Which UWA Lens Do you Use

[mikew09]

Just about to go and buy an UWA and pretty much sold on the Sigma 10-20 and though it might be interesting to see some stats on the more common lens that I considered for landscape type photography and such.

[jim]

There are very few options in this poll, which makes it something of a miracle that I was able to vote in it. But I was, so I did.

[Tannin]

Mike, why would you have the Sigma 10-20 when you could have a Canon 10-22? (I'm not having a go at you, just wondering why.)

[Xenedis]

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

I tend to rarely deviate from the 16mm focal length.

[ricktas]

I chose Sigma 10-20 cause from the list, its the one I own but my main WA lens is the Nikon 17-35

[Speedway]

Mike, why would you have the Sigma 10-20 when you could have a Canon 10-22? (I'm not having a go at you, just wondering why.)$474 v $800 is a pretty good reason in my book and the reviews rate them pretty close.
Keith.

[Kym]

I chose Sigma 10-20 cause from the list, its the one I own but my main WA lens is the Nikon 17-35

But that's on your D3, what would you use on your D200? :D

[mrDooba]

I use the Tokina on my 5D2 and I'm really quite happy with it.
I can't rattle of techy stuff but it's nice and sharp and does the trick :)

[Tommo1965]

none of the above

but I do use a nikon 17-35

[terry.langham]

Gravy me. Or add the Tamron 11-18mm, not that I wouldn't have had the Canon 10-22mm if I could afford it.

[CAP]

Just got the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 and pretty happy with it so far.

[mikew09]

Mike, why would you have the Sigma 10-20 when you could have a Canon 10-22? (I'm not having a go at you, just wondering why.)

Hi Tannin, mostly cost. Has not be great for pocket money since the GFC so every penny counts. I did consider the canon but pretty expensive in comparison and for all the research I have done seems only marginly better. I will still barter the price as always but doubtful they will drop it enough tomake it a choice.

[William]

You know my vote Mike, Sigma 10-20 :)

[agb]

Are there two Sigma 10-20, one f 3.5 and the other f4-5.6. So which one are we talking about? $680 vs $520

[William]

I was talking the f4-5.6, I dont see the reason for f3.5 if your just shooting landscapes and using a tripod , Maybe some Architectural indoor stuff may need the f3.5

[mikew09]

There are very few options in this poll, which makes it something of a miracle that I was able to vote in it. But I was, so I did.

Hi Jim, yep, this was intentional as I only was interested in the UWA's that fitted into my possible now or future choice list.

Cheers,

Mike

[mikew09]

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

I tend to rarely deviate from the 16mm focal length.

Yep, if I ever get financial again I would think this will be the lens for a 5D upgrade.

[mikew09]

You know my vote Mike, Sigma 10-20 :)

Hi Bill, yep and seen your excellent work mate. Helped with swaying me to the siggy.

[mikew09]

Are there two Sigma 10-20, one f 3.5 and the other f4-5.6. So which one are we talking about? $680 vs $520

For me - there is not a great deal of different between the two from what I have seen in reviews and the larger aperture is not in my requirements for the 10-20. Hence just listed the generic in the poll.

[mikew09]

I was talking the f4-5.6, I dont see the reason for f3.5 if your just shooting landscapes and using a tripod , Maybe some Architectural indoor stuff may need the f3.5

Exactly Bill - tht is waht I wanted to say :lol:

[Tannin]

Hi Tannin, mostly cost. Has not be great for pocket money since the GFC so every penny counts. I did consider the canon but pretty expensive in comparison and for all the research I have done seems only marginly better. I will still barter the price as always but doubtful they will drop it enough tomake it a choice.

Cheers Mike. I agree that the extra sharpness of the Canon is probably not noticeable most of the time. I would feel more comfortable with the Canon build quality, but the main reason I wouldn't swap my 10-22 for a Sigma 10-20 is the extra 2mm. It makes a huge difference if, as in my case, your next lens up is a 24-105 (or similar). Even when I had an 18-55, I used that extra length quite a lot - anything that saves lens swapping is a good idea!

