thought I'd link you a previous post (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=58752) on wide-angles (admitedly the OP was a Canon user, but can easily sub the Canon 10-22mm for a Nikon 10-24 or 12-24). There are is also the Tokina 12-24 which can be had quite cheaply too.

At face value from your intended use, the Sigma 10-20mm (I can't remember which one, David used to use the f/3.5) or the Nikon 10-24mm, 2nd hand @ $650 seems like a bargain as they are roughly $1000 new. Maybe have a look at some reviews and comparison photos to see differences between a few of these, I know the age old Mr Rockwell did a comparison (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/chart.htm) between a lot UWAs, while not gospel I found a good starting point as an overall view.

As for a 2nd hand lens, I believe a few points that people mention a few times:

Shining a torch through lens for fungus
Checking the zoom ring slides as described from reviews (isn't rough/stiff, etc)
Checking the manual focus ring slides as described from reviews (isn't rough/stiff, etc)
Scratches, dents, etc (May provide indiciation on usage and if it was ever damaged)
Testing the aperture blades (if it's an option)
Checking for oil/residue/dust on the lenses

As for myself, I own the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and find it works quite well. Yes, the zoom range is limiting but I have no issues with the speed, build and image quality. I just hope to test this out at some events to really push it.

KevPride

23-06-2010, 1:50pm

Hi, whilst I do not shot with a Nikon, I have the Sigma 10-20 which I picked up from B&H last month before our $ plunged, a very good lens indeed - it is not the new f3.5.

If you are wanting a general wide angle plus some zoom I would suggest the Sigma 17-70 as it has a better starting point of f2.8. This is a brilliant lens and I would have thought a better lens for shooting the kids etc as it gives the OLD 50 equivalent of around 35 which is where most of my shots have been with my grandchildren.

Hope this helps.

rellik666

23-06-2010, 1:52pm

As both a wide angler and a 18-200 owner, I would suggest the 18-200mm may be right for you. The UWA lenses are great, I have the tokina 12-24, but would love the 10-24mm, but they are not for getting more in, sometimes you are better doing a pano then using a UWA. UWA are great for getting up close and personal and getting a great field of view but not really for landscapes and the like.

The 18-200mm is a great lens and a lot of the time negates my need for the 12-24, hence why I want the 10-24mm. It is lovely all round lens and only really fails in low light situations.

Do you have another lens other than the 50mm?

I would suggest for street and candids the 18-200mm would be best as you will find the 10-24 as restrictive as the 50mm. I think though that there may be better lenses out these for that in the 24-70mm range. But as an all rounder with great length and a useable wide angle the 18-200mm is great.

Is there anywhere you could hire an UWA to see if you would use it?

Roo

OzzieTraveller

23-06-2010, 5:36pm

G'day Liz

Is it poss to hire the 'for sale' lens to try it out???
This might make or break your decision

Regards, Phil

bigdazzler

24-06-2010, 8:43am

You WILL NOT be disappointed with the Sigma 10-20. Fantastic lens. Before I upgraded to FF, I had the old one (4-5.6) and loved it. Heres a couple of samples .. I even used to stick it in peoples faces :D

maccaroneski

24-06-2010, 10:19am

I have the Nikon 10-24 and love it. The reason I chose it over the 10-20 was the extra reach - it can be used as a walkaround lens, and I think that the extra 4mm does it.

Whisky_Mac

24-06-2010, 10:37am

I have the Tokina 12-24 DX and would recommend it as it is near your price and is a really solid performer. Although not as wide as 10 I find the 24 is a very useful setting.

Spend as much as you can on the best lens you can, how a lens deals with the light it gets is the key, the camera is only a light proof box.

mikec

24-06-2010, 10:41am

Not a Nikon person either, but I can recommend the Sigma as well, very nice lens! Well worth the money. I had one on my 450D and it was great.

amexav

24-06-2010, 1:17pm

Thankyou all so much - of course I had a big reply all ready to post and then firefox restarted and I lost everything :(

I am able to go check out the second hand 10-24mm tomorrow, and I will definitely ask about hiring it. Maccaroneski - have you used the lens indoors much at all?

Watchamacallit - thanks for the tips on what to look out for when buying second hand. The more I look around on the net, the more convinced I am that the Nikon 10-24 is a bit of a bargain.

I thought I would also add this link to http://esfotoclix.com/tech/nik10sig10/ there are a heap of photos comparing the sigma and nikon which I thought might be handy if anyone searches and finds this post in the future.

Am leaning towards the Nikon at the moment, but still keeping the Sigma in mind. Decisions, decisions!!

maccaroneski

24-06-2010, 2:44pm

Maccaroneski - have you used the lens indoors much at all?

Not a helluva lot - if I'm inside in poor light I tend to use my 35mm 1.8.

The other thing that I have found after trying out the Sigma is that the AF is faster and quieter.

Watchamacallit

24-06-2010, 3:34pm

Watchamacallit - thanks for the tips on what to look out for when buying second hand. The more I look around on the net, the more convinced I am that the Nikon 10-24 is a bit of a bargain.

To me it is quite a bargain, the Tokina I got was about the same price and I was having a tough time choosing between the Tokina (fast and sharp) to the Nikon (Sharp and longer reach). That being said, I believe the Sigma 10-20mm is a well reknown lens to consider too.

bigdazzler

24-06-2010, 3:51pm

Watchamacallit

24-06-2010, 6:12pm

As much as I hear good things about the Tokina .. I really dont see the need for fast apertures on UWA lenses. The most common (but not only, obviously) application for that type of lens is landscaping , and usually (maybe) on a tripod. Not to mention that most WA lenses in particular are nowhere near their sharpest wide open. So I think even if I had a 2.8 UWA I dont think id be using much wide open.

