Selling my ultrawide... am I mad?

[trencheel303]

Okay, here's the story...

I have a Sigma 10-20 ultrawide lens for my 450D and recently I have considered selling it to fund an EF 17-40 f/4L or similar. Why? Well there's a few reasons. After the initial 'honeymoon period' of having a lens so wide you can capture half the world in one shot, I have actually found it not to be a great deal of use to me. I can hardly ever nail landscapes with it because I find it too wide; unless there is something really prominent in the frame whatever you're shooting just disappears into insignificance. The distortion, even at 20mm makes it a PITA to frame many other kinds of photos to me, the only thing I find it useful for is urban photos - but even then, I am far more happy with shots taken with my 50mm prime and end up keeping the majority of my shots with that - I'd say at least half of my UWA shots if not more just get binned.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, when I have the UWA lens bolted on, I have an idea in my head of what kind of shot I am going to take when I point the camera, but it never appears that way - I just can't 'communicate' with the equipment. I remember in the first few months of having my DSLR that I just had the 18-55 and I was actually quite happy with the range that it offered me. There were some instances where I wanted a wider picture but in all honesty 18mm (or thereabouts) was almost always enough. I think I bought the Ultrawide without properly thinking...

So here are my thoughts:

Sell Sigma 10-20 and use what I get for it to fund an upgrade to a 17-40 or similar lens. If and only if I feel I am missing the UWA, I could buy a wide prime or a fisheye lens for those super wide shots. A lot of the shots that I really nail with the UWA would (IMO) look good in fisheye, hence my thinking.

I have been considering the 17-40 because it roughly covers a focal length I find generally useful (it would be bolted on the camera nearly all the time for urban photography as my 18-55 was before I bought new lenses), it is relatively cheap (less than the 17-55 I believe) and has the build quality I would need. While I am aware it is a bit of an oddball focal length on crop, I am not aware of other lenses in this range that offer the same build quality - and I don't mind paying a premium for the build quality as I really will need it.

However, I'm open to other lens suggestions, and thoughts on selling my UWA lens.

[trevorbray]

With you on the 10-20, borrowed one for a weekend and loved it.
When i got my own (the one i borrowed because my mate never used it)...i never used it. sold it when i changed brands. Now bought a 18-35 to use on my FF, so far never used it. Probably...maybe use it in Cornwall at the end of the month.Wide ??? may not be for me. On a crop I'd be happy with 17-40. You'll probably get a lot of advice to get the Tammy 17-50 2.8 i think it is.
I love fast lenses but i'm not convinced you need them for Landscapes

[trencheel303]

With you on the 10-20, borrowed one for a weekend and loved it.
When i got my own (the one i borrowed because my mate never used it)...i never used it. sold it when i changed brands. Now bought a 18-35 to use on my FF, so far never used it. Probably...maybe use it in Cornwall at the end of the month.Wide ??? may not be for me. On a crop I'd be happy with 17-40. You'll probably get a lot of advice to get the Tammy 17-50 2.8 i think it is.
I love fast lenses but i'm not convinced you need them for Landscapes

I've just noticed that the 17-40 is not image stabilised. Being f/4 and not image stabilised may be a problem for urban photography - but I need to make a choice between lesser build quality or faster lens :shrug:

[woof woof]

Well, first I'll be thoroughly predictable and say that 17-40mm f4 on a crop just doesn't make any sense at all to me when there are several lenses in the 17-50mm range that are f2.8 and optically as good or better then the 17-40mm, so say many on line reviews.

I can only see two reasons to get the 17-40mm, full frame compatibility and L lust.

If you are not enjoying your wide lens then you should put it in a cupboard for later or sell it but I hope that you do realise that a wide isn't just for taking a picture of something that is going to end up as a strip along the middle of your shot. You can do that with a wide but a wide is also a very creative tool that allows you to not only get a lot into shot but also to get up close and play with the effects that a wide allows. I wouldn't be without mine, it's my most used zoom (Siggy 12-24mm.)

[glastogibbo]

Well, first I'll be thoroughly predictable and say that 17-40mm f4 on a crop just doesn't make any sense at all to me when there are several lenses in the 17-50mm range that are f2.8 and optically as good or better then the 17-40mm, so say many on line reviews.

I can only see two reasons to get the 17-40mm, full frame compatibility and L lust.

If you are not enjoying your wide lens then you should put it in a cupboard for later or sell it but I hope that you do realise that a wide isn't just for taking a picture of something that is going to end up as a strip along the middle of your shot. You can do that with a wide but a wide is also a very creative tool that allows you to not only get a lot into shot but also to get up close and play with the effects that a wide allows. I wouldn't be without mine, it's my most used zoom (Siggy 12-24mm.)

Glad you posted, am looking to buy intothe wide market and following this with interest.

[trencheel303]

Well, first I'll be thoroughly predictable and say that 17-40mm f4 on a crop just doesn't make any sense at all to me when there are several lenses in the 17-50mm range that are f2.8 and optically as good or better then the 17-40mm, so say many on line reviews.

I can only see two reasons to get the 17-40mm, full frame compatibility and L lust.

If you are not enjoying your wide lens then you should put it in a cupboard for later or sell it but I hope that you do realise that a wide isn't just for taking a picture of something that is going to end up as a strip along the middle of your shot. You can do that with a wide but a wide is also a very creative tool that allows you to not only get a lot into shot but also to get up close and play with the effects that a wide allows. I wouldn't be without mine, it's my most used zoom (Siggy 12-24mm.)

I'm guessing you didn't properly read my post lol. I know fine well what to do with it (:lol:) I just feel that it is perhaps not best for my applications.

As for L lust, you don't have to look very far to realise that I certainly don't have it. There are countless times where I've recommended against an L lens where I don't think it is an appropriate choice. I'm completely neutral on the matter. It just so happens that Canon offers a well priced, medium wide, well built lens that happens to be an L. I just want to get the job done; I don't care that it's an L or not. There are also some Canon lenses that only come in L form, such as EF 70-200.

[woof woof]

I read your post, maybe you didn't? :lol:

What you said...

"having a lens so wide you can capture half the world in one shot, I have actually found it not to be a great deal of use to me. I can hardly ever nail landscapes with it because I find it too wide; unless there is something really prominent in the frame whatever you're shooting just disappears into insignificance. The distortion, even at 20mm makes it a PITA to frame many other kinds of photos to me, the only thing I find it useful for is urban photos - but even then, I am far more happy with shots taken with my 50mm prime and end up keeping the majority of my shots with that - I'd say at least half of my UWA shots if not more just get binned."

To me that reads like you're not using your wide to it's true potential, "whatever you're shooting just disappears into insignificance...." Also I can't understand why you're getting distortion, I get next to none with my 12-24mm (on APS-C.) But if a wide isn't for you then it isn't for you and going by what you wrote I think that it isn't. I agree with you on L lust, it's a silly thing and one should always buy the best tool for the job within budget, regardless of what badge it wears.

Good luck selling your wide. :)

[Mad Badger]

Canon 10-22

nuff said

& change yer perspective

or........... having read your first post more carefully........17-55mm Canon

and change yer pespective

;)

[woof woof]

Maybe you're right. Maybe it's not distortion but perspective.

I'm not goint to say that using a wide takes more skill, but you need to think and to be careful.

By the way, I owned the Canon 10-22mm and I personally think that the Siggy 12-24mm is a much better lens. Not quite as wide but less distortion (next to none really) and less vignetting and other nasties.

[willsphots]

ultra-wides can be quite hard to use due to the exaggerated perspective. it takes a bit of experience to translate what we see ("standard" perspective) into a good shot with an ultra-wide lens. maybe that's why you're disappointed with your lens.

[trencheel303]

Probably - I am still relatively new to it all, coming from compacts where they only generally go down to 35mm (only very recently are they starting to get a bit wider). When I first got my DSLR and kit lens I thought 18mm was amazing - maybe I rushed into buying a UWA.

[daugirdas]

I cannot resist to quote prophet Rockwell http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

UWAs are hard to use and they are clearly not a 'get it all in' lenses. It may be that you really have no use for them, or haven't got used to them yet. Give that lens another week and then decide. By getting 17-40L you will end up with another not perfect UWA one day after upgrading to FF. However colours from L lenses are clearly superior.

To illustrate these are my best attempts with UWAs trying to include some foreground and background interest:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2570/3932285168_aaa0244fe9.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4531001186_53aea044f4.jpg

[Donki]

I have the Sigy and love it, I do know what you mean however as most of my shots are in the 15-20 bracket. Having said that I dont think I would get rid of it as occasionally I do use the 10-15 range and when I do . Its like everything else as soon as u get rid of it you wil come across a great oprtunity to use a 10mm lens and then proceed to kick yourself very hard.

BTW love the second pic Daugirdas, just the sort of thin I like having the extremewide for.

[nikolarun]

Hi,
I have the siggy 12-24mm and have been having the same thoughts. I sold my 5D some time ago and I'm left with my 40D. I also have the Tamron 17-50/2.8 which I love.
I've been using the 12-24 less and less lately.I was thinking the other day of selling the 12-24 to fund a new body..then I thought to myself what kind of body can I afford that I would use..and It came to me I can have a 1Ds mk2 for not much money.
So now I'm thinking of shifting the 17-50/2.8 keeping the 12-24 and using it with the 1ds.
The only issue is the 12-24 is not that great on FF, I also don't really need to go as wide as 12mm on FF. Maybe I'll shift both 17-50 and 12-24 and get a 17-40 + 1ds mk2.
How are the 17-40s on FF? better then the siggy probably?

[daugirdas]

So now I'm thinking of shifting the 17-50/2.8 keeping the 12-24 and using it with the 1ds.
The only issue is the 12-24 is not that great on FF, I also don't really need to go as wide as 12mm on FF. Maybe I'll shift both 17-50 and 12-24 and get a 17-40 + 1ds mk2.
How are the 17-40s on FF? better then the siggy probably?

I like my 1Ds. I could only add that for landscape use I have Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L 97% of the time, and 20mm about 1%. For portraits I obviously use something longer :love:.

[odd jim]

You're better off with the efs 17-55 f2.8 is with a crop body (than the 17-50 L). IQ as good if not better than the L lens you are interested in. And if you ever make the unlikely jump to full frame and need to sell it you'll get most of your money back it it, its a brilliant lens.

Also, as stated, it doesnt sound as if you are using the UWA as you should - its not a 'get it all in' lens, its a creative lens, a lens which should be used fairly close to objects of interest (though I do quite often use my Canon 10-22 at 22mm for landscapes!). The Ken Rockwell article is a very good useful read.

[trencheel303]

IQ as good if not better than the L lens you are interested in.

Indeed I have heard from many sources that IQ is better. How's the build quality though? I need something that's tough and that isn't going to fall apart on me. I'll be hooding the lens, and probably filtering it too - I'm expecting it to take a beating and it will basically be my walkabout do everything lens. My 18-55 was never off the camera, basically, but the kinds of places I go with the camera are not easy going on equipment.

[odd jim]

Indeed I have heard from many sources that IQ is better. How's the build quality though? I need something that's tough and that isn't going to fall apart on me. I'll be hooding the lens, and probably filtering it too - I'm expecting it to take a beating and it will basically be my walkabout do everything lens. My 18-55 was never off the camera, basically, but the kinds of places I go with the camera are not easy going on equipment.

The build quality is very good. The only downside is its not weather sealed but if you look after it as a lens like this should be looked after, it'll last forever!