So the Tamron 10-24 would be even better ...... except that it gets very poor reviews. I'd love the extra length, but not at the cost of poor IQ.

But at those prices you quote ..... hmmmm ... it's a big difference.

PS: no point whatever in having constant f/3.5. With any ultra-wide, you could glue the aperture down to f/8 and practically never change it unless the light is really bad and you are hand-holding, in which case you just go to whatever wide-open happens to be.

Enjoy your new lens!

[mikew09]

Cheers Mike. I agree that the extra sharpness of the Canon is probably not noticeable most of the time. I would feel more comfortable with the Canon build quality, but the main reason I wouldn't swap my 10-22 for a Sigma 10-20 is the extra 2mm. It makes a huge difference if, as in my case, your next lens up is a 24-105 (or similar). Even when I had an 18-55, I used that extra length quite a lot - anything that saves lens swapping is a good idea!

So the Tamron 10-24 would be even better ...... except that it gets very poor reviews. I'd love the extra length, but not at the cost of poor IQ.

But at those prices you quote ..... hmmmm ... it's a big difference.

PS: no point whatever in having constant f/3.5. With any ultra-wide, you could glue the aperture down to f/8 and practically never change it unless the light is really bad and you are hand-holding, in which case you just go to whatever wide-open happens to be.

Enjoy your new lens!

Yep, pretty much mu thoughts to Tannin. I did consider the Tamron as I have the SP AF 17-50 f2.8 which I really like but the reviews were not favourable. I have been saving for the 24-105 so have a little extra cash but would have to get the Canon price down quite a bit to get it in budget. Will see how I go but the Sigma seems to be held in high regards and well within budget.

See how we go once I start to haggle the price :-)

[nightbringer]

Sigma 8-16mm, though I use it more as an 8mm prime these days XD

[Xenedis]

Yep, if I ever get financial again I would think this will be the lens for a 5D upgrade.

(16-35/2.8L II)

It's a fantastic lens. I use it almost exclusively for 'scapes.

I've only ever used mine on full-frame DSLRs; it'd be a waste on an APS-C camera. If you move to FF, it would be a good choice (assuming money isn't an issue).

[mikew09]

Hi Xenedis, FF will be my next upgrade, most likely end of 2012. If I keep going down my current genre of photography the FF and 16-35 will be the combination I would think. Takin me a while but Landscape is fast becoming my primary photographic interest. Hopefully be back on track by mid next yr and pocket money for my interest will be available again :).

[ving]

i use gravy... :p

[Scotty72]

Mike, why would you have the Sigma 10-20 when you could have a Canon 10-22? (I'm not having a go at you, just wondering why.)

Because I have used both and the Siggy 10-20 3.5 is better :th3:

[Scotty72]

I was talking the f4-5.6, I dont see the reason for f3.5 if your just shooting landscapes and using a tripod , Maybe some Architectural indoor stuff may need the f3.5

I actually found a use (admittedly not common) for f/3.5. Shooting ice hockey at UWA then waiting for them to shoot past you at very close range :)

[crf529]

What an UWA not used for landscapes and fixed to f/8?! Heresy! Lol...

Seems to be the general mindset of most people though unfortunately, they can be very cool for a variety of other uses (sports included).

[Xenedis]

What an UWA not used for landscapes and fixed to f/8?! Heresy! Lol...

Seems to be the general mindset of most people though unfortunately, they can be very cool for a variety of other uses (sports included).

Bands/musicians too.

I've used mine for that.

[mikew09]

I actually found a use (admittedly not common) for f/3.5. Shooting ice hockey at UWA then waiting for them to shoot past you at very close range :)

Got point you have raised Scotty - the broader use of a UWA is often forgotten I think.

[Scotty72]

I actually found a use (admittedly not common) for f/3.5. Shooting ice hockey at UWA then waiting for them to shoot past you at very close range :)

For eg. :)75327

[dulvariprestige]

^^^ But this was shot @ 6.3:confused013

I used to own the sigma, but was able to upgrade to the canon

[Scotty72]

Was it? :th3: Oh well. But, it shows the UWA can be used for sports.

Oh! if you are talking about the Canon 10-22... you surely meant a downgrade... right? :D

[mikew09]

That is a good example of the angle of view of the 10-20 Scotty, makes me want one even more. Often I find it hard to get the feel for field of view with photos with a UWA but the ice hockey shot certainly shows this - ta.

[mikew09]

Hmm, also looks like the gap is closing between the siggy and the canon

[William]

That is a good example of the angle of view of the 10-20 Scotty, makes me want one even more. Often I find it hard to get the feel for field of view with photos with a UWA but the ice hockey shot certainly shows this - ta.

Here's another for you Mike of the Siggy wide open @10mm , f8, to show FOV

"Currumbin Beach"

[dulvariprestige]

Was it? :th3: Oh well. But, it shows the UWA can be used for sports.

Oh! if you are talking about the Canon 10-22... you surely meant a downgrade... right? :D

:lol:

[mikew09]

Wooohh Bill, that is a corka mate. Good display of FOV. I read on some reviews that the siggy can get a little soft at the edges but I am not seeing it that soft in shots posted on the forum. What does impress me is how sharp the photos are from the siggy. Have seen the saem from the canon too but at twicw the price.

[William]

There is a few things you have to watch using a UWA, One is the Vertical distortion on the sides , Like in the above shot the person on the right should be standing straight, But thats fixable in PP, The other thing is your shadow keeps getting in the way in some situations , Also if shooting in Portrait orientation you can get a shot of your feet as well as the sky :lol:, Dont laugh, It's happened to me :th3:

[mikew09]

There is a few things you have to watch using a UWA, One is the Vertical distortion on the sides , Like in the above shot the person on the right should be standing straight, But thats fixable in PP, The other thing is your shadow keeps getting in the way in some situations , Also if shooting in Portrait orientation you can get a shot of your feet as well as the sky :lol:, Dont laugh, It's happened to me :th3:

My usage will pretty much be landscape stype photos as for general shotting I use my Tammy 17-50 which I consider a great lens. So I reckon the distortion will should not be a big issue (like you say), hmm but I had better watch tht shadow as I have managed to get it my shadpw in frame with my Tammy at 17mm. I did see a shot once were the person on the left of frame actually had one foot looking about twice the size of the other :) , so something to consider.

[dulvariprestige]

Also watch for tripod legs coming into the frame too, can easily happen when you have the tripod way down low and the legs extended all the way out, a good photographer will see this before taking the shot, I guess that's why I usually have a leg in at least one of my first frames :lol2:

[mikew09]

Also watch for tripod legs coming into the frame too, can easily happen when you have the tripod way down low and the legs extended all the way out, a good photographer will see this before taking the shot, I guess that's why I usually have a leg in at least one of my first frames :lol2:
:lol: Good tip

[gqtuazon]

Sorry for the late reply here. I am an UWA junkie and for UWA I would suggest the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for an APS-C camera. It comes with either Canon or Nikon mount so no worries there. My buddies highly recommended this lens since the lens is par focal which means that it retains it's focus when used with video as you zoom in or out. Not too many lenses can do this except for the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRI that I've tried. The pro lenses from Canon or Nikon usually tend to retain their value better compared to the other 3rd party lenses unless you are taking about Carl Zeiss lenses. Since you intend to get a Full Frame camera body in the future, the Canon would be the better choice so that you don't need to worry about selling and buying another full frame capable lens in the future. I have the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VRII which is a very good lens for my wide angle or landscape use. I'm not a pro but I find this lens very versatile whenever I use it either outdoors or indoors such as shooting inside a museum. Here is a review about this lens from photozone using a Canon camera as a reference.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon


Some sample images using the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VRII which is claimed by Nikon to have up to four steps difference when using VR or IS.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2767/5711294985_84db8d135a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24917880@N02/5711294985/)
Peace Park, Nagasaki Japan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24917880@N02/5711294985/) by gqtuazon (http://www.flickr.com/people/24917880@N02/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/5648967424_c7bca1f66e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24917880@N02/5648967424/)
12Apr11_37 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24917880@N02/5648967424/) by gqtuazon (http://www.flickr.com/people/24917880@N02/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/5409660242_077bf6e8a7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24917880@N02/5409660242/)
Venus fountain (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24917880@N02/5409660242/) by gqtuazon (http://www.flickr.com/people/24917880@N02/), on Flickr

Inside a museum

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/18837/700_0056.JPG

Sample shot using a Nikon DX camera.

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/13964/D7000_16-35mm_f4_971.jpg

[mikew09]

Thanks Glenn, interesting information. I think maybe I should at least test that lens against the sigma as the price is variable. Thanks for the details.

[mikew09]

Hmm - today I had this conversation with a work buddy and his opinion is to save and go for the 16-35 L as it is likely I will move to a 5D within the next 18 months. Hmm, I admit things are looking up and there is possible some correctness in his comment. Here I go again - the master of indecision. Happy to save a bit longer and go L glass but will the 16 mm be wide enough in the time being. I actually thought I had this decided.

[Xenedis]

Mike,

If it's any help, I've been shooting full-frame since 2006, and I've had my 16-35/2.8L II since 2008.

I shoot a lot of 'scapes, so it's the lens that gets the most use.

While I'd love the view of the 14/2.8L II, that has no easy way of attaching filters (GND/ND types).

My 16-35 delivers great results. You'll find it to be quite wide; sometimes you end up with more in the scene than you want, but that is easily fixed.

Unfortunately, this lens would be seriously under-utilised on an APS-C camera. The 10-22 would be a good choice which would give you basically identical framing.

18 months is a fairly long time. If you're not going to move to a 5D before then, an ultra-wide lens designed for the APS-C format would be a better investment at this stage. You can later sell it.

I just wouldn't bother with the 16-35 on an APS-C camera if true 16mm (10mm in the new money) is what you want.

[ashey]

Iv,e had the 10/20 Sigma and found that it performed extremely well on my 40D, but have since sold it as I now use 5D MK 11 for landscape shots with canon 17/40. I don,t think you can go wrong with the siggy on a crop camera.

[mikew09]

Thanks Guys for putting back on track - I think I just needed a reminder of why I was looking at the siggy.

[mikew09]

Here's another for you Mike of the Siggy wide open @10mm , f8, to show FOV

"Currumbin Beach"

Hi Bill, I have just been discussing a topic in one of my other threads about natural photography and how some of us (NOT knocking anyone) have a style that tries to keep our photos as natural to the real frame as possible. I was commenting on the struggle as I learn to get the shot and keep the pop without moving away from reality.

I was thinking about this shot in this thread as a great example of the shot, being a maginficient photo but is so natural - if I was there on the beach at the time the shutter flapped it would look just like this. It has brought me to a new level of mind set in my photography and reminded me of what a well captured photo this one is - so well done again mate.

[William]

:o Thanks Mike , I'll take that as a compliment from you :th3: Yep, Your right , No processing on this one , Except for a sharpen and a little Contrast adjustment , If you get the Siggy, You'l be amazed at how close you can get to the FG Subject @10mm , To get that shot , I'm probably only 6 inches above the water !! , Get it mate , You'll enjoy the experience - Bill

PS : Oh, Maybe a foot above the water

[mikew09]

:o Thanks Mike , I'll take that as a compliment from you :th3: Yep, Your right , No processing on this one , Except for a sharpen and a little Contrast adjustment , If you get the Siggy, You'l be amazed at how close you can get to the FG Subject @10mm , To get that shot , I'm probably only 6 inches above the water !! , Get it mate , You'll enjoy the experience - Bill

PS : Oh, Maybe a foot above the water

Yep, definately a compliment mate. This is the style I am hoping to develop - I think Tony called it non-fiction photography. And yea, lock that lens in eddie". I will start the haggle with my usual store in the next week or two.

[richardb]

For price/performance reasons a TOKINA 11-16mm f2,8 should better be included in your UWA lens survey.
A Fantastic lens, borrow first to test it, and you will love it. That's how how I got mine.
Check out Ken Rockwell http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

:th3:

[dulvariprestige]

Yesterday I sold my 10-22 canon, because next week I was Planning on getting a 5dMKII and a tokina 16-28mm, funny how things can turn 180 in under 24hrs:(, so now I have to get another UWA for the 7d, so I've decided to get the tokina 11-16, going by all the reviews and images I've been looking at over the last couple of hrs, I'm pretty excited about getting one, fingers crossed.

[mikew09]

Thanks to everyone for the helpful posts. Finally decided on the sigma 10-20 and purchased on Monday. Very happen with the lens, tack sharp (must have a good copy) and feels nicely built in my hands. Certainly has met early expectations - :-)

[bargain]

I'm surprised not to see the Sigma 8-16mm mentioned a bit more. Got this lens for my gf's 60D and it's really quite spectacular. 8mm is crazy wide. Love it.

[mikew09]

Hi bargain, I think quite a number of photogs use an UWA lens for landscape type photography. I am pretty sure the 8mm lens has a fixed hood (not removable) that stops the fitting of a filter holder and grad filters, that is a show stopper for a landscape photographer I would think and I would say the reason less owners of the sigma 8-16mm

[fabian628]

cant vote but i use the 15mm fish and 17-40

[Bchip]

I use the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and love it.

[mikew09]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Starting to get a feel for the Siggy now and I just love it.

[bgolds99]

I use the Tokina 11-16, which isn't on the list. I tossed up for a while between the Siggy and the TOkina, but the distortion of the SIgma was just ridiculous in my opinion. And, besides, i love the flexibility of being able to use it in low light.

[Titanic]

Not able to vote but used the Sigma 10-20 extensively on a trip to New Zealand a couple of years ago and it is to term a kiwi phrase "sweet as" lens. Never used the Canon but have a number of Canon lenses . Reviews might indicate the Canon might be marginally better but in real life no one has ever looked at my images and said that would have been better with the Canon. When i bought the sigma I could not afford the Canon! did I get value for money? Yes it was worth every dollar I paid and still is

[gje38752]

I read the above posts with interest as I am currently looking at purchasing a lens that is not mentioned here, ie a TOKINA 11-16 2.8 I like their reviews, but I would appreciate comment from anyone who has one. Being a 3rd part lens do they provide you with EXIF and associated stuff. Would be hanging it of a 50D:scrtch:

[Bennymiata]

You'll love the Tokina on your 50D.
I'm using one on a 60D, and it's a great lens.
Surprisingly sharp, and the colours and contrast are excellent too.

All the EXIf data shows up too.

[mikew09]

Rich text editor, vB_Editor_QR_editor, press ALT 0 for help.Well, been quite a few comments now and to follow up I purchased teh sigma 10-20 a little while ago. Really liked the UWA of this lens although as I had been warned it does tak some getting used to :-) - "Look, there is a tripod leg in that shot" etc.
After some use I was having some soft focus issues and very blurred focus only on the left hand side of the lens which I had read about due to QC by Sigma but have had it corrected under warranty. Only got it back Mondya last week so still to power test the lens but initial test all looks better now.

Was looking at a 5D purchase before the end of the yr and was going to sell my two EF-S lens but have decided to wait to see what the 5D Mk III is going to offer first. Hence, no longer for sale and will spend some more time on the 50D :-).

Thanks to all for the comments and albeit I did have anitial hiccup with my copy I still think this a great lens for the price would recommend it to anyone on a crop sensor on a budget.

Here is an example of shot I have taken with the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6110/6222604277_6882297fca_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7025/6551205735_2e58e02f26_b.jpg



Thanks