Agree a lot on those points there. My Personal situation was I had my doubts on whether to get an UWA or not, so spent a long time researching uses and results of UWAs in event/low light situations whilst developing (or trying to) my skills to see if it suited.

If it was more landscape/seascape/etc, then a lens with good IQ and extra reach would be more desirable. As maccaroneski suggested, with the range of the 10-24 can be a good walkaround lens.

Anyway - bit back on topic, have you looked and thought about handling the distortion on UWAs or vignetting that can occur in some? Also, a small little tidbit is if you plan to use a filter the sigma takes 82mm whilst the nikon 10-24mm takes 77mm threads, small bit of info to help the descions :)

amexav

24-06-2010, 10:55pm

Bigdazzler - thanks for the advice. I was thinking that faster must automatically be better in everything.

On filters, would something like this be suitable? I am clueless with filters!

http://thatsverynice.com.au/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=131

Watchamacallit

24-06-2010, 11:43pm

I think the "filters" part is going to go the way of the "UV Filter" thread going on :P CPL filters generally aren't as good on UWAs due to the banding effect it has on skies on landscapes (just an example) but they could be useful in other cases, depending on the desired effect.

The point about the filter sizes was more on the fact 77mm is a more widely used lens size, so you can reuse the same filter across multiple lenses without need for stepup/down rings, I don't know of many lenses that use the 82mm (outside of those gargantuan behemoths Sar lugs around).

Hope this helps. I'm sure others can chip in on there views with filters on UWAs.

bigdazzler

25-06-2010, 5:29am

Yea Ive heard about this mysterious banding ... but I used a 77 CPL on my Sigma 10-20 all the time and never experienced any at all.

In terms of fast apertures being automatically better Liz, I suppose the answer is yes and no .. I suppose it all really depends on what you wanna use the lens for. If you wanna become a hardcore land/seascaper, you probably dont need 2.8, but if you wanna use it for funky architecture/monument/attraction type shots when travelling, and in low light and/or indoors, obviously the 2.8 will come in handy when shooting handheld. One thing I can say though, is that on a tripod, you will never ever have to use 2.8, and you wouldnt want to either, due to issues with sharpness, and DOF (maybe, depending on distances)

arthurking83

25-06-2010, 6:27am

I think the "filters" part is going to go the way of the "UV Filter" thread going on :P CPL filters generally aren't as good on UWAs due to the banding effect it has on skies ....

LOL!

The problem with UV filters is that the topic is a polarised one(pun intended) you're either against them, or for them. The real problem with them, when you do some real analysis is that they do nothing.. literally! apart from the possibility that they can degrade IQ. They are not protective filters as most people think they are. They can help to protect in certain situations.. but most definitely not from impact. So the term UV filter is most lilely the issue there.

There filters such as polarisers, are not so polarising. They do a specific job, whether a ND, GND or polariser(as a few examples) they're not there to pseudo protect the lens, they are there for a particular purpose and generally that purpose is to effect an exact exposure(for the conditions).

The sky banding effect with a pol on a UWA is always due to a lack of judgement by the photographer. I have zillions of polarized 10mm shots of the sky with no darkening/banding/or whatever.
In fact the CPL barely ever comes off my Siggy 10-20mm lens.

As for filters?
I reckon, get a CPL and one 3stop Cokin GND(either a P121S or P121) for any UWA lens and learn to use them effectively.

DJT

25-06-2010, 7:10am

Watchamacallit

25-06-2010, 8:26am

The sky banding effect with a pol on a UWA is always due to a lack of judgement by the photographer. I have zillions of polarized 10mm shots of the sky with no darkening/banding/or whatever.
In fact the CPL barely ever comes off my Siggy 10-20mm lens.

I stand corrected :P As for comments on the UV filters, I'll leave that for the thread (though I agree, it won't stop impact damage).

bigdazzler

25-06-2010, 8:34am

I know your post is asking about wide angle, but I am wondering if you are after Ultra Wide or just wide.
Is it just for the kids / parties / general day to day photos that you want the lens for.
If that is the case you may be better with say a 17-50. Or if your like your prime lens a 35mm f/1.8 or f/2. Sorry if I'm taking you down a different path. Just making sure your going in the right direction that's all.

Thats a very good point mate .... If your primary use for the lens is going to be the kiddies indoors, a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or a 35mm 1.8 of some variety are worth considering. The Tamron is a fantastic bang for your buck lens. You might find that a 10-20 or similar will give for a fair bit of barrel distortion if working in tight spaces. You dont want your kids looking like coneheads :D

amexav

25-06-2010, 1:02pm

Well, I went to look at the 10-24mm today and it ended up being a Tamron. Bit peeved, because it wasn't listed as a Tamron on the website....

DJT - I am definitely open to suggestions. I would love a lens that could be used for the kiddies indoors, and a 35mm 1.4 has been on my wishlist from the get go. I just did some reading about the Tamron 17-50 and I am all about bang for buck at the moment. As a mother of two currently on maternity leave, I am quickly realising it's probably not the best stage of my life to take up photography as a hobby:p

I do like the creative aspect of the UWA's. Indoors, I can still use my 50mm to take shots of the kiddies....so I am still leaning towards the 10-20mm. Not making any rash decisions just yet though.

Watchamacallit

25-06-2010, 1:52pm

That's a shame about the 10-24mm, if that was a Nikon it would have been a steal and served very well.

Also another note, I've heard good things about the Tamron 17-50mm too (along with arguments regarding the IQ of the non-VC vs the VC, which is better) and it isn't an expensive lens either. Sounds a lot like the Sigma 10-20mm